The Concrete Tiger

Saddam Hussein was hanged Saturday, December 30, 2006, around 6am Baghdad time. According to Iraqi law and Islamic tradition, an execution is not performed during the Eid al-Adha holiday. For Shiites, Eid al-Adha began Sunday. For Sunnis, the holiday began Saturday. The timing is a message to Iraqi Sunnis that Iraq is governed by Shiites.

If Orthodox Christian punks had put a famous Southerner under the guillotine on Western Easter, some folks in the bible belt would be pissed. A lot is wrong with this analogy. At last report, Catholics and Orthodox Christians are not in sectarian civil war. And the figure in question is a symbol of national identity who was transformed into a martyr for their sect.

As Saddam Hussein was under physical control of the U.S. until very shortly before his execution, transfer of Hussein into Iraqi custody implies approval from the Bush administration. Either the Bush administration failed to impress upon the Iraqi government that the timing is unhelpful, or else they are happy to poke a finger in the eye of the Sunnis.

Never mind any question about whether Saddam Hussein would be executed, and soon. A New York Times article describes the execution and circumstances around it:

The Shiites who predominated at the hanging began a refrain at one point of "Moktada! Moktada! Moktada!" — the name of a volatile cleric whose private militia has spawned death squads that have made an indiscriminate industry of killing Sunnis — appending it to a Muslim imprecation for blessings on the Prophet Muhammad.

Silent video from Iraqi state television shows a group of men indistinguishable from street thugs or actors from a BDSM fetish film, who wear ski masks. They wear no uniforms, so they are not identified as agents of the state. They place a noose around Hussein's neck.

Expert blogger Juan Cole reports:

Al-Hayat is saying that some Sunni Arabs who viewed the videotape of Saddam's execution are suggesting that he was turned over to the Shiite Mahdi Army for implementation of his sentence.

Another video was released to the internet, apparently captured by a spectator with a mobile telephone. Nir Rosen provides a transcription at IraqSlogger:

The unofficial video of the execution, filmed on the mobile cell phone of one of the officials present is sure to further inflame sectarianism, because it is clearly a Shia execution. Men are heard talking, one of them is called Ali. As the executioners argue over how to best position the rope on his neck Saddam calls out to god, saying, "ya Allah." Referring to Shias, one official says "those who pray for Muhamad and the family of Muhamad have won!" Others triumphantly respond in the Shia chant: "Our God prays for Muhamad and the family of Muhamad." Others then add the part chanted by supporters of Muqtada al Sadr: "And speed his (the Mahdi's) return! And damn his enemies! And make his son victorious! Muqtada! Muqtada! Muqtada!"

Saddam then smiles and says something mocking about Muqtada. "Muqtada! It is this..." but the rest is blocked by the voices of officials saying "ila jahanam," or "go to Hell." Saddam looks down and says "Is this your manhood...?" As the rope is put around Saddam's neck somebody shouts "long live Muhamad Baqir al Sadr!" [...] Others insult Saddam. One man asks them to stop: "I beg you, I beg you, the man is being executed!" Saddam then says the Shahada, or testimony, that there is no god but Allah and Muhamad is his prophet. When he tries to say it again the trap door opens and he falls through to be hung. One man then shouts that "the tyranny has ended!" and others call out triumphal Shia chants. Somebody wants to remove the rope from his neck but is told to wait eight minutes.

It is a snuff film and death-porn. U.S. taxpayers should watch this. Your so-called leaders (a) could not prevent this type of dark circus, or (b) feel it advances a goal, or (c) do not understand the significance.

Iraqi blogger Riverbend writes:

Muslims all over the world (with the exception of Iran) are outraged. Eid is a time of peace, of putting aside quarrels and anger – at least for the duration of Eid.

This does not bode well for the coming year. No one imagined the madmen would actually do it during a religious holiday. It is religiously unacceptable and before, it was constitutionally illegal. We thought we'd at least get a few days of peace and some time to enjoy the Eid holiday, which coincides with the New Year this year. We've spent the first two days of a holy holiday watching bits and pieces of a sordid lynching.

The specific crime for which Saddam Hussein was convicted is his role in the executions of some 140 to 150 people in Dujail, a Shiite city in Iraq, in 1982. It is purely coincidental that Hussein should first be tried for a crime that predates the start of cordial relations between the U.S. and Iraq in 1983, and that he should be executed before completion of trials for his later crimes. To suggest otherwise would demoralize U.S. troops, bring comfort to the enemies of America, and – just maybe – hasten a "graceful exit".

While the execution of Saddam Hussein offers closure for some of his victims, the circumstances around the execution offer fuel for escalated sectarian violence.

Senator Joe Lieberman (I/D-CT) on Meet the Press:

SEN. LIEBERMAN: [...] I am now an Independent Democrat, capital I, capital D. Matter of fact, the secretary of the Senate called my office and asked, “How do you want to be identified” and, and that’s it. Independent Democrat.

MR. RUSSERT: So you’ll be Senator Joe Lieberman, I/D, Connecticut.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Yeah, we checked with history and actually in the late ‘70s Senator Harry Byrd of Virginia listed himself as an Independent Democrat. You got to go back to the mid-19th century to find the last Independent Democrat.

Chrissie Hynde, The Pretenders, "Brass in Pocket":

cause I gonna make you see
There's nobody else here
No one like me
I'm special, so special
I gotta have some of your attention
Give it to me

The people of the United States of America decided their government ought to go in a different direction than it has gone over the last 6 or 12 years. It is not apparent what that new direction will be. The people now prefer, for the time being, to ride a large donkey dragging an elephant behind itself, in a different direction than the elephant would have gone on its own power, or at least at a different pace.

The results of the 2006 election offer relief, something that resembles hope, and the fresh possibility that the government, and hence the nation, remains able to correct for excess and imbalance. Look for fairness in politics, and be disappointed. The conflict at times becomes bitter and unrestrained, still the nation is able to transfer power in government and change head-of-state without bloodshed. The last transfer of power as a result of violence was 43 years ago, and that was by most accounts the fault of a lone assassin.

Democrats wisely did not make clear, any more than necessary, what broad directions the party will take in major policy initiatives. If anything, Democrats have too many ideas for government policy, and not enough articulated, philosophical vision of the results those policies ought to achieve. Now that Democrats will enjoy the responsibility to set the agenda in congress, they will generate several significant pieces of legislation around which Democrats can establish consensus in the political middle. Coherent strategy may emerge from that process. Democrats have enough ideas that unite the party, without the need for various factions to bicker about what separates them. Not until late January.

Broadly speaking, the balance of power in both chambers changed because Republican moderates were replaced by Democratic moderates. The balance of power has moved to the Democratic Party, but this is not a major shift in the ideological center. The people have not called for left-wing policies. Democrats are more of a coalition than a party, in the sense that Republicans governed as a party in recent years. The challenge for the Democratic leadership is how to mollify the left wing of the coalition in order to keep control of the political middle.

Mr. Bush accepted the resignation of soon-to-be-former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Wednesday. This shows Mr. Bush is not an idiot, just slow. He is also confused, apparently, since only last week Mr. Bush said Rumsfeld would stay in his job until the end of Bush's term. Rumsfeld's departure also uninstalls the lightning rod that has absorbed so much criticism of the Iraq war, in almost any respect of planning and execution. Now the blame and criticism should route directly to the White House.

Mr. Bush has offered Mr. Rumsfeld's head at the end of an olive branch (if you will forgive the mixed metaphor). This move both indicates and necessitates a significant change of course in Iraq. The next 12 to 18 months is the best opportunity for the U.S. to change policy in Iraq in the foreseeable future. A new president, even a Democrat, would be tempted to press ahead in order to avoid any appearance of defeat in Iraq during his or her term. In this respect, it may have been strategically helpful – and still weasly – for Mr. Bush not to have defined victory in Iraq in specific terms. This gives the chance for the administration, along with the Democrat-controlled congress, to define an end-goal that is within reach, and then declare victory.

Nothing will change substantially until the factions in Iraq can achieve a political settlement, and renounce violence as a means to settle political disputes and balance of power. Ambitious goals that require U.S. occupation of Iraq for more than 12 to 18 months longer probably are not goals the U.S. can achieve through military force. It makes no sense to continue more of the same.

Still, Mr. Bush will squeeze the last few drops from one-party rule and the imperial presidency. To replace Mr. Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, Bush nominated Robert Gates, known for his role in the Iran-Contra scandal, and more recently a member of the Iraq Study Group (led by James Baker and Lee Hamilton). Bush also has renominated John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations. Both could be approved by the lame-duck congress before Democrats take over. This suggests something less than the level of humility Bush expressed in his statements on Wednesday.

All sides contribute plenty of double-talk, rationalization, and revisionism these days in the debate about the Iraq war. To listen to some critics and advocates, all of whom struggle to be heard and understood by the other side, it would sound as though the reasons for the war have not been explained succinctly enough, or thoroughly enough, or those explanations have not been repeated often enough. That is nonsense.

The Bush administration in particular, and Republicans more generally, have provided new and shifting reasons for the war, and for why the U.S. had to invade earlier rather than later. Now that doubts and regrets have started to sink in with the public, Bush pretends Democratic senators processed and analyzed raw intelligence data to reach the same conclusion he did. In fact, senators saw the "cooked" intelligence the Bush administration provided them. "Cooked" does not mean fabricated or falsified. It may suggest manipulated or selectively chosen. I do mean to imply an advocate's case, and the ambiguity of the word "cooked" has the proper connotation.

Democratic senators have acted too much in the interest of short-term politics, and not enough based on their own sensibilities. In October, 2002, they did not want voters to perceive them as "soft on terrorism". In 2005, many have found several different and sometimes incoherent reasons to distance themselves from George Bush and what people increasingly perceive as failed or poorly-executed policies.

Instead of merely voting according to political calculations, Senators instead might have educated voters that Iraq was, at most, tangentially related to a larger battle against Islamic extremism. Perhaps the tangential relationship was enough to justify an early invasion to remove Hussein. You may recall reports of a training camp in the northern area of Iraq, which Hussein did not control. It is difficult to believe Hussein would have permitted competition from Islamofascist fanatics if he could help it. That was the extent of the Al Qaeda-Iraq nexus.

The situation with regard to sanctions and Security Council resolutions against Iraq was close to a critical juncture. The U.N. could not sensibly declare Iraq to be in good standing in the family of nations. But neither could the U.N. say all means to resolve the situation, short of war, had been exhausted – surely not beyond the limits of the patience of some key member states in the Security Council. Hussein poked his fingers into the eyes of the U.N., and the U.S. should have allowed more time for that to become apparent. The necessary and correct amount of time would have been about 6 to 12 months longer than George Bush waited.

The real danger from the situation in Iraq came from Hussein's relative weakness as little more than the mayor of Baghdad. After 9/11, it would have been unwise to leave a rogue nation to give the finger to the U.N. Security Council, or to leave a weak dictator in power indefinitely, who would not be able control wild areas of Iraq that could be used by Al Qaeda. The presence of Al Qaeda in Iraq after the U.S. invasion is not a valid justification after the fact, and that case is misleading. The U.S. needed to have a credible threat of invasion, but not necessarily a war, to begin to resolve the problem.

When the U.S. pulled the lid off Iraq, it brought about a vacuum into which Islamofascists would be drawn. That is not an argument against the war. It is a side-effect of the invasion, which dramatically accelerated the formation of the vacuum. Hussein could not be permitted to regain the degree of power he once held, if the cruel but effective U.N. sanctions had been lifted, and neither could he be left in nominal power as a vacuum formed in Iraq.

Part of the fight is Islamofascism vs. civilization as we know it. That is a global, long-term struggle likely to last through our lifetimes. Another part of the fight is a revolt against an occupying force and a new government, where the occupying power tries to nurture the new government to a point at which it can provide for its own security and the security of its people.

Islamofascists seek to establish a Caliphate. That is, a spiritual successor to Muhammad would rule over the world. On the other hand, Iraqi insurgents fight against a new government and against what they perceive as a foreign invader. That is, insurgents have a more parochial or localized interest in sectarian gain. Some insurgents use terrorist tactics. That is, they target civilians in order to attempt to influence other powers. In order to be able to manage the problems and threats they pose, we must understand these are different and sometimes distinct or competing causes, with some overlap in goals and methods.

The vital goal of the U.S. in Iraq now should be to prevent Islamofascists from gaining a base of power, influence, or support, and to deny them training ground. It is important, though less necessary to the U.S. national interest, to see a representative or at least benign government in power. The U.S. and other nations will need to provide further support to Iraq if these goals will happen.

Yes, the welfare state does erode a sense of individual responsibility, and it does have a negative effect on people's sense of individual charity – as in, "someone else will take care of them".

Problems in the welfare state do not take away from the fact the population is all in this together. The problems relate to the means and methods to help the helpless, and to what extent the welfare state encourages unnecessary dependence or discourages self-sufficiency. Few would suggest this country ought to be purely every man and woman for themselves. Fewer would suggest victims of natural disaster and massive engineering problems with public infrastructure should be left to their own devices.

In any locale, the poorest people will live on the least desirable land. In New Orleans, those areas are at the lowest elevations, and are the easiest lands to flood.

Many of the people who couldn't get out of New Orleans were there because their ancestors have been there for generations, going back to the time those ancestors were slaves. It's the same in Mississipi. The situation is much the same for the people who lived in the housing projects in Chicago, except the ancestors of the folks in Louisiana and Mississippi didn't head north decades ago.

I would expect a certain number of the poor in New Orleans were lazy and content, while many others tried and failed to improve their situations. Effort is necessary, but effort does not guarantee success.

For a radical like myself, one undisputed, legitimate function of a federal government is to provide physical security. People cannot do that for themselves on any broad scale. (And wet gunpowder doesn't explode.) The response that was necessary in Louisiana in particular is the same that would be necessary if terrorists, rather than water, had blown a hole through the levee. And the Bush administration has been selling the possibility of those kinds of scenarios for nearly four years. Ostensibly this has been a major focus of the federal government and the military since soon after the 9/11 attacks.

The federal government has had responsibility since the late 1800s over the physical security the levee system provides around New Orleans. Private administration by the Louisiana Levee Company proved unsatisfactory in the 1870s. The federal government slowly began to take over responsibility beginning in 1874.

So now we have confirmation that local buffoons often are incompetent, as we already knew at least 130 years ago. That is why we need one excellent responder at the federal level for physical security, rather than a variety of rinky-dink ones at the local level.

It's also becoming fairly clear that the right wing's idea of physical security is to protect property from the majority. Otherwise they would have taken action to protect the sanctity of human life, as you hear so often. Instead they blame the local buffoons who have no local money because they have no local tax base. Instead you hear about people "stealing" food. When all civil order has broken down, people can be forgiven when they liberate their next meal.

Many people in Mississippi and Louisiana were expecting checks in the mail as the storm hit. A lot of ordinary, honest, working people live paycheck to paycheck. At the end of a pay period, especially, they do not have money for an extended stay at a hotel...or for that matter, one night in a basic motel. Sixty bucks for a night is their grocery money for the week.

After property is destroyed, no matter how much a person used to own, they are down to saving their own ass.

After the levee breaks about 500 feet from your home, what good would a car do? Which road would you take? New Orleans was not an especially car-friendly city in ordinary times.

I know of some people, exactly second-hand, who got stuck in New Orleans. Both are nurses. One was stuck at the hospital, providing help. She sent her son and his girlfriend out of town in her car. The other nurse sent her family, friends, and loved ones to another town in four other cars they had among them. Then the storm hit. Then the storm passed. And then after a period of calm, the levee broke, and New Orleans was eaten by the sea. Those two people did not have access to their cars. How much worse was the situation for those whose families, friends, and loved ones did not have access to one car at the start, among all of them?

One nurse was stuck on the roof of a church for several days. When she got to the dome, not enough food and water was available. There was no transportation. Authorities had little useful information. One of the nurses had one meal between the time she swam out of her house to the time she was taken to Houston. Some people in the dome decided they would be better off taking their chances to find some food outside that shelter.

Certainly some people expected to go back to their homes with stolen luxury items from looted stores or warehouses. But keep in mind, electronics are hard goods that can be valuable in trade for other items such as basic necessities. When all civil order has broken down, you or I would be shrewd to think in the same terms.

This bit of blame-the-victim is simple-minded and grotesque.

Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour on Meet The Press last Sunday said, "Nobody ever imagined something worse than [hurricane] Camille." President Bush on Good Morning America said, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."

Who could imagine a devastating hurricane, or a breach of the levees? Let's start with the New Orleans Times-Picayune newspaper, FEMA, and the Army Corps of Engineers, and local emergency management personnel.

Now we can see the result of a philosophy that does not believe, as I do, merely that government often is a problem rather than a solution, or as Thomas Paine once said, "That government is best which governs least." Rather, the philosophy of George Bush and the Republican right seems to be government should be over-sized, under-funded, and incompetently administered, even while it grows uncontrollably more intrusive in centralized authority. And it seems to follow from this philosophy that the government, and the federal government in particular, must not demonstrate that government can be effective, even in its core missions and its most successful programs.

My full impression of judge John Roberts so far can be summed up by this bit from an article about Roberts in the Washington Post:

David W. Leebron, who is the president of Rice University and was the editor of the review at the time, recalls that after working late they would often stop for ice cream. Roberts always chose the same flavor: chocolate chip.

Roberts might have said, "You know one radical change that would make this ice cream better? Fewer chocolate chips." That is the overall impression I get about Roberts' brand of conservatism.

An article in The New Republic Online speculates in part that the choice of Roberts rather than a more in-your-face conservative pick may be due to Bush's political weakness. Indeed, the poll numbers do not look good. And that is before the last two weeks of drip-drops in the Rove-Libby leak story.

Another possibility is John Roberts is a radical who has been unusually careful about his associations and public statements. That possibility becomes a tiny bit more realistic if you suspect he accidentally was listed as a member of the Federalist Society one year while he hung around them a little too often, as reports suggest.

I am struck by the way hard conservatives often talk about how God and the U.S. Constitution grant people inalienable rights, but only a few of those as enumerated in the Bill of Rights. And Lord help us if a judge can find any other rights. That is despite the 9th and 10th Amendments, which seem to be a clear enough warning the Bill of Rights is only a list of the most important rights the government cannot take away, to remind government its powers come from the people. Therefore it is appropriate to infer (even though emanations and penumbras) a right of privacy inside the U.S. Constitution. I would be satisfied by a Justice Roberts who is able to find that much or that little in the document, whether he believes it is dead or alive.

The Bush administration in recent days has been lobbying to block legislation supported by Republican senators that would bar the U.S. military from engaging in "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" of detainees, from hiding prisoners from the Red Cross, and from using interrogation methods not authorized by a new Army field manual.

That's novel. Imagine that. A disciplined army would follow their own field manual....

The Texas Republican Party Platform says:

Ten Commandments – The Party understands that the Ten Commandments are the basis of our basic freedoms and the cornerstone of our Western legal tradition. We therefore oppose any governmental action to restrict, prohibit, or remove public display of the Decalogue or other religious symbols.

With regard to prisons, the Platform says:

Prison Reform – The Party believes that the priority of our prison systems should be the protection of society and the punishment of offenders, ever mindful of their rights as human beings. [...]

I once heard Roy Moore (the Alabama judge who refused to take down a Ten Commandments display) explain the reason he thinks we need God as the foundation of the law is to make sure humans keep human rights that are given to them by God, and which no one can take away. Did God take away the human rights of detainees? And without a trial, even....

The article in the Washington Post continues:

Vice President Cheney met Thursday evening with three senior Republican members of the Senate Armed Services Committee to press the administration's case that legislation on these matters would usurp the president's authority and -- in the words of a White House official -- interfere with his ability "to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack."

Texas Republican George W. Bush might want to refer to the Texas Republican Party Platform, which has a few words about executive authority:

Emergency War Powers – A perpetual state of national emergency allows unrestricted growth of government. The Party charges the President to cancel the state of national emergency and charges Congress to repeal the War Powers Act and declare an end to the previously declared states of emergency.

Elimination of Executive Orders – The Party demands the elimination of presidential authority to issue executive orders, presidential decision directives, and other administrative mandates that do not have congressional approval. Further, we demand a repeal of all previous executive orders and administrative mandates.

Another McCain amendment prohibits the "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" of anyone in the custody of the U.S. government. This provision, modeled after wording in the U.N. Convention Against Torture -- which the United States has already ratified -- is meant to overturn an administration position that the convention does not apply to foreigners outside the United States.

If part of the answer to the question, "Why do they hate us?", has something to do with empire, then it is a little awkward to have to keep some empire – such as Guantánamo – in order to have a legal limbo in which to violate the human rights of detainees.

So the Bush administration wants unlimited powers to detain prisoners for secret reasons and to make them disappear. You know who else wants that? Totalitarian regimes. Military dictatorships. Not examples we should want to follow.

I suppose if George Bush believes they hate us for our freedoms, then it might follow a little less of our freedom would be helpful all around. Something to watch out for, in any case.

Joseph Wilson did an interview aired Thursday on NBC's Today. According to an AP story, the headline is "Joseph Wilson Calls on Bush to Fire Rove".

Note to Joseph Wilson: You already did your part. George Bush has not asked for your advice today. Your feelings are no surprise. Given that Rove's defenders would like to paint you as a slick, self-serving windbag, it is not helpful for you to call attention to yourself. Please sit down, shut the $&#* up, and get out of the way for a while.

This entry is adapted slightly from my response to today's Wall Street Journal op-ed, "Karl Rove, Whistleblower".

Although today the Journal have repeated every hollow argument and distraction on this issue from the last two years, they missed the opportunity to blame Bill Clinton somehow.

If the "truth" about Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame was so essential to the public's understanding, then why did the information have to be revealed on double super secret background to a reporter, rather than announced to the public? This seems suspicious from an administration that openly claims to want to bypass the gatekeepers in the press.

Why was it the job of the Deputy Chief of Staff to address this matter? If Mr. Rove was so noble in telling the "truth", then why did Scott McClellan say assertions of Mr. Rove's involvement were ridiculous — particularly as they were true?

The outrage is the 1982 law is so narrow that it still permits someone to reveal the name of an undercover agent as long as the intent is not proved to be malicious.

Since the Journal now speculate Mr. Rove only heard about Ms. Plame's job from journalists, that gives weight to speculation that Judith Miller was Mr. Rove's source and not the other way around. If that were the case, it would also fuel speculation about an active or complicit role of the press in passing on misinformation or disinformation about evidence related to the Bush administration's reasons for the Iraq war.

Whether or not Mr. Wilson is credible or his findings were accurate is no longer the issue.

If Ms. Plame sent a recommendation that Mr. Wilson should visit Niger, then to whom did she send the recommendation? Who gave final approval? It is far from clear that Ms. Plame could authorize such a trip. If Ms. Plame was a loose cannon, then why could that matter not have been dealt with internally in the CIA or within the administration? Why should I believe the Vice President did not ask to have the Niger claim investigated? If Mr. Cheney did not want an investigation, then would that not be negligent?

The Bush administration, at minimum, is to blame for this circus or scandal (take your pick) because their secretive nature and inability to admit any error has left the issue open this long. At any time they could have come clean to the public about the details coming out now. Does a deeper scandal brew underneath?

The Bush administration has pushed the mainstream media press corps past the point at which they will push back. Reporters asked tough questions today about Karl Rove's role in the outing of Valerie Plame as a CIA agent. The White House had previously claimed Karl Rove was not involved. Press Secretary Scott McClellan would not repeat that claim today. As Lawrence O'Donnell revealed July 1st on The McLaughlin Group, Karl Rove was Matthew Cooper's source. It is not clear who Judith Miller's source was.

You can read the transcript of the press briefing at the White House website. The video is not posted at the time of this writing. You can download a WMV file taken from a blog entry at Crooks and Liars (via MetaFilter). Video links have a tendency to go dead, so I post that file at some risk to my own site.

But In His Defense...

Look for editorials in the Wall Street Journal opinion pages to weasel around this whole matter in the coming days. The Wall Street Journal has taken several angles to try to defend the leak:

October 1, 2003: Wilson has an axe to grind.

October 4, 2003: Senator Joseph Lieberman is foolish to say we ought to have an independent counsel law.

February 20, 2004: It is probably not a crime, and anyway Robert Novak is a journalist, and journalists do noble work.

March 13, 2004: If it is only "probably illegal", why waste everyone's time on it?

July 15, 2004: Joseph Wilson is not credible. And anyway, why was he sent to Niger in the first place?

July 20, 2004: Joseph Wilson lied when he said his wife had "nothing to do with" his trip to Niger. To say Plame "proposed" Wilson's name is pretty much the same as "recommended"...and that's about the same as her sending him there herself, even though there is no indication she had that authority. And anyway, revealing Plame's identity probably is not a crime. So the prosecutor should shut down the investigation.

August 13, 2004: This might bite the press in the ass.

February 23, 2005: This is going to bite the press in the ass, so it is not wise to pursue this issue.

July 1, 2005: This has bitten the press in the ass.

You might be encouraged to see an editorial on July 12, 2005, to discuss how this has bitten the Bush administration in the ass. But don't hold your breath.

This entry is adapted slightly from my response to an entry in Katrina vanden Heuvel's blog, "Editor's Cut", for The Nation magazine's website. The headings #1-5 are hers.

The "third way" policies of Clinton and the DLC are a way to continue to move the goalposts toward Republican, "pro-business" policies. The "fourth way" is (small-'l') libertarian policies to work toward progressive ideals.

Quickly, item-by-item:

1) America Needs a Raise

Business and labor need to have a mutually-beneficial balance. Globalization puts more risk on workers. People need stability and ways to mitigate risk. Globalization strengthens the case for some type of safety net. Think of it as a way to help workers cross the gap. If the bridge is shaky and has no net under it, people will prefer to stand still even if things are better on the other side.

2) Pre-school for All

I am a radical who does not believe in compulsory, formal education as it exists now. I do believe education is totally essential, and early childhood is the time to start. So we ought to figure out ways to get kids into pre-school through programs at the state and local levels. It takes a village, indeed. But it may not require a federal program...

3) Affordable Healthcare for All

Ronald Bailey proposed mandatory health insurance [reason.com] in the November, 2004, issue of Reason magazine. I have yet to see any serious proposal for a way out of the health care crisis that would not result in market distortions and a down-side for someone (in this case young, healthy adults). But this is the least worst idea. It would bring everyone into the market-based system, and get rid of the link between employment and health care.

4) A True Family Values Agenda

A lot of this falls under item #1.

5) Apollo: New Energy for America

We do need some R&D to be done by the federal government, to get energy companies across the bridge to "New Energy". This is not one of those situations in which we can wait for the market to sort it out, especially when the market has been so badly distorted toward the staus quo. The transcontinental railroad across the wild west required government subsidies, because the returns were too far off into the future for even the most forward-thinking investors. It appears the situation is similar with regard to energy.

It's been said a musical score provides maybe 30% of the information necessary to realize the music. This assumes players have a technical proficiency to meet the demands of the score. Then it is a matter of interpretation. In the music of Morton Feldman, many would say the score holds much less of the required information than most. Others believe the precision of his rhythmical notation — which often contains tuplets within tuplets, and frequent shifts in time signature — is more accurate and precise in its description of the music than most scores can do.

Some of his scores are available for purchase (not in the U.S. at the time of this writing), and some for rental. Some other scores are available under special arrangements, and other scores are not made generally available. That is mostly the case with later scores from the 1980s with dedications as titles, such as "For Bunita Marcos". That is to prevent poor performances, where "poor" means anything other than a precise result the composer claimed he intended.

Morton Feldman said he often wrote for a particular player. In some instances, all the precision specified in the score ideally is distorted through the sensibilities, personality, and touch of that particular individual. This music is built on fine shading of tone color, rhythm in continuous rubato, and nuances of dynamics and to some extent pitch. All of this special type of fussiness is put towards the realization of a music that floats without a grid, that eases in and out of silence, and that shows time is indeed relative. Or, perhaps to less refined and less sympathetic tastes, it sounds like our piano-playing prodigy, who is quite insane, practices her scales under the influence of too much thorazine.

Feldman spells a rhythm a certain way. Then he spells it another way. Then it is spelled the first way again. It is not repetition. It is the same rhythm in a different way. He spells a pitch as a D double sharp at first, and later as an E. Is that the same pitch? On a piano, those two are played on the same key. But what about on a violin? Feldman himself pointed out clarinets have ways to play the same note different ways. As one who plays clarinet (up to a point), I can tell you for some notes it has different key combinations that tend a little sharp or flat, in addition to what a player can do with the reed. But Feldman's music does not have a formalized, micro-tonal system. It is about the same thing done again a different way.

Some interpreters of Feldman try to assign his scores an unrealistic degree of precision when they claim, for example — and this one may or may not exist in any of Feldman's scores — a player is able to count a rhythm with double-dotted notes inside quintuplets and septuplets, which are inside triplets, which are in a measure with a 15/8 time signature. By my observation, so-called "classical" players, even if they were to count that rhythm accurately, would count against an elastic grid to match neither a rock drummer or a computer. So those rhythms are felt rather than counted. One spelling may reduce to the same rhythm as another spelling, but each feels different.

Feldman said about his own music that he would shape and discover the structure and scale of a piece as it evolved while he composed it. Many composers around the 1950s worked with total, pre-determined systems of organization for different variables in the music, such as pitch, duration, dynamics, and articulation. Feldman once said aspired to be able to write a composition through intuition that only in later analysis would reveal itself to be organized in integral serialism.

I am fascinated by the multiple paradoxes of this fuzziness at one phase of the process, documented through a precise fussiness, which is filtered through the peculiar movements of the player, and the way the whole process results in music that floats and drifts in the ways it does.

As much as you or I may disagree with the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, I am not used to reading about ideas quite as stupid as today's article about a proposal from Congress that would put the current Social Security surplus into private accounts. The starting premise is since it was a bad idea to include the Social Security surplus in the budget deficit to mask larger deficits, it must be a good idea to get rid of the surplus.

Today's article seems to suggest one bad idea justifies another. It also seems to suggest a willful misunderstanding of the reason the surplus even exists.

The Social Security trust fund is not really a fund, but Social Security is not exactly a pay-as-you-go plan either. Money is paid in, and money is paid out. The money is buffered through the so-called fund. It is high-minded and far-sighted to say Social Security will be in crisis because the buffer will be empty in, say, 20 to 40 years. But if the government flushes the buffer now, it creates an immediate shortfall. If one prefers to think of the Social Security trust fund as a real trust fund, though it is not, then the empty buffer means an empty trust fund. If one prefers to think of Social Security as a purely pay-as-you-go plan, though it is not now, then an empty buffer makes it so.

Congress surely ought to stop counting on the Social Security surplus (or buffer) to mask budget deficits. And surely Congress would be able to do that in a direct manner, if it had the collective will, without the need to alter Social Security in a fundamental way.

This proposal may have some marginal, political benefit on Pennsylvania Avenue, and some superficial appeal to Wall Street. But it would be far more directly beneficial to Main Street for Congress to face corporate welfare and pork-barrel projects head on, rather than to shuffle money around and then to imagine it will add up differently.

This entry is adapted from private correspondence.

I grant you Durbin and others seem to confuse the Geneva Conventions and the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Article 9 says:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Without any charge, detention would be arbitrary by default, even if justified. Those who enforce the law (i.e. the executive branch) cannot claim they can do whatever they wish on the basis that no law is relevant.  Don't try to justify it with "Commander-in-Chief" unless you like a military dictatorship.

Article 10 says:

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

"Criminal charge" gives some wiggle room as it relates to terrorists. For one, not all the detainees have been charged with anything.  And also one easily could argue terrorism is an act of war and not merely criminal.  But that takes us down a path on which, at the end, it is enough merely to accuse someone of terrorist plans, terrorist sympathies, or possession of relevant information, in order to put that person into a legal black hole.

I am also not comfortable arguing the letter of these agreements instead of the spirit.  The U.S. ought to set formal standards for the way accused terrorists should be treated, rather than to argue this or that does not apply, and rather than to find the lowest possible standard that is legally justifiable.  If the government is going to argue no existing laws or standards apply, then we should come up with some new laws and standards to address this new issue.  This is what I mean when I talk about maintaining our system of values and law.

The point is not whether critics would disagree with Durbin's statement anyway on the substance.  This has to do with tactics.  Many critics still would have been able to find a comparison with Nazis, Soviets, or Saddam Hussein.  A Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity would have extrapolated from "some mad regime" (or similar phrase), to imply Durbin had equated U.S. troops with Saddam's guards. Such tactics are a way to try to discredit a person and distract from the substance of what he said, push emotional buttons, and avoid discussion of the substance.  Durbin made it much easier when he gave critics a specific, emotionally-charged word to work with.

Mischaracterization also seems to be an easy hazard for neutral analysts inside the cloud of spin, since the relatively neutral writers on MSNBC's FirstRead column eventually short-handed Durbin's whole speech as "his Nazi comment", as if the speech had been about Nazis rather than about U.S. treatment of detainees.

This type of tactic was applied to the issue of Bush and the Texas Air National Guard. Flaws in a few documents blocked the whole issue.  A problem related to a few specific details and their sourcing in that Newsweek story briefly blocked coverage of possible or actual mistreatment of detainees by turning it into a media story.  And so on.

It may yet prove tragic that it's not possible to talk about Nazis even as a cautionary example.

Let's say I submitted this paragraph as a writer for Durbin.  What do you think a Hannity would do with this?

"This nation has taken two or three footsteps down a dangerous path.  A hundred miles down that path is Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union under Stalin.  We must stop and pause to consider carefully how the U.S. ought to treat these detainees, so we don't take another step in a direction we don't want to go.  That is not how Americans see themselves, and that is not who we are."

I think a Hannity would find a "Bush==Hitler" in a statement like that.

Take a look at what Eric Zorn had to say in the Tribune:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ericzorn/chi-0506230236jun23,1,7228537.column?coll=chi-news-hed

President Bush will send John Bolton to the United Nations as U.S. ambassador in a recess appointment. This plays into a broader narrative Republicans are trying to draw, to suggest Democrats are "obstructionist", while Bolton still goes to the U.N. Although Bolton's status will be weakened, the Bush administration is unlikely to use whatever magical powers they must believe Bolton possesses, as compared with a crash test dummy with a large mustache pasted to its face.

That crash test dummy will do just as well when the Bush administration tries to get the United Nations to pass a resolution against Iran regarding that nation's desire to have nuclear technology that could be leveraged into weapons. That resolution is likely to pass with support from European nations, while Russia will not go to the mat for this fight.

You may remember the so-called "Gang of 14" — moderate or centrist senators who were able to postpone or prevent the so-called "Nuclear Option", which I prefer to call the "Cry-Baby Power-Grab Option", in which Senate Republicans would change the rules of the U.S. Senate with a simple majority, to prevent the traditional, unlimited debate over judicial appointments. The senators agreed Democrats would use the filibuster to block judges only in "extraordinary circumstances". The Bush Administration will make a nomination this summer after Rehnquist retires. The nominee will be one the administration expects mainstream Democrats will feel is "extraordinary", in order to continue to try to paint a narrative that Democrats are "obstructionist". The nominee will satisfy many of the most, shall we say, "colorful" conservative elements Alabama, Oklahoma, and Mississippi can cough up.

From: Mark Kolmar <mark@burningrome.com>
To: FirstRead@MSNBC.com
Subject: "his Nazi comment"

Either you are falling for Republican spin or perpetuating Republican language games when you shorthand Dick Durbin's remarks about mistreatment of prisoners at Guantanamo as "his Nazi comment". What Senator Durbin said was:

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

You are falling for a pattern in which Republicans seize on a single word in order to mischaracterize someone's statement, with the goal to block off a broader area of inquiry. In this case, Senator Durbin's comment is used to distract from the core issue of whether the United States will respect and maintain its own value system in the face of terrorist threats. And you are addressing the distraction at the expense of the real issue.

Although MSNBC has done good reporting on the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo, I am disappointed by today's lazy and very likely unconscious repetition of a Republican talking point.

One could argue that often for FirstRead, the controversy itself is the main issue to write about, but that is no justification to perpetuate a politically-motivated distortion unless you are in on the game. Are you the Washington Times or Wall Street Journal editorial pages? Of course you are not. So please be aware of what you are saying, and present the facts.

Mark Kolmar
Schaumburg, IL

Democrats probably are stalling, as the Bush administration accuses. Democrats are trying to postpone the day when John Bolton jabs a sharp stick into the eye of Kofi Annan during a disagreement about the next war. But also the information Democrats are trying to extract from this administration is part of a legitimate inquiry, regardless of their motivation. Does the Bush administration think it is to their advantage to withhold the information to help spin a broader portrayal of the Democrats as "obstructionist"? Or is secrecy so fundamental that they simply cannot see fit to show a few senators information about Bolton's take on possible weapons in Syria? This has to do with a pattern of bending information to fit a prior conclusion. If the main purpose of the Bolton nomination is to send John Bolton in particular to the United Nations as ambassador, this hardly seems worth the fight. It can't be worth the political capital in comparison to the value of whatever changes they aspire to make at the U.N. through this nomination fight. Why that man in particular?

During the build-up to the Iraq war, and to a great degree since, the conservative elite in the U.S. has tried to make Americans think the French look at the world in a strange and foreign way that is out-of-touch and irrelevant to modern economic realities. Armed with some familiarity with the bulk of the proposed European Union constitution, the average American could appreciate the concerns of an average Frenchman more than it might first appear. Read the first two parts of the constitution (up to page 60), and then skim. That is the least you should know about the source of the current hubbub. And that is the most you need to bother with. The EU constitution shows itself obviously as the product of a particularly European bureaucracy. It has its roots in a particularly European compromise in capitalism between growth and dynamism on one hand, and stability and comfort on the other.

Did any random French farmer read the entirety of that sprawling document? Did any random Dutch businessman? Perhaps. Those nations' voters decided they knew enough to vote against ratification.

French and Dutch voters must have noticed Europe is not a nation. The general public had not demanded to turn Europe into a nation before this proposed constitution was put to a vote. European political leaders tell their people the way out of economic doldrums is to grant more control to more bureaucrats even farther out-of-touch than the bureaucrats they already have. As much as bureaucrats in the European Council would like to make it so, French and Dutch voters have said "no", or at best, "not so fast."

Meanwhile, George Bush tries to convince the U.S. public that Social Security needs major reform, although people don't seem to think so. This top-down approach to policy has more tradition in Europe than in the U.S., and in Europe also the top-down approach is failing. This by itself would be a helpful change for Europe.

But the political leadership in Europe does not seem to understand what has happened. They seem to think nothing has changed, and ratification should continue on track at full speed. They talk as if they can run the EU constitution past French voters again next year to get the result they wanted. French President Jacques Chirac appointed new Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, a diplomat who has never been elected to office. Tony Blair seems to have a clue. He asked for "a time for reflection" on the process.

I mentioned the pure bulk of the EU constitution. This document and its implications are too much to cram down the throats of voters. The English language version is 240 pages and then some. Some 15 pages are devoted to an explanation of basic principles of human rights, and fundamental points about how the various European nations should relate to one another. It goes on for another 30 pages to describe the bureaucracy the European Council intends to use to put those principles into action. And then are 200 more pages. The EU constitution is too much, too soon, for one document subjected to a vote by direct democracy. I get confused enough when I try to decipher 40 or 100 words of legalese in a referendum that has something to do with a few cents of tax money.

The French and Dutch may want open trade across Europe. They may want borders of European nations to be less important. They may want to declare a detailed standard for human rights including workers' rights. What they may not want is for bureaucrats in the European Council to have any more power than necessary. Reforms for a more dynamic economy in Europe, as in the U.S., may require less centralization rather than more.

The EU constitution looks more like a treaty in its sheer size and scope, but the degree of federalization to a central bureaucracy hints at nationhood. By contrast, the U.S. Constitution — which clearly was the founding document and basic law of a new nation — is a relatively brief document that described a framework within which the details of a system of government could evolve organically.

The issue in the U.S. as much as in Europe has to do with the challenges of globalization. When the system is set up to place more risk on workers, the result may not be the desired type of dynamism. Consider a person who tries to cross from one platform to another. If he has to cross on a tightrope, he may prefer to leave but not cross. If a safety net is below the rope, he may be more likely to try to cross. If he can cross on a wide beam, odds are better he will actually make it across. This is one lesson the U.S. could take from the European project and these votes against the constitution.

I had suggested long ago this journal would deal with topics of aesthetics, among others. Up to now I have written almost exclusively about politics and current events. Consider this as the first example of a change of pace.

First was the wax cylinder. Numerous formats have followed, to record and to deliver audio for professional and consumer use. Each, in its time, has promised flawless audio reproduction, as the final and most glorious technical accomplishment ever conceived by modern man. For example, I hold in my hand a spotless but nonetheless crackly LP circa 1962 — "The Seven Last Words of Christ" oratorio by Joseph Haydn. The liner notes boast:

The original recording was made on a one-track tape which was transferred without further changes directly to a master disc. In this manner the exact, original sounds and the dynamic range were preserved as they were heard and intended by the performing artist in the recording hall.

The notes go on to cite some impressive technical specifications:

Dynamic Range: 52dB
Lowest Frequency: 43.6 (in cps)
Highest Fundamental: 1397 (in cps)
Highest Harmonic: 11,176 (in cps)

What they call "cps", if any of these technical details will make sense to you, is what we call Hertz, abbreviated as Hz. A range of high frequencies up to about 11KHz (i.e. thousands of cycles per second) is not quite as good as a pre-recorded cassette, like the ones under the seats of your car. To give some perspective, 52dB is close to the difference between the threshold of hearing — call it "silence" — and normal ambient sounds in a quiet home. Even if you have never heard an orchestra and chorus in person, you will know the range between the quietest and loudest sounds is much larger than in a quiet home.

This recording on ABC-Paramount's Westminster label, of Hermann Scherchen conducting the Vienna State Opera Orchestra and Vienna Academy Chorus, opens a hazy window through a single point of sound — a window that might have sounded impressive through a wood console sound system in the early 1960s.

By now you are familiar with CD audio at 16 bits of resolution and a sampling rate of 44.1KHz. Audio on a DVD can be encoded in many various and confusing ways. The best quality in normal use now is 24 bits sampled at 96KHz. On a DVD-Audio player, it is possible to play 5 surround channels and a subwoofer with no loss. On a DVD-Video player, it is not. Look at a chart to explain this.

Some music titles are available in a DualDisc format, also called DVD Plus. It is a DVD layer and CD layer sandwiched into opposite sides of one disc. (It must not be practical or possible to read both layers on the same side like on the hybrid SACDs.) The DVD side of the disc can deliver encrypted, encoded, watermarked, and multiplexed high-resolution digital audio only usable in a DVD-Audio player. The CD side can deliver audio to rip and transfer to an MP3 player. This strikes me as a reasonable compromise between the needs of listeners and the paranoia of record companies.

The DualDisc edition of the new Dave Matthews Band album is a botched job, a missed opportunity, or a consumer gouge. The DVD side is formatted as a DVD-Video disc, with 16 bit PCM audio like CD, at 48KHz rather than 44.1KHz as on CD. That is billed on the package as "Enhanced Stereo". 48KHz is the same quality as 44.1KHz for almost any practical application. On this disc, the audio is mastered to exactly the same levels for CD and DVD. The audio on the DVD side has no practical advantage for the consumer. From the point of view of the record company, the DVD side encrypts only the equivalent quality of audio that anyone's grandmother can rip from the CD side easily. So the only arguable benefit of the DVD side of this edition is a rather pointless video. The disc also is coded for Region 1. It is packaged in an odd-shaped jewel case that would be hard to replace after it breaks. All this for about one dollar more.

The DualDisc edition of Final Straw by Snow Patrol takes better advantage of the format. The DVD side offers 24-bit, 96KHz PCM audio in stereo and 5.1 on a DVD-Audio player, with audio encoded in AAC stereo and 5.1 for compatibility with DVD-Video. It is not possible to rip the PCM audio on the DVD side to look at it. What I hear as better clarity on the DVD side may have to do with the mastering, compared with the way it has become fashionable to squash the peaks to maximize energy on CD audio, often at the expense of true fidelity. Ironically, if you squash the peaks with the goal to make the music sound louder, you push fine details down into murky darkness. It sounds as though the high resolution audio on the DVD side has been given more room to breathe, more than any technical advantage due to higher sampling rate and bit depth.

Claudio Abbado's recent cycle of Beethoven's symphonies was issued on DVD-Audio discs with stereo and 5.1 audio at 24-bit, 96KHz, and lossy audio for compatibility with DVD-Video. They are issued separately as audio CDs. On these recordings, one can hear the subtle benefit of higher resolution than CD. More bits are available for low-level detail compared to CD. That advantage is subtle but audible in quiet passages that are quieter and more detailed than in most rock music. But the discs seem unnecessarily expensive, and the audio they deliver for compatibility is not nearly as good as CD. In all practical ways, these DVD-Audio discs are dedicated, high-end offerings.

Among the best and friendliest examples of high resolution audio yet released is a recording of Morton Feldman's piano piece "Triadic Memories" on Mode Records. This performance lasts almost 94 minutes on one disc with no break. The disc plays in all DVD players worldwide, and delivers 24-bit, 96KHz audio. This composition is about subtle shadings on piano, which is a particularly difficult instrument to capture on a recording in a truly realistic way. The higher resolution is a clear benefit for this piece, and for music of this type. The DVD also includes a 20-minute interview with the performer.

State-of-the-art 16-bit audio now offers similar transparency and perceived resolution as higher bitrates for most purposes. Higher resolution in typical use has the most benefit during recording and mixing, more than in playback. The music industry will be forced into new innovations to accomodate the needs and wishes of listeners who want small files for mobile use, and high-resolution audio for home listening. The "flipper" discs did not go over well for DVD-Video movies. Consumer resistance may mean DVD-Audio and CD will be split into separate discs. Whatever the fate of the DualDisc configuration, it is a welcome development when record companies deliver audio to meet the widest range of listeners' needs.

Most of this was written last week, but I never got around to posting it. Not every one of these posts can be a fully thought-out and well-crafted piece of writing. If this journal will meet my intention, it will be necessary to get my thoughts down into words more quickly and more briefly, and therefore more often. (But I am not making any promises.)

For the Poor?

On Sunday, May 9, USA Today printed an editorial in favor of increase of the retirement age for Social Security. The piece offers a fairly neutral examination of the demographic and actuarial realities that need to be addressed over the long term in the Social Security system to keep it fiscally sound and sustainable.

During his recent news conference, George Bush proposed the rate of growth of benefits should be reduced for higher-income workers as compared to the rate of growth of benefits for lower-income workers. Actually that is not quite true due to a technicality. But more about that later. In large part, that change would gear the Social Security system towards the poor. It would tilt the system toward workers who would be more likely to fall into poverty in retirement, absent some form of financial assistance, due to their limited ability to direct their earnings away from everyday living expenses and toward savings.

I have advocated for some time that Social Security ought to be treated honestly as a welfare program and safety net, rather than as an investment and retirement program. In light of Democratic opposition and a public lukewarm at best, George Bush finally came around to a sensible proposal (albeit as part of a less sensible set of vague suggestions). And Democratic leaders in congress still stand firmly against it. Michael Kinsley noted in his column Sunday, May 1, 2005:

[Democrats] know in their hearts that Social Security has got to change in some unpleasant way. Bush, for whatever reason, is willing to take this on and to take most of the heat. And all he wants in return is the opportunity to try something that will alienate people from the Republican Party for generations to come.

George Bush's proposal has at least one significant wrinkle. He actually proposed that increases in benefits for lower-income workers should continue to be tied to overall increases in wages, while benefits for higher-income workers would be tied to inflation. As it happens, the recent trend against history is wages today struggle to keep up with increased cost-of-living. This opens the possibility that by the letter of Mr. Bush's proposal, Social Security benefits could rise more quickly for higher-income workers than for lower-income workers during a period when the less affluent see their incomes shrink in real terms. I will be gracious enough in this instance to give Mr. Bush the benefit of the doubt that what he means to suggest is Social Security benefits should rise more quickly for the poor than for those who can retire in comfort with or without their Social Security check.

Erosion of Pensions

Over the long term, people have promised themselves more retirement income than we are able to pay. It is not possible to sustain a rate of growth in retirement income indefinitely, above the rate of growth of wages, prices, and the economy as a whole. Over a long enough period of time, just as with the so-called magic of compound interest, we would have to calculate the size of the whole economy, and write a check for that amount. Clearly, adjustments need to be made long before that point.

Recently, a judge approved United Airlines' intention to dump its pension plan. United will dump responsibility onto the PBGC (Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation), which was created for this general purpose in 1974. This is a signal of bigger trouble ahead.

The PBGC itself is in financial trouble. It is funded through old-fashioned, defined-benefit pension programs that are going the way of the dodo. It is not funded through general tax revenue, so taxpayers are not the ones who pay the bills for United's default. The ones who pay are other companies that have similar pension programs in real risk of similar finiancial troubles. What this means, in effect, is a flight attendant at Delta contributes from her pension plan to pay the pension income guaranteed by PBGC for a retired pilot at United.

How does Social Security contribute to the erosion of private pensions? If Social Security functions like a defined-benefit program, or even as a defined-contribution plan, then a private pension has to pay that much less to a retiree who is relatively well-off, to meet the same level of income. If Social Security would function as an insurance program against poverty, then a larger part of Social Security contributions from the pilot at Delta would go to pay for a poor widow to buy a decent meal. Of course this does not do much to help the retired pilot from United Airlines, whose company promised larger pension payments than it is able to pay. If the answers were easy, it would not be necessary to have these discussions.

The plan George Bush has described for reform of Social Security confuses several different areas of concern about the role of the system, and matters about how the money flows in and out. The most basic question is not about private accounts. The core issue is not individualism versus socialism. The core issues are the purpose of the Social Security system, and what changes to the system are necessary.

Mr. Bush's proposal would allow wage-earners to redirect part of their Social Security withholding into private accounts. Millions of Americans already have private investment accounts: 401(k), 403(b), Roth IRA, etc. Republicans talk about free markets and personal responsibility while they push for yet another way for the government to get between people and their money. As Mr. Bush notes, people would not be allowed to gamble the money on dice games, or invest directly in stocks and bonds, or put the money into some commercial enterprise as entrepreneurs. So the premise remains that the federal government will require workers to save part of their earnings into a low-risk, low-return investment, because they do not have the sense to do so if left to their own initiative.

Mr. Bush wants to take money from an extremely low-risk, relatively low-return investment, and have individuals put the money into somewhat higher-risk, potentially higher-return investments. As an investment strategy, increased risk for higher return makes sense if one can afford to lose the principle. The money that goes into Social Security is among the lowest-risk investments possible. If government bonds were to lose value, and money invested in the Social Security system were lost, we would all have more immediate problems to worry about. Think of Social Security as the minimum we need if every other investment sinks. It is an insurance policy against poverty in old age or disability.

As Mr. Bush admits, private accounts do nothing to address the issue of the eventual shortfall 40 or 50 years from now in Social Security benefits due to be paid, compared to the amount of money due to be paid into the system. The demographic reality that goes with increased life expectancy requires a re-evaluation of who gets how much benefit, and when. And the Republican's proposal raises more questions than it answers about what the role of Social Security ought to be, and whether benefits will be sharply reduced or the whole system phased out over time.

Social Security is an enormous promise a whole generation makes to the next one. It is not necessarily a promise to force several young workers to add to the income of a retired couple who takes in $200,000 a year. Fundamentally, Social Security has the modest purpose to ensure that people who are unable to provide for themselves will have food, clothes, and shelter. Therefore the system should be viewed as an insurance policy more than as a vehicle for investment. Various adjustments should be considered:

• gradual increase in the rate of growth of payments
• gradual increase of retirement age
• increase in the cap on withholding from the current maximum of $90,000
• exemption of some amount of income from FICA withholding — perhaps the first $10,000 — to encourage saving and investment
• allow wage-earners to save some money in an individual account, along with other changes

Two characteristics of the investment in Social Security make it critically different than private investments. The first difference has to do with inheritance. In the Social Security system, when one person does not live to use part of the money, that money is available to everyone else. It would be impossible to budget in advance when the poor investor survives until age 112. The second difference is that in all practical application, despite any pretensions to have a trust fund on paper, Social Security takes money from workers today to pay to retirees today. Therefore, the investment in Social Security is exactly as reliable as the nation's willingness to keep its promise, and as solid as the condition of the economy. In this way also, one should think of Social Security as a form of insurance rather than as an investment vehicle.

If an insurance program against poverty in old age or disability is nationalized through the government, and that Social Security system is geared toward the poor, it is fair to observe it resembles a welfare program. The reason a poverty insurance program transfers money from wealthier people to poor people is inherent to the nature of the program. It is not clear how a private market could exist for poverty insurance if the wealthiest people expect not to need such a policy. Inherent to the Republican argument for privatization of Social Security is that wealthy people ought not to pay into a system that insures against other people's poverty. That is a market force that would be an insurmountable obstacle to the success of private insurance policies against poverty.

In an ideal future, the social fabric would provide a safety net through private charity and individual goodwill. Meanwhile, each generation in the United States has formed an almost sacred trust with the next through a system the free market would not offer. A free market takes advantage of a certain amount of selfishness and greed to foster transactions with some benefit (but not necessarily the same amount of benefit) to both parties. Those assumptions in a capitalistic system are at odds with the basic purpose of Social Security. That purpose could be accomplished through private charity, but the Republican plan leaves out that part of the conversation.

Last Thursday, Senator Ted Kennedy recommended the Bush administration "negotiate a timetable for a drawdown" of U.S. troops, in a statement he made at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. Senator Kennedy also recommended immediate withdrawal of 12,000 troops from Iraq.

Ted Kennedy made two main points that are essentially correct. First, the U.S. military presence in Iraq aggravates the insurgency and adds to its base of support. Second, draw down of troops should begin now, to begin to alleviate the problem of the U.S. military presence as an aggravating factor.

John McLaughlin, on The McLaughlin Group last weekend, said Mr. Kennedy was correct in his analysis. Mr. McLaughlin was part of Richard Nixon's White House staff during the lowest point of the Vietnam war, which does offer a variety of cautionary examples relevant to the American adventure in Iraq, even without mention of the 'Q'-word.

Democratic leaders, such as they are, like Senators Harry Reid and John Kerry, agree with part of Mr. Kennedy's premise but offer different opinions about how to proceed. Mr. Reid, as quoted in a Chicago Tribune editorial, does not favor a specific timetable:

As far as setting a timeline, as we learned in the Balkans, that's not a wise decision, because it only empowers those who don't want us there. And it doesn't work well to do that.

As the Chicago Tribune notes, "Reid left the rest of us to decipher exactly what he wants".

John Kerry appeared on Meet The Press Sunday. When moderator Tim Russert asked Mr. Kerry whether he agreed the U.S. should withdraw 12,000 troops at once, and whether the U.S. should have a specific timetable for withdrawal, in each case Mr. Kerry responded "No." Asked what he would do, Mr. Kerry weaved a lengthy answer that demonstrates how comfortable a home he has found back in the senate:

I understand exactly what Senator Kennedy is saying, and I agree with Senator Kennedy's perceptions of the problem and of how you deal with it. I would--in fact, last summer, if you'll recall, I said specifically that if we did the things that I laid out--the training, the international community, the services and reconstruction, and the elections and protection--we could draw down troops and begin to withdraw them. I think what Senator Kennedy is saying--and here I do agree with him--is that it is vital for the United States to make it clear that we are not there with long-term goals and intentions of our presence in the region. I agree with Senator Kennedy that we have become the target and part of the problem today, if not the problem. Now, obviously, you've got to provide security and stability in order to be able to turn this over to the Iraqis and to be able to withdraw our troops, so I wouldn't do a specific timetable, but I certainly agree with him in principle that the goal must be to withdraw American troops.

Now, I wouldn't be surprised if the new government, as soon as it's possible, begins to negotiate some modality like that. And I wouldn't be surprised if they even asked us to leave in some way over a period of time. I wouldn't be surprised if the administration privately, behind closed doors, asked them to ask us to leave. I think there are plenty of ways to skin this cat. But the most important thing is that you've got to have stability.

One can imagine Senator Kerry in his office as he continues to revise and extend his remarks. With this kind of leadership in Washington, perhaps it has fallen to the Democratic grassroots to advance the discussion.

If, as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld observed, more troops create more targets, would fewer troops reduce the number of targets, or would the insurgency simply direct their aggression to other targets, such as the newly-elected government? In a piece on Asia Times Online, author Pepe Escobar notes:

The Americans created the conditions for the emergence of a hardcore resistance. They created the conditions for the emergence of suicide bombers. And they created the conditions for staying: after all, now they need to engage in counterinsurgency. As the Iraqi Islamic Party, the biggest Sunni party puts it, even the resistance does not want the Americans to leave. What moderate Sunnis want to see is a detailed plan on the table, with fixed dates.

The problem describes a circle. The U.S. pulled the lid off Iraq, which had been held together by the diabolical force of Saddam Hussein's regime. Remnants of the regime, no doubt, form some part of the insurgency. Iraqi nationalism also is a major force that rejects the U.S. military occupation. And in the vacuum of power, foreign jihadist fighters, members of Al Qaeda, and their sympathizers struggle for a foothold as rivals of the new government. And the U.S. military is the only force that can support that government's mandate. Yet the U.S. military presence aggravates each faction of the insurgency.

As ordinary Iraqi voters move past their initial jubilation, it will become apparent the state of their nation is not unlike it was in the 1920s under King Faisal with British protection. As benign as King Faisal's rule might have been, the British imposed monarchy and a form of democracy, and Iraqis believed the British were really in charge. Similarities to Iraq's present condition under what may be perceived as a friendly form of veiled colonialism surely will not be lost on the Iraqi public. If and when U.S. counterinsurgency operations cause the deaths of bystanders, it will bring to mind the indiscriminate methods the British used to quell revolt. This is among the most immediate and serious hazards the U.S. faces in Iraq.

It is simplistic yet fundamentally true that knowledge of a firm schedule for withdrawal would be strategically useful to insurgents, so a firm timetable is probably best avoided. Nevertheless, the U.S. needs to demonstrate and not merely announce the intention to turn over responsibility for security to Iraqi military and police, and the intention to withdraw all or most troops within several years. If U.S. Generals believe they can spare up to 12,000 troops in the near future, that would be one way to demonstrate the point in an unmistakeable way. Otherwise, if immediate withdrawal of a relatively small but noteworthy number of troops would jeopardize the mission to stabilize Iraq and to get the new government firmly on its feet, then the U.S. must demonstrate the point through a quieter, diplomatic approach.

The Bush administration should negotiate with the new government in Iraq to establish a road map and timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops. The road map of specific goals and targets would be announced to the world. The timetable could remain loose and confidential, to avoid the advantage to insurgents who may see U.S. forces as operating under a deadline, and to avoid embarrassment to the U.S. and Iraqi governments alike when the timetable slips.

If the true intention of the U.S. is to use force to liberate a nation -- and then, having done so, to leave -- then the U.S. must immediately make high-profile overtures to demonstrate that intention in Iraq, against the lessons of history learned from the actions of other nations in that part of the world and elsewhere. Still, as long as the U.S. maintains good relations with a duly-elected government in a sovereign Iraq, it is likely 20,000 or more troops will be in Iraq a decade from now, not engaged in conflict, much as troops are stationed to this day in Germany and South Korea for example.

The U.S. has spent blood and treasure to provide for the liberty of the Iraqi people, more than it has ensured liberty at home through this action in Iraq. If the U.S. is not an empire, not a colonial power, and wishes to avoid the resentment of dependency, and accordant hostility, then the U.S. must create incentives -- as crude as it may be to say so -- for Iraqis to pay with their own blood as may be necessary for their own security. Drawdown of U.S. troops, as soon as it is a viable strategic option in military terms, would provide such incentives.

Since the 2004 election, discourse among many conservatives has been of a tone that wishes to marginalize a large segment of the population who live in the coastal states, the upper midwest, and in and around large cities. Of course this is not a new development, but the historically narrow re-election of George Bush still has put a breeze into the sails of that particular boat.

The conservative media echo chamber grabbed onto the results of one question in an Associated Press exit poll that showed 22% of respondents said "moral values" were the most important factor in their vote, and 80% of them voted for George Bush. Reporters and analysts from major news media, on the whole, looked at those two numbers as the conclusive factor in the election. That analysis is too simple. In American football, a post-game report might say one running back beat his personal record for yards rushed in one game, while his team won by a point. To understand the dynamics of that hypothetical game, it would be useful to observe the running back ran those few extra yards to a first down that helped to put his team into field goal range. In that case, the glory would go equally to their scrawny kicker. So this analogy reaches its limits.

These matters of "moral values" did contribute significantly to the re-election of George Bush. But voters for whom those issues were the primary consideration, and who voted for Mr. Bush, were still a small minority -- under 18%. As Dick Meyer from CBS News observes:

If you want to see a polling hurricane, consider that "terrorism" has never been any kind of concern before. That’s a sea change. No foreign policy or national security has gotten into the top four issues in the last three elections. This year, as we saw, terror and Iraq were the prime issues for more than a third of the voters.

A lot of moderates and independents are afraid, and they want the military to protect them. And they believe Republicans are quicker to pull the trigger.

Immediately after the election, professional hypocrite Bill Bennett emphasized his agenda in a piece on National Review Online:

Having restored decency to the White House, President Bush now has a mandate to affect policy that will promote a more decent society, through both politics and law. His supporters want that, and have given him a mandate in their popular and electoral votes to see to it. Now is the time to begin our long, national cultural renewal ("The Great Relearning," as novelist Tom Wolfe calls it) — no less in legislation than in federal court appointments. It is, after all, the main reason George W. Bush was reelected.

He can dress this up any way he likes. What it implies is so-called "judicial activism" by any other name is necessary to secure some vague notions about "decency", to react against courts that find the people reserve their rights for themselves.

Governments are particularly ill-suited to shape societies. The issues the term "moral values" envelopes are problems of life and living: human relationships, sexuality and reproduction, religious faith, and charity. These complex issues deal with emotion and intuition that only the fluid nature of social dynamics can sort. The difficulty in the role of government in these problems is nearly the same, whether we talk about social welfare programs to help the poor, or teaching of a creation myth as science in public schools, or what sort of tax benefit two partners earn if they are the same gender.

People in large cities carry a small personal space around them, which allows them to coexist with others in relative peace. One person can be smashed against another on the train and not invade the other's personal space. They return to their homes and go about their daily lives. Some apply traditional, old-fashioned principles to their own lives, while they leave others to lead their lives their own way. The law and the courts deal primarily with motorized traffic, violence, and property damage. Authorities have neither the interest or the resources to deal with private behavior. Although anyone who stands on the corner with his pants around his ankles while waving an ice cream sandwich over his head is likely to attract attention. But people tend to live and let live, if only because they have no other practical options. They do not impose their values on their next-door neighbors or on people who live 1000 miles away.

I predicted before the election we will see some type of homegrown, violent rebellion in George Bush's second term. It would be a big leap from throwing cream pies at Ann Coulter, to a riot, bombing, or assassination attempt. Even so, a disturbed individual might substitute a bullet for a cream pie against some target during the next few years. Such a violent extremist could fall off either end of the spectrum.

One of the main strategies of the Bush campaign was to make John Kerry the object of derision and mockery. George Bush did not exactly reach out to intellectuals from New England when he asked, "What would you expect from a senator from Massachusetts?"

As the title of Sean Hannity's book says, Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism. If social conservatives believe their way of life is under attack by both liberals and terrorists -- enough that both receive equal billing -- then social liberals now see a threat to secular government, and through that, a threat to their own value systems.

Liberals do not complain the private behavior of extremely religious people is any threat. Liberals get their dander up at the idea that religion would cross from social force into force of law. The issue is not religion or even religiosity. The core issue is a liberal willingness to live and let live, versus the view of some social conservatives that liberal permissiveness is too dangerous. So the perceived threat from social conservatives against social liberals would be more difficult to resolve than the other way around.

In polite company, people try to find something kind to say about the recently deceased. Let's avoid looking at Yasser Arafat through a lens of political Zionism, and attempt to grant him the benefit of some reasonable doubt with regard to his degree of culpability for terrorism -- for the last couple of years anyway. Then if you squint, you can see a tragic nobility in the Palestinian cause -- but more tragedy than nobility.

Nelson Mandela called Mr. Arafat "one of the outstanding freedom fighters of this generation." That is too kind. Nelson Mandela was committed to passive resistance, until a time when nonviolence became powerless against brute force. To the best of my understanding, Mr. Mandela did plan acts of sabotage against a brutally repressive government, but he did not target civilians. One cannot say anything as charitable about Yasser Arafat.

Mr. Arafat was not much of a moderating influence on his people, except slightly and briefly around the time of the Oslo Accord. It is unlikely, though, that Mr. Arafat had the moral authority or physical force at his disposal to keep Palestinian terrorists in check for the last several years. So at least, and perhaps at most, I will grant Mr. Arafat that he should not be judged by the worst acts of the most radical Palestinians.

The nicest thing I can think to say about Mr. Arafat is he was less reprehensible than the mobs that realistically would have killed and dismembered him if he did not leave open the possibility to create an Arab majority in Israel, in order to smother that democracy from within. It is fair to say he tried for a short time to bring peace -- but he may never have had the chance to succeed, because of the radicals he had to answer to on his own side.

It is good news that Yasser Arafat leaves the world stage now.

I don't suppose this is much of a eulogy.