So Harriet Miers is out. When is the last time a nominee was shot down not because of some personal scandal or even for being "too radical," but simply for not pleasing the forces in one's own party? I'm not a Supreme Court historian, so I don't know.

Much has been talked about with Miers, so I don't feel the need to waste our time on rehashing what has been said elsewhere. It's apparent, to me, that Miers was a poor pick. Easy to say now, of course, but any time a nominee has to step aside before it even begins due to objections within your stable, it's pretty tough to put forth face-saving spin. I was never particularly excited about Miers and as the opposition to the nomination mounted, I found myself agreeing with it. At the same time, though, while I found Miers uninspiring and a poor pick, she was nowhere near worthy of the multitude of attacks heaped on her.

It's all quite astonishing, really, until you consider that it was never really about Miers at all.

It has not been a particularly easy time to be a Republican. One by one, many of us have looked back at the Administration that we are defending and realizing that only are we finding ourselves defending the indefensible, we're defending much of what we're here to attack. And yet we find ourselves in the position articulated so well by Rob Booth:

Nancy Pelosi et al criticizing the GOP for abandoning their ideals is kind of like David Lee Roth criticizing The Police for abandoning their New Wave roots. He might be right, and it is sad that Synchronicity isn't as good as Outlandos D'Amour, but are you saying that if I buy the new David Lee Roth album it's going to sound like Regatta de Blanc?

Of course not. Give the Democrats the House, Senate, and Presidency, we'll be living in a European-style socialist state faster than you can say anarcho-tyranny.

So, if the goal here is to win the debating contest, then ok, you win. I'm disappointed in the Republican leadership. Glad to see that's fun for you all, that really endears me to your cause.

If the goal is to disalign limited government types from the GOP, they're doing a good enough job by themselves. Thanks for playing though.

And critiquing party that you've come to merely find less unfavorable than the other party, you're put in a bind also well-articulated by Mr. Booth:

One of the many things that tires me about politics is this: In any endeavor I undertake, I look back at it afterwards and think about ways that it could have been better. That's the military training coming through, we always conducted "after action reviews" where we were free to critique our performance and the performance of others. Done right, this is an excellent tool.

Unfortunately, in politics, this technique is impossible to implement. Because some people are interested in assigning blame, for political purposes, people try to avoid taking responsibility, for political purposes.

This leaves people like me, with one foot in politics and one foot in the real world of people who do things for a living, in a difficult position. I can critique the Administration's response and aid those who would use that honest critique for a dishonest political advantage.

I can't be the only Republican feeling this crunch. I'm pretty confident that I'm not. The usual suspects have been chest-beating purity grunts for a couple years now. But a lot of us have sat back and looked at the alternatives and punched the ticket for the administration by either defending it or ceasing fire. This includes a number of the people that were the loudest during this nomination process.

I'm not sure exactly what it was about Harriet Miers that made it the straw on the camel's back, but I think that's what it was. Even with Miers withdrawn, the underlying causes of the fissure remain. Intellectual and philosophy-oriented conservatives have been taking all kinds of social heat for defending an administration largely seen as anti-intellectual. And it was this particular poke-in-the-eye that they had no particular interest in defending because there was the perception that it came at their expense. In the same way that the Katrina response made it harder to defend the administration more broadly in Iraq, the Miers pick made it harder than it already was to defend the notion that this Administration even has a philosophical underpinning. That's important because without it, some of the sacrifices made that are 180-degrees from where conservatives would like them to be (spending, most centrally) becomes impossible to defend. It even becomes impossible to accomodate. It's one thing to run up deficits to 'choke' the federal government or to spend more our way so that we don't spend it theirs, but without the philosophical underpinning, all you're really doing is negotiating the terms of your surrender.

For a party that's been in almost complete and uninterrupted power for five years now (except the courts, another reason why this straw was heavier than it originally looked), it's enough to blow one's mind. And that's what happened. A lot of otherwise thoughtful and conscientious conservatives simply blew their minds. People can try to paint David Frum as an opportunist all they want, but he's done his career no favors this past week and I honestly believe that wasn't the point. The point was catharsis, which makes for crappy career moves and even crappier politics.

Hey all,

Since RAW is having lots of fun with "life" the next couple weeks, I offered (and he said yes) to fill in. Our topic today, of course, is Harriet Miers, who is no longer a nominee for the Supreme Court.

Lots of blogs out there, too many to list really, went one way or the other. Democrat blogs were either mum, or trying to dig into her past. Conservative blogs were, susprisingly (but not overly so), also unsupportive of Miers.

The rub of the matter: being relatively conservative myself, Miers surprised me. I, like many, thought this was blatant cronyism. Like many conservatives who aren't big-R Republicans, I've come to have a passing support of President Bush issue by issue, depending on whether or not he's representing my principles. As in this case it seemed obvious cronyism, and there wasn't enough information for me to have a good idea of what her qualifications were as a real constitutional scholar (not to say that I think much of the Court currently are, since it's obvious some of them haven't read the document in decades), I couldn't stand firmly behind her.

I was also, I fear, dissuaded by the behavior of the other side. As some would say in talk radio, most nominees that the other side of the aisle would agree with, are not people I would. Yes, the Democrats were putting up token opposition, but it didn't seem quite real. Any nominee that fits my perceptions of a good judge, likely is someone who will infuriate at least a few of them (especially those whose job it is to be infuriated), so the relative silence was unsettling.

I was also unconvinced by Bush's assurances that she "shares his judicial philosophy", because I've yet to nail down what that is. If she shares a judicial philosophy that let the Microsoft antitrust suit wither on the vine, that passes and expands the PATRIOT Act with no oversight and in light of recent FBI admissions of grevious abuses, I'm sure I don't agree with it.

Sum total: I'm glad she's gone. There are plenty of nominees who will be relatively transparent, and will have a record from which their record and thoughts can be gleaned, rather than having to trust Bush's word when I already disagree with him at least 30% of the time.

Lots going on. Busy, busy month. Busier week. Can't really talk about it here, but no reason for anyone to be concerned. Opportunity and stress walk hand-in-hand in Alexland.

Won't be posting for the rest of the week and may need to extend the break for another week for recovery.

A couple of days ago, I wrote a post on the 18-and-counting Duggar family:

So the question is, for me, which would be more strange: Coming from a family like this or marrying in to a family like this? I'd say the latter. If you come from an odd family, you don't know any better. But if you're marrying in to it, you already have a somewhat normal view of what a family should look like. Then again, maybe not so much if you live in Arkansas.

To which Sammler commented:

Substitute "Idaho" for "Arkansas" in your last paragraph, and over 98% of the U.S. population will think it equally amusing.

Meanwhile, an interesting discussion on the topic has emerged over at The American Scene. A fellow named Yeselson writes:

Ross admits, tongue in cheek, that the whole thing is a bit excessive. But this is really where the rubber meets the road for conservative, cosmpolitan intellectuals and their relationship to the mass political base that has given these intellectual's a whiff of power. By which I mean this: Ross has written eloquently here and elsewhere about the need to expand theopportunity for working class kids to attend elite universities. But neither this woman nor her children will be socialized or literally have enough time in the day to realize that aspiration--in short, they will never have the opportunity to write elegant essays like Ross Douthat. Nor will the girls have the opportunity to grow and meet witty, thoughtful, perhaps slightly less fertile men like Ross Douthat. Nor would Ross Douthat likely find a woman with the values and life experience of the woman described in the article the slightest bit interesting in anything but an anthropological sense.

Funny thing.

The subject has come up at work on a few occasions. In the process I discovered that no less than two of my coworkers come from families that have children of 13 or more. Half a dozen or so come from families with more than eight. Interesting to me is that I would never have suspected it, having met them. They are, contrary to Yeselson's fears, fully functional members of society. For all I know, they may be perfectly as capable as Douthat at waxing eloquence. The one with 13 siblings, in fact, is in a high-paying service-sector job where he deals with people from all around the country non-stop.

I'm not saying that I advocate such large families, but I actually find them less conspicuous than I find only children, which I'm pretty good at spotting. Frankly, I have to question the sanity of a couple wanting to undertake such an endeavor. I'll also concede that my now-revealed real life examples may be quite atypical. And they're male (a lot of Yeselson's concerned seem to be geared at the female younglings, who lack a good role model).

But at the least, it's gotten me to reconsider my previous snarkiness on the matter.

TP has written a very thought-provoking follow-up to a conversation that we had in the comments section of my abortion post:

To return to Alex's example, the fact that Joe and Jack have different moral compasses should be entirely uncontroversial given their differences on the nature and source of their own moral beliefs. Joe probably understands full well that Jack does not share his ethical beliefs. Given that, why does it follow that it is 'reversely hypocritical' for Joe to conclude that he must act in a certain way, but that Jack is not bound to act in that way? Why can Joe not say, with no 'reverse hypocrisy,' that only those who already agree with his moral beliefs must act according to their dictates? Why can he not acknowledge that those who reject his beliefs, like Jack, are under no obligation to act according to them?

Here's what I wrote about Joe and Jack:

It also ties in to what I call reverse hypocrisy: the belief that something is wrong for me to do, but not necessarily wrong for others. If it's wrong for you, then unless there is a distinct difference in situation, it's wrong for someone else to. If Joe is a recovering alcoholic, then it's right for Joe not to drink but say that it's okay for Jack to drink. On the other hand, if Joe doesn't drink for moral reasons (say he's a Mormon or Pentacostal), but then says that it's morally okay for Jack to drink because he's an atheist, then Joe is being whatever the opposite of hypocrisy is.

The question, I guess, comes at the root of Joe's opposition to alcohol consumption. Joe's views are informed largely by religion: what he considered God's way. God (or God's representative) has said that alcohol (except the Blood of Christ, in some cases) is unholy and wrong. If God is God, then this applies to everybody.

Even outside of God, though, sincerely held morality ought to be applied to everyone. Hypocrisy isn't bad because the person is doing something "wrong" so much as it is bad because he's issuing a double standard. Well, "reverse hypocrisy" is a double-standard, too. It's applying a moral system based purely on someone's attitude or state of mind. Murder is still wrong, even when it's committed by someone without the mental competence to know what they are doing is wrong. We may be more forgiving of the culprit (as well we should be), but that doesn't change the rightness or wrongness of the action itself.

TP defines two different forms of relativism. The first (cultural relativism) is the observation that different cultures have different moral codes. Here is the second:

Ethical relativism is normative; it is the belief that determining right action ought to be relative to the subject, or the culture, or another referent, not simply that morality is culturally relative.

It seems to me that ethical relativism ought to be divided into subtypes. Holding different people to different standards because they're in different situations is one thing, doing so because they are different people is another.

The question of Joe and Jack may well come down to which category you put it in to. The First Joe was an alcoholic, therefore the situation is different than for First Jack, who isn't. Think of it this way: if First Jack were to tell First Joe not to drink, but Jack himself drank, would he be a hypocrite? I don't think he would because Jack is not a recovering alcoholic. So Joe holding himself to a different standard makes sense. Now, with Second Joe and Second Jack, it's a bit different. Joe may be religious and Jack not-religious, but that does not necessarily constitute a different situation in itself, though it does constitute different subjects.

I am a little more lenient, I think, to different situations than I am different subjects.

Subjects, to an extent, play a significant role in determining who they are and what they do. To an extent, what they do defines who they are. Therefore to argue that Second Jack is not under the same moral obligations as Second Joe simply because Second Jack chooses not to embrace a particular moral code is to argue, to an extent, that none of us are obligated to follow any moral code. At the base of it, it encourages immorality (however morality is defined).

Situations are more often the product of our actions than we consider them to be, but often they are not. Or, at the very least, we often play a much less conscious role in putting ourselves in situations where otherwise immoral acts may be committed out of desperation or as the least bad of a swatch of bad outcomes. If Jim take a particular narcotic to deal with an illness, but refuses to take it when he is not ill because he doesn't believe he should, he is not necessarily being morally inconsistent and may be doing the right thing in both circumstances. If at two different times under a similar set of circumstances (he's not ill) he takes the narcotic, then he is being morally inconsistent. Therefore if you have two people under a similar set of circumstances (they're not ill) and one person is doing what the other believes is wrong, then either the taker or the non-taker is wrong. It's either okay to cloud your mind with narcotics to "smooth the edges" after work (for instance) or its not.

Now all of this deals with morality. There are other reasons that what is okay for Joe is not okay for Jack. For instance, if Joe doesn't drink because his religious wife would disapprove, then there's no inconsistency with him telling Jack that it's okay to drink. It's not a matter of morality with Joe as much as it is practicality. What works for one person may not work for another. If Aaron is a stoic and Alan theatric, it's not necessarily wrong for Aaron to tell Alan that though he believes it bad to lose his temper, it's different for Alan because it provides him a pressure-release while all it does for Aaron is get him more wound up. But this is more means than ends.

On a side note, a lot of what I have said may sound pretty self-righteous. Who am I to say what is right and what is wrong, after all. Well, if there is one thing I've learned this past couple of years it's moral humility. Because I view morals in a more wholistic manner than relativistic, I am increasingly non-prone to sweeping moral judgments. Knowing that something applies not only to me but those I love as well has given me a new appreciation for situational differences and the fact that even when I believe something, I could be wrong. On the other hand, I tend to move forward with what beliefs I have (even if I am unsure) because I believe that one must at least have an operational moral code in order to function above the least common denominator.

In that sense, actually, I am frequently a reverse hypocrite. I cut others slack that I don't cut myself because I am not sure enough to hold them to my standards, though the surity threshold for me is not quite so high. I still see things in a more black-and-white manner than most, and I'm probably more judgmental of others than most, but probably not quite as much as I often sound.

As per RAW's post below, the question of "abortion rights" is always a heated one, and depending on how you swing your terms and definitions, I firmly believe that you can rig up a poll to say whatever you want it to say. Comments down in the post reaffirmed this, as RAW's point on how many people self-identify as "pro-life" or "pro-choice" being based on how the debate was framed and focused has plenty of merit.

Unfortunately, like any of these debates, the core constituency of each side is pretty fervent and understand their platform quite well, while the rest of the people (at least, I believe) never really understand it because it's never formally stated. Instead, both sides do their best to paint the other side as undesirables and focus on the worst of each, trying to win a debate that's based more on beating up strawmen than having good points.

Ultimately, the debate - even on issues that ought to be commonsense no-brainers - gets twisted and turned, as the "pro-choice" lobby do their best to hold the Roe V. Wade decision as "any abortion any time a woman wants one." There's also an awkward twist in the media, since the "Pro-choice" lobby self-identifies as such and identifies their opposition as "Anti-Abortion", whilst the "Pro-Life" lobby identifies the "Pro-Choice" groups as "Pro-Abortion" instead. More often than not, the media uses the terms "Pro-Choice" and "Anti-Abortion", which seems to indicate sympathy for them.

Under it all, even as I might be convinced of the core tenet of Roe - that the US cannot just blanket outlaw all abortions - a free-for-all attitude towards it isn't good either, and I'm fully supportive of a number of things that some states have tried, only to have the "Pro-Choice" lobby go absolutely bonkers crying about "first steps to overturning Roe." Here's a few of them.


Issue #1: Parental Notification.

Parental notification, to me, seems like a no-brainer. Abortion, when you get down to the specifics, is a surgical medical procedure. With the exception of life-threatening situations in an emergency room or similar, all such medical procedures require waivers and consent forms, which anyone under 18 cannot sign legally because the courts in just about every state say that they are not yet competent to do so. Parents/Guardians are legally required to sign off on these things.

Now, the Pro-Choice lobby will argue that abortion is "different" because there's a possibility the parent will go nuts and abuse the child, or might simply refuse permission. In the first case, that is relatively easily solved by placing a procedure for the child to go to a courthouse and request an alternate guardian who can look at the case, compile some basic evidence, and have a judge decide whether permission is warranted or whether the parents should still be notified.

In the second case, well, parents refusing permission would be the right of the parent as guardian of the child - unless the goal isn't actually "choice" for adults, but the goal of seeing even those who are not competent to consent to medical procedures get abortions anyways.

Issue #2: Waiting Periods.

Abortions in America are a rather unique medical procedure. They are unique for a few reasons, one being the controversy, but the other being that they are one of the few entirely elective procedures that one can simply go to a clinic, get done, and walk right out. For most other medical procedures I can think of, elective or not, there's a waiting time. For laser eye surgery, there are consultations and measurements. For liposuction or other plastic surgery, the same. Nobody just gets up in the morning and goes in to have a vasectomy on a whim. For all of these, and even for life-altering surgery like organ replacement, they go in, have consultations with doctors, and schedule an appointment to have it done - all the while knowing that up until the point where the doctor makes that first cut (if it's local anesthesia) or they put that mask on (if general anesthesia) they have the right to say "no, stop, I don't actually want this" and the doctor will cancel the whole thing.

Again, it could be argued that "anyone" can get emergency medical care and procedures, but in those cases we're talking about things that will be done to ensure they are alive tomorrow, not things done because of appearances, and in a situation where the person is likely unconscious or incoherent due to blood loss, shock, or trauma.

Abortion also has definite medical risks. There are physical and psychological risks associated with the procedure, that ought to be weighed carefully. It shouldn't be an easy decision.

And yet, again, the "Pro-Choice" crowd insist that a simple waiting period - say, 24 to 48 hours, shorter than the waiting period to purchase a handgun - is something designed to interfere with the right to choice? This is not something I understand. My feeling is that a waiting period is good both as an emotional cool-down (in the case, perhaps, of someone who goes in for an abortion after breaking up with the father) as well as a time to really think about the decision and look over the available information. It's not about preventing choice, but making sure that choice is a relatively well-informed choice.

Issue #3: Restrictions on timing

This is the one that's always the most tricky. As medical science goes forward, premature babies can be rescued and nurtured and live at an earlier and earlier age. Normal birth is approximately 40 weeks. Any baby born around 37 or less is premature. Thanks to modern science, we can coax premature babies along earlier and earlier - according to Mayo Clinic, a "good chance of survival" is still there at 23 weeks. And this directly impacts abortion legislation, because both the federal government and state legislatures are going to be very timid about sanctioning the abortion of a fetus that could be termed "viable" and therefore an "unborn child" as it were.

Of course, as the debate goes on, medical science will improve, and eventually we may be to the point where ANY fetus is considered viable, or people "birthed" after artificial fertilization of an egg and incubation in an entirely artificial womb. Which begs an interesting question, because any artificial limit on the matter is apt towards fudging. If you say 23 weeks, then determined individuals may claim to be only at 20 weeks when they're at 25 or so, for instance. And as science improves, legislatures will find it tempting to push the barrier earlier and earlier.

This is the one issue I really have no good answer for. It's not an easy question. Hardcore "Pro Choice" individuals might push it even up to letting the woman go into labor, though that's unlikely. "Pro-Life" individuals have it easier, their answer is "never."

Ramesh Ponnuru wonders about a recent uptick in pro-choice polling:

But all of a sudden, and without attracting much notice, the pro-choicers have pulled away again. A July poll had pro-choicers outnumbering pro-lifers by 51 to 42 percent. By late August, the gap had grown to 54-38. A SurveyUSA poll taken around the same time found a similar result. It seems as though two-thirds of the pro-life gain on this front over the last decade has been erased.

So what explains how the pro-lifers have risen and then fallen? I have a theory, which I retain the right to modify or discard if a better one comes along.

There are a lot of possible explanations for the upward trend over the last decade, and probably several of them played a role. But I think the most powerful explanation, especially given that the pivotal years are 1995-97, is the pro-life campaign against partial-birth abortion. When the major pro-life proposal was a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, people who opposed an amendment tended to think of themselves as pro-choice. The legislative campaign against partial-birth abortion, which began in the summer of 1995, changed what some people thought about first when they thought about abortion. If being pro-choice meant being for partial-birth abortion, and being pro-life meant being against it, those people were on the pro-life side. [...]

I can only assume that it was the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor at the beginning of July, and Bush’s initial nomination of John Roberts to replace her, that has driven people back into the pro-choice camp. The Supreme Court vacancy made Roe the first thing people think about when they think about abortion. And the public supports Roe for a variety of reasons (including the mistaken beliefs that it legalizes abortion only in the first three months and that to overturn it would be to ban all abortions). Moreover, the debate over Roe has been pretty one-sided. The leading pro-choice spokesmen in politics have been saying that Roe is vitally important but threatened. The leading pro-life figures, President Bush and congressional Republicans, have mostly tried to change the subject rather than to make the case that the country can live without Roe.

Far be it for me to ever pass on an opportunity to drive home a point that I've made here and there, using statistical data is most naturally interpreted to conform to my pre-existing beliefs.

Ponnuru's column is notable for its astonishing ability to walk right along the edge of answering his own question, but stubbornly refusing to do so for dogmatic reasons and the typical ideolog's conceit that one's views can be correct, well-articulated, and rejected by the American public at the same time.

People, by and large, like to feel morally righteous. Whether it's a conservative Christian railing against abortion or a liberal environmentalist crying Gaea's tears, it exists all over the place. People are also quite defensive whenever their lifestyle is called in to questions. People also like an easy way out.

Though an atrocious decision constitutionally and even morally, Roe v Wade has been the gift to Republicans that just keeps on giving. With Roe in effect, people can feel self-righteous and at the same time not have to worry about being judged. The most common personal answer to the abortion question I've run across is "I don't morally approve, I wouldn't have one, but it shouldn't be illegal," by which many mean "As long as I don't need one, I don't think it's a good thing, but if I do I want that option available to me." This way you can have it both ways: retain your right to an abortion (or an abortion on your behalf, if you're a guy) while vaguely maintaining a semblance of morality on the subject. Should you ever need an abortion (or an abortion on your behalf), you can justify it as being unique to the circumstances (cause you're the only girl to get pregnant or the only guy to get a girl while in college or unmarried or without the means to take care of a child and therefore your circumstances are unique, unique, unique...).

The recent uptick in pro-life support was, interestingly, in females. While I don't have the data on the new polls that Ponnuru refers to, I'd be willing to bet that the pro-choice lurch was also female. Guys aren't quite as swept up on maintaining a balance or even coherency on the issue because, facts being facts, they will never have to have one. It's easier for a guy to be pro-life because he can walk out. It's easier for a guy to be pro-choice because it can get him out of a jam without having to deal with the emotional consequences.

So Roe was the easy way out for everybody. It's safe to be pro-life when little or nothing can come of it. It's easy for the Republicans to "take a stand" on abortion because they can talk as loudly as they want without having to do terribly much to back it up except pass unconstitutional and largely symbolic laws. In fact, one of the most devestating effects of Roe was to coarsen the debate by taking it out of our hands. Who needs to compromise or be realistic when the decree has been given from on high? But from a machiavellian political perspective, it keeps religious conservatives in the tent without alienating a larger chunk of the women's vote.

Democratic strategist Francis Wilkinson wrote a while back:

STOP me if you've heard this one. A pro-life Republican president nominates a Supreme Court justice. The fate of Roe v. Wade, that momentous, muddled law of the land since 1973, hangs in the balance. Despite the best efforts of Democratic senators to force a confession, the elusive nominee remains mum on Roe and rides overwhelming Republican support to confirmation. (A pro-choice group immediately issues a press release that the sky is, in fact, falling.)

But a funny thing happens once the nominee is safely ensconced on the court: instead of sinking Roe, he supports it.

This, of course, is the story line of both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, who allegedly suffered knife wounds in the back from high-court appointees who upheld Roe. There are various theories to explain these instances of Sudden Pro-Choice Syndrome but no clear explanation. It's the darnedest thing, but when it comes to the most sacred cause in the Republican canon, the right to life, Republican presidents somehow find a way to mess up. You'd almost think they were doing it on purpose.

I actually laughed out loud when I read this because it encapsulated some of my more cynical thoughts on the Grand Ole Party. Truth be told, I don't know if Harriet Miers will end up supporting Roe or not. As such, I don't know if that was Bush's intent. Honestly, though, if they read the numbers even remotely the same way I do, we have to consider it a possibility.

Like Ramesh, I do believe that the uptick in pro-choice numbers is temporary. The problem, however, is that I see it returning with a vengeance whenever it actually matters.

[via American Scene]

Aldahlia sent me this picture in the comments section to my TSN post on the Duggars. Note that this picture is three kids ago -- they're up to sixteen. Jim Bob Duggar's site is quite interesting. Unsurprisingly, he's quite a religious fellow and there is a plethora or biblical verses mentioned.

He also seems to be an addict to every self-help book out there. The source of his income? Real estate. I guess some of those late night infomercials really do work, cause he's building a 7,000 square foot house debt-free.

So the question is, for me, which would be more strange: Coming from a family like this or marrying in to a family like this? I'd say the latter. If you come from an odd family, you don't know any better. But if you're marrying in to it, you already have a somewhat normal view of what a family should look like. Then again, maybe not so much if you live in Arkansas.

In his book How I Accidentally Joined The Vast Rightwing Conspiracy (and Found Inner Peace), Stein recounts one of his first encounters with the adamance of the left when he was writing a piece questioning the conventional wisdom of the time that qualified day care was every bit or even more competent at raising children than their parents are. Priorities have shifted since then and the notion that a mother knows best is not nearly as controversial as it was. I think that it largely depends on the circumstances, but am more curious than definite in my conclusions on the matter.

The UK's Observer puts up an article on a study that suggests that children excel when guided by their mothers as compared to those guided by daycare, nannies, or even relatives:

It found babies and toddlers fared worst when they were given group nursery care. Those cared for by friends or grandparents or other relatives did a little better while those looked after by nannies or childminders were rated second only to those cared for by mothers.

According to Penelope Leach, a leading British childcare expert and one of the study's authors, the social and emotional development of children cared for by someone other than their mother 'is definitely less good'.

Such children tend to show higher levels of aggression or are inclined to become more withdrawn, compliant and sad. Tests included the ability to do a series of set tasks and the level of eye-contact maintained with adults.

Leach will outline details of the study's findings tomorrow at a conference organised by the National Childminding Association, of which she is president. 'The study does not mean every child in a large nursery will become a monster,' she said. 'Nevertheless, it shows a small but significant difference in a large group of children.'

There are a handful of reasons why the study may yield these results:

1. Mothers do a better job of raising children than do other caretakers.


2. The study's measurements are flawed. The article doesn't satisfy my curiosity about how the study was conducted and whether it was sufficient in scope.


3. There may be other factors that controls both how well a child turns out and whether or not the parent stays home. Such factors would likely include economic situations or (more likely than that) parental priorities.

I'm going to assume, for now, that #2 is not the case and this study is indicative of something that may or may not be that moms should stay at home with the kids.

I have a number of reactions. The most immediate reaction is "what about fathers?" While it's undecided as to whether or not I will stay home with the kids or hold down a job, I will most likely put my career on hold for at least a while either working in a limited capacity or staying home full-time. So it would be helpful to know if fathers are more like mothers in that respect or more like grandparents.

The broader question of whether or not it's best for the children for the mother to stay home or not is irrelevent to many working Americans. While I believe there to be more cases where it is economically feasible than are currently exercised, there are a number of cases where two working parents can barely keep up even without living a robust middle class lifestyle. That makes me wonder somewhat how well that was controlled in the study. Did they take into account that a lower education level or developmental issues on the part of the parents may be part of the reason why kids are falling behind? It doesn't say, though that the au pairs didn't fair that much more successfully says that if it is a factor, it is far from a deciding factor.

A lot of it, I am inclined to believe, comes from priorities. A mother that is interested in staying at home with the kids is likely to be running a household that is more child-oriented than not. Lee Ann Morawski introduced me to the saying that nannies are for people who enjoy naming kids, but not raising them. While that's not the case universally, there are probably enough cases of disinterested parents having kids in order to carry on the family name or because they feel some childbearing obligation to skew the data somewhat. On the other hand, that could be countered by those mothers that don't stay at home for the kids but rather because they're not the working sort. I couldn't say for sure.

It brings to light some interesting questions, though. If prospective parents (that can afford to) are not interested in taking a leading role in raising their children because they're not temperamentally suited for it or have other priorities, should they decline to have children at all. In other words, does the decision to have children bear with it the responsibility of being an enthusiastic and involved parent. The "yes" argument is that it's unfair to bring life into the world and then neglect it. The "no" argument is a life is a precious gift in itself.

The "no" argument I find interesting because it is one that I don't think I would have bought in to five years ago. But as I get older, more and more of the best and brightest of my peers are choosing not to have children in part because they don't believe that they have the time, energy, and inclination to take an active role in parenting. It's hard to argue with their logic, but there's some truth to the saying that those that should have children don't and those that shouldn't do. Leaving reproduction to those at the middle and bottom of the economic ladder is a recipe for trouble. And, to be blunt, many unenthusiastic parents with the right parenting role models and skills could produce better results than a full-time parent that is inept and possibly even incompetent. Parenting acumen is not a given and while there is certainly a corrolation with enthusiasm, it's not causal.

But enthusiasm really does matter. Many of the parents that are leaving the childraising to au pairs would be miserable at home and I'm not sure that the children lagging behind in nannied households would do much better under those circumstances. As much as I hate to give ground to the notion that parents need to be happy in order for the kids to be happy because this notion has been abused to the point of absurdity, leaving countless wrecked households in its wake, there is at least some truth to it. Resented children won't be oblivious to the resentment indefinitely.

Now most of the above pertains to parents well-off enough for the mother to be able to stay home or afford an au pair. Below them on the economic ladder are those that may be able to afford a stay-at-home parent, but at significant costs in terms of personal and material comfort. It would be interesting to see, for instance, how well a child with a stay-at-home parent in a lower-middle class neighborhood (Houstonians, think LaPorte or northern Pasadena) versus a two-income household in the charge of a better school system (Houstonians, think Clear Lake or Sugarland) with similar household incomes (after accounting for taxes and housing and daycare expenses). In other words, can the extra income garnered from the working mother essentially pay for her relative absense in the household?

Let's take the above group and move a little further down the economic ladder. If mothers are better at raising their children than are paid professionals and relatives, does society have a vested interest in giving women financial incentives to stay home? Is it worth the taxpayer's while to pick up the tab of the lost second income so that our children can be raised with more involved mothers? In the case of marginal middle-class homes (by "marginal" I mean those that could theoretically find a way to have the mother stay at home but could not do so without being adversely affected, financially - in the middle, basically), should we give financial incentives for the mother to stay at home? In the case of the lower classes we would have to pay more; would that be worth it?

It's an interesting discussion that, for the most part, is not really being had. The left is interested in providing more daycare so that mothers don't have to make the arduous decision. The right is not interested in footing the bill. I'm skeptical of the idea myself, to be honest. Paying people not to work is risky business. A whole lot of the parents would take the paycheck and spend most of their time watching television rather than taking an active role. And there may be a loss with less wealth being generated per capita.

So I'm not advocating anything in particular here. I'm reluctant to tell a woman that she ought to stay at home with the kids (even though there's a strong chance that'll be my job), but I also wonder if it isn't a more possible and desirable option than is currently exercised.

[via Judd]

I have been having nothing but bad luck with computers lately. Those of you that have known me a while will be completely and utterly unsurprised by this.

A few months ago I ordered a mobo/CPU combo. It acted oddly the second I set it up in that it turned on the second it was plugged in or the IO switch pressed. But at least it turned on to register a harddrive problem. I swapped out the harddrive and though it was booting up (I knew because it would beep at me if I took out the RAM) for some reason the video card stopped working. Then it stopped booting (it wouldn't beep at me anymore) and only the fan would go. Then the fan stopped going.

So I contact my vendor and they send me out a new one. Right out of the box I still can't get it to pay any mind to the "on" button, nor can I get it to really do anything except get the fan moving. That's where I'm at presently. I took Monday morning off to call the motherboard manufacturer to see if I was doing anything wrong. Now I've built numerous computers before. I know what I'm doing. But you know, you never know. It's tough for a techie to call customer support on something that shouldn't be an issue, but I ate my pride and did it.

And it was a glorious waste of time. They basically said they wouldn't even discuss jumper settings with me until I could demonstrate that all of the other parts worked. The RAM, vid card, and case were all verifiable, but I cannot account for the processor. And it could be a processor problem. I called the vendor and asked if they replace both mobo and CPU for a reported mobo problem and they said that they do.

So I'm basically left with three options.

1. I can say "sunk cost" and just order a new mobo/CPU combo of a different brand. I hate to throw away $90 worth of computer parts, but I could spend that just taking the time off to call 9-5 tech support anyway.

2. I can order another set with the exact same parts so that I can determine where exactly the problem lies. I get whichever part is bad swapped out and I'm left with two reasonably powerful combos. Not sure what I'd do with the second, but I doubt it would go to waste. Probably would cost more money, though, and money is pretty tight these days.

3. I can try again with the vendor, try to send it back in and get either another of the set or see if I can talk them in to exchanging for different parts. The problem with this idea is that for all they know I'm destroying their parts and asking for new ones. And frankly it could be a problem with what I'm doing. But I have no way of knowing that for sure if the motherboard people won't talk to me. The instruction manual is vague (it does not list any +- polarities, for instance).

Back in Houston people wondered why I always shopped at Best Computer USA instead of ordering stuff online. This is why. Back then I would merely have to take it in and say "this doesn't work, see?" and we could get down to finding a solution. On the other hand, Camille and I are not going to land in an urban area, so I'm probably going to have to figure out how to get this stuff handled by mail anyway, no?

And on a sidenote, I sometimes wonder if CPU's and motherboards are generally done by different companies solely so they can point the finger at one another when something goes wrong.

Update: Well crap. I swapped the video card and DR-RAM into another computer (Maverick) to make absolute sure that it's not the cause of the mischeif. The result? Maverick is now inoperative. Even with the old SD-RAM and video card, the fan won't even go. Taking SD-RAM from Heineken (RIP) yields the same result, so it's not the RAM sticks.

As for the DR-RAM I put in there, only one of the DR-RAM slots seems to be working as they only the RAM in the left socket registered. No problems with the video card, though, and with the exception of the RAM not registering, it seemed to work.

So apparently only 1 of the 4 RAM slots work...

At what point do I consider exorcism?

Update II: Okay, net gain. In a desperate attempt to get Maverick back up and running, I switched it to a one of my new cases. Since the case offers more power, I shouldn't have to worry about power-insufficiency now. Still no luck on the new computer, though.

Arnold Kling tries to explain why economic motivations are worthy because they compare so favorably to status motivations:

I suspect that the most likely alternative to economic motivation is a worse motive: status-seeking. I believe that is more important to curb our lust for status than our lust for goods and services.

The drive for economic gain helps the individual, and, as Adam Smith famously showed, helps others. Trade and economic growth are positive-sum games, in which there can be winners without losers. Moreover, when people seek economic gains, this is usually transparent. You usually understand when you and others you transact with are trying to improve your economic well-being.

Status, on the other hand, is typically a zero-sum game, in which one person's gain comes at the expense of others. Adding to the evils of status-seeking is that people often deceive themselves and others into believing that they are doing something for a higher motive when in fact they are seeking status.

It's an interesting idea, but I believe he understates the large overlap between the two. Though he acknowledges that some people use their money for status, I would say instead that once you move beyond a certain point economically, money is viewed primarily as an engine to achieve status. Kling rejects Maslow's hierarchy of needs in favor of four co-equal drives:

1. economic, the self-interested calculator
2. empathic, desiring close personal relationships based on understanding and empathy
3. "higher calling," trying to live a meaningful life
4. status-seeking, focused on membership and role within a well-defined group

This is where I'm really on a different page. I view economics (and, to a lesser extent, empathy and calling) as a means to the ends of status. After basic needs are met (and my hierarchial view I guess puts me more with Maslow than Kling) more money goes towards status than anything else. The search for status may be nicer clothes of a squeaky-clean Hummer, or even the latest and greatest stereo setup. Some people need Hummers and nice clothes and get a lot of mileage out of technology (so says the computer guy), but a lot of people seem to buy these things in autopilot.

Kling, to his credit, acknowledges this, but he seems to associate such spending as "higher calling" rather than economy-driven:

Sometimes, people will do good deeds as a way of enhancing their status. However, in my view, that phenomenon is overshadowed by the harmful behavior that status-seeking induces. Examples include avoiding learning for fear of "acting white," joining cults and violent gangs, wasting money on status symbols (again, the Bar Mitzvah comes to mind, with the lavishness of the celebrations ratcheting up each decade), and seeking political power over others.

This is not incidental, in my view, towards an economic thinking of the world. Economically, where should excess money go? In self-interest, they should go in favor of what makes the person the happiest. The problem is that almost universally, comparing favorably to peers brings happiness. Temporary, fleeting, zero-sum happiness, but happiness nonetheless. The distinction between status and economics completely breaks down when they start feeding off one another.

And this stuff does matter. Perception is important. If I go out and buy a suit for a job interview, that may be in my best interest, but it's also a status thing because I'm doing so in order not to compare unfavorably to the next interviewee. Buying a house in a posh neighborhood and even getting my kid in to a good school may be status-oriented, but they also increase the chance of success, which will then allow them to play the status game. It's not so easy to tell where one ends and the other begins.

We don't live in a void where we make these decisions independent of everyone else, as Kling would like us to, precisely because economics and status feed off one another so ferociously.

Even Kling himself gets the distinction confused:

The November 2005 issue of The Atlantic Monthly has several articles that show the status-seeking side of academia at work. An article by Matthew Quirk is particularly eye-opening.

"enrollment managers direct financial aid to students who will increase a school's revenues and rankings. They have a host of ugly tactics to deter low-income students and to extract as much money as possible from each entering class."

If government gave its financial aid directly to poor students, in the form of vouchers, then those students would have leverage with respect to colleges and universities. Instead, it is the other way around.

Another way that academic status-seeking behavior harms low-income students is the denial of accreditation. Colleges and universities use their ability to deny credit for work at other institutions in order to stifle competition and to maintain their own status. Instead of testing a student to see whether a subject has been learned satisfactorily, institutions simply refuse to accept credits from "inferior" sources of education. This status-oriented approach to accreditation pits traditional colleges and universities against the newer "for-profit" model of education, as described in a front-page story in the Wall Street Journal on September 30.

How exactly is it that universities trying to attract the wealthiest students and deter the low-income students not a self-interested, economic one? And further, I would argue that the accreditation denial is at least partially economic as well because it means the students will have to spend more money to take more classes. The actions are dishonorable either way, and I agree with Kling on vouchers as a whole, but it undermines his larger argument, in my view, in demonstrating why moral direction is important and how economics and status-seeking work against everybody.

You can count me among those that would have very much preferred Harriet Miers not be the newest nominee to the Supreme Court. I'm not devestated as some people seem to be, but I am disappointed. I may or may not write about this at a later date. But I find the conversation (to put it euphemistically) that has come forth since the nomination to be interesting both on how it pertains to a schism between two different kinds of Republicans and what an office-holder owes to its ideological base and how that pertains to the blogosphere.

I'm going to explore the latter in this post.

Stephen Bainbridge made the following comment, to seemingly universal approval:

I have the distinct impression that the Democratic Party sees the liberal blogosphere as being inside the tent, while the Republican Party views the conservative blogosphere as being somewhere between an irrelevance and a minor nuisance. Maybe this is true, at least in part, because many prominent "conservative" bloggers (Andrew Sullivan, Glenn Reynolds, Stephen Green, and Eugene Volokh spring to mind) are not exactly stalwart Republican party loyalists but rather libertarians (or whatever) who put routinely put their principles ahead of party interests. Alternatively, maybe the Democrats have just decided to follow Lyndon Johnson's advice about keeping your critics inside the tent peeing out rather than outside the tent peeing in.

The man answers his own question. The fact that the liberal blogosphere fervently aligns itself with the Democratic Party and that the "conservative" blogosphere aligns itself with nobody is not incidental. It is not "a possible factor" or even "a factor." It is the factor.

Kos didn't win his influence with Democrats by talking about ideas. He didn't actually win it by talking at all. He earned it by using his words to attract an audience, build a movement, and raise thousands upon thousands of dollars! While libertarian conservatives were saying "Bush is so wrong on so many issues, but he's better than Kerry by a longshot" Kos was saying "Our very lives depend on Bush being impeached and, if possible, impaled!" and while the staunch right was playing a holier-than-thou stance that they couldn't support Bush because insufficiently anti-immigration, pro-gun, or whatever, Kos was saying "Kerry is all that stands between us and oblivion!!!!!"

And while the right complained, the left raised money not just for Kerry but for countless congressional candidates.

No, you don't get to say "We're your base, you f'in sell-out" and get a seat at the table. You don't get to say "I guess you're acceptable to us" and get whatever you have to say after that heard. You can talk all you like about being committed to ideas, but as long as you're more committed to ideas than you are to working for those you want to carry those ideas out, your ideas don't matter. The blogoleft is heard because they're working. The blogoright isn't heard because they're just talking.

And you know what? The Republican Party is probably better off for it.

For all the money that Kos has raised, he hasn't won a single race. Not one. For all the influence that they've got in the Democratic Party, it's in a party whose only prayer into office is continuing Republican ineffectualism. They've got a party that's given in to their rhetoric and yet been able to do nothing to advance their ideology. The Kossacks ideas are even less popular than the much-maligned Religious Right's and they Democrats are increasingly tied to that anchor. The only thing that Kossacks ideas are more popular than is their rhetoric, is increasingly used to the Democrats' peril (see Durbin, Richard).

But we're right and they're wrong, the harpers of the right contend. And we are right and they are wrong. But if there's a class of people with a greater gap between what they think is a good idea politically and what is than bloggers, I don't know what it is, and that's a bipartisan assessment.

I'm not saying that we should all just shut up and continue to let the Republican leadership continue to borrow-and-spend with nary a word said. I share many of the frustrations. And to be honest, I'm not entirely sure what to do about them. But the sense of entitlement is unbecoming and the Kos Method is winless in all its attempts. I'd like to think that there is a way that does more than just blow off steam and wash hands clean of ideological impurity.

Update: There seems to be a little confusion. I'm not telling anyone that they don't have a right to express their opinion. Especially not the libertarian right, where I could somewhat accurately be placed.

Those that have done a good amount of heavy lifting for the party have every right to be irate. Those that have stood by the president and actively supported his campaign (despite whatever reservations they had personally) have bought in. That's not to say that they should always get what they want, but they've a right to expectations.

What I'm talking about are those that distance themselves from the party whenever convenient. I'm talking about those that make a point not to sully themselves with the compromise that politics requires. Those that don't even try to understand. When you start to run purity tests that no electable politician could pass, you're excused yourself from realtime politics. Don't be surprised when you're not consulted when political decisions are made.

I understand the frustration, though, and I share it. There's a good chance that I'll be voting Democrat in the 2006 House elections. I've all but stopped boosting the party on this site. But by doing so I recognize that by not being a team player, I'm not really a part of the team. Being in a free country and all that, I'm certainly free to complain about the current leadership's shortcomings. But my views on the issues alone do not entitle me to the Republican Party caring.

Note: This post was written Friday. I'm not sure how it ended up in my Drafts folder.

I did this once before. This may become a feature, I don't know. But every now and again I'll read IMDB's Movie & TV News, as I did today, and have something to say on a couple items.

Socialite Paris Hilton's ex-fiance Paris Latsis has praised the hotel heiress for deciding to end their four-month engagement. Reality TV star Hilton, 24, and Greek shipping heir Latsis, 22, became engaged in May after a five month courtship and spent the summer in Europe hunting for wedding venues. However, in the past few weeks Hilton realized the couple were too young and released a statement over the weekend confirming the nuptials were canceled. In response to Hilton's statement, shy Latsis has stepped forward to praise The Simple Life star for her decision. He says, "She is the most incredible woman I have ever met in my life. I respect her decision and appreciate the very kind and generous manner in which she is handling her very difficult decision. This was the best experience of my life and I will always be grateful for it."

Sometimes, when you read these things, you forget that these are real people. Then you remember that not only are these real people, but that they're really thinking these thoughts. And that this is real life stuff for these people. Then you get depressed until you can forget again so that you can go back to making Paris Hilton sex tape jokes.

Film hunk George Clooney is abandoning comedy to concentrate on serious and political movies After making his Hollywood name playing suave lotharios and conmen in lighthearted movies, Clooney is keen to show a more serious side to his acting abilities. New movies Syriana, about the Cold War, and Good Night, And Good Luck, about a journalist's attempt to bring down Senator Joe McCarthy, signal the start of Clooney's new outlook. He says, "I'm working on projects that I want to raise a debate about. I'm interested in films of the 1960s and 1970s that were political. They were born out of the civil rights, Vietnam war, and women's rights movements. I feel it's a good time to have the entertainment community start asking questions again."

Didn't Clooney say just a couple days ago that Hollywood types should stop talking politics because it's pissing people off? Eh, the distinction between making a lamebrained comment to a reporter and putting millions of dollars of investment into making a point on the screen is significant. Keeping it on the screen is probably a good policy.

Former Taxi star Tony Danza is far from impressed with Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes' baby news - because they're having a child out of wedlock. The Hollywood couple, who became engaged in June after two months of dating, announced they're expecting their first child together on Wednesday. Danza is bemused by Cruise's behavior and believes his recent attack on Brooke Shields' decision to take medication for her postpartum depression was hypocritical considering the Mission: Impossible star is now living his own life with questionable morality. The talk show host says, "I'm a little upset about this. Here's a guy out there lecturing people about drugs, but out of wedlock births don't seem to bother him. He's never (appearing on) my show, so it doesn't matter." He adds, "I'm happy for them, but we're going to send them to Maury Povich's show for a DNA test."

As per their ongoing policy, I fully expect certain Republicans to claim Danza as one of their own and anything said against him of proof as to Hollywood's intolerance for conservatives. Snark aside, though, my first thought upon hearing the news was wondering what the often-moralistic Scientologists think about premarital sex.

Step One: Isolate your target

Example 1: Bill Clinton is bad.
Example 2: Trent Lott is bad.
Example 3: Tom Delay is bad.

Step Two: Try to muster consensus with independents and honest opposition by assuaging accusations of partisanship by explaining that this particular target is a particularly bad example and not just someone with whom you disagree with on the issues.

Example 1: Bill Clinton is exceptionally dishonest, even for a bad politician, as evidenced by his lying about getting nookie in the Oval Office.
Example 2: Trent Lott is a particularly odious man whose racism cannot be denied in light of his comments at Strom Thurmond's retirement party.
Example 3: Tom Delay is an especially corrupt congressman as evidenced by his indictment and these other accusations.

Step Three: Reverse course from Step Two and frame said person's replacement in same manner.

Example 1: Algore lied about inventing the Internet, ergo he cannot be trusted with the Presidency.
Example 2: Bill Frist is just as bad because he spoke for this one group that shares a mailing list with this other group that has a member in it that belongs to the KKK.
Example 3: Roy Blunt is bad, too, he just hasn't been indicted yet.

Step Four: Use whatever goodwill consensus achieved earlier to score purely political points.

Example 1: Democrats are a bunch of immoral, two-faced, flip-flopping liars, as evidenced by Bill Clinton.
Example 2: Republicans are the party of racism, how else can someone like Trent Lott make his way to a leadership role?
Example 3: Republicans in the House are extraordinarily corrupt, as evidenced by their giving Tom Delay a leadership position.

The Guardian is giddy at the prospect of the Internet's control being moved from the US to the UN:

A number of countries represented in Geneva, including Brazil, China, Cuba, Iran and several African states, insisted the US give up control, but it refused. The meeting "was going nowhere", Hendon says, and so the EU took a bold step and proposed two stark changes: a new forum that would decide public policy, and a "cooperation model" comprising governments that would be in overall charge.

Much to the distress of the US, the idea proved popular. Its representative hit back, stating that it "can't in any way allow any changes" that went against the "historic role" of the US in controlling the top level of the internet.

But the refusal to budge only strengthened opposition, and now the world's governments are expected to agree a deal to award themselves ultimate control. It will be officially raised at a UN summit of world leaders next month and, faced with international consensus, there is little the US government can do but acquiesce.

I'm a little confused to be honest. What kept popping up in my head while reading the article was "... or what?" and "... because why?"

The US will have to acquiesce... because why?

The US will have to bow to an international consensus... or what?

The basic question is what can happen if the US says "No"? Will the rest of the world pull out of the Internet and do its own? Will they take the servers with military force? If they don't get what they want, what leverage do they have? Stern disapproval doesn't count. I can't think of any and the article didn't mention any. And without leverage, I don't think even President Clinton would give in, much less President Bush.

So the article failed in one of two ways. Either it did not adequately explain what leverage the UN has over the US or it presupposed an outcome where none was imminent.

Update: Declan McCullagh provides considerably more background. The primary fear here is indeed a fracturing of the Internet (or, as I put it, the UN "starting its own"). The danger here to us is that since all of the servers are not located in the US, other nations could redirect theirs to the UN, which would force us to lose the universality of current addresses and locations.

"Excuse the self-reference, but a few weeks ago I was in a departure lounge at Toronto airport watching passengers deplane from an arriving flight. Fully one third were jawing away on cell phones while still on the walkway and before they even entered the terminal. As it was 6:30 pm on a Friday evening, it was hard to believe they were fulfilling office duties. Twenty years ago, they would all have been lighting up cigarettes, but we would have recognized that for what it was. My thoroughly depressing thought was that uncomfortable, crowded commuter flights have replaced chapels and taverns as refuges for contemplation.[...] We spend a lot of time here defending freedom, democracy and family against statism and the self-regarding life. Are there darker and more intractable issues beneath? Is it possible for a society to be free, self-reliant and resilient when solitude and contemplation have been completely destroyed and when life consists of fevered multi-tasking from dawn to dusk, broken only by desperate attempts to escape it in the most uncomfortable, controlled venues?" -Peter Burnet

If you're not reading the Ten Second News (on the left bar or here), you're missing a significant chunk of my output. Same thing if you're not reading the headlines.

Conservatives are salivating at the prospect of the upcoming documentary Inside the Bubble (trailer), which details the Kerry campaigns. I actually look forward to it myself, for reasons both noble (a look in to our political process) and ignoble (watching a lot of self-delusional Kerry boosters confidently coast to defeat).

One thing that stands out in some of the comments about the movie is a seen in the trailer where John Kerry is talking to himself while prepping for a debate. He's sort of practicing expressions and tone. Mostly he's just bored and waiting, though. I find it odd that some people have chosen this part to demonstrate how goofy John Kerry is. Or how much a phony he is.
It reminds me of a couple weeks back when the media read in on a note that President Bush passed on to Secretary of State Rice, informing her that he could use a restroom break and inquiring as to the feasibility of said break (using shorter and more direct language). This got a lot of play on the left because... well... because I guess it's a little bit weird thinking of the leader of the free world needing to take a potty break. A couple made remarks about how this may be indicative of how much he was paying attention to the context of the meetings (and that he's stupid ha ha ha).

I find this all quite bizarre. Presidents and presidential candidates, as they say, put on their pants one leg at a time like the rest of us. They need potty breaks and they get bored. They also get excited in a rocket hatch. Truth be told, I found the Kerry scene to be a bit endearing. It seemed like a quick piercing through the role he was playing during the campaign (and all candidates play a "role" during campaigns).

The rest of it, though, looks like a lot of fun from this cold-hearted Republican's point-of-view.

Wandering through the Washington Post the other day, I happened across an interesting article/opinion column (not sure how to classify it) on Israel's pullout from Gaza.
It was interesting to start with, not because anything in it was unexpected, but because it was written by a Palestinian.

Re-read it a couple times. Much of the "woe is us" mentality readily apparent. Much of the standard variety blame games. One bit struck me:

I ask him about the job creation programs sponsored by the Palestinian Authority and some international organizations. These temporary, low-paying jobs are just "painkillers," Ala'a said; they're mostly useful "just to keep people's mouths shut." Ala'a is a supporter of Hamas because its Islamic charities provide food, education and medical services to many refugee families here. "Hamas provides not only political alternatives, but economic ones also," he says.

Much has been made by politicians grandstanding on the Israeli/Palestinian issue on the so-called "cycle of violence", in which they claim that one side or the other (usually, Israel) is required to simply sit back and take repeated attacks on the chin as a "gesture of good faith", because the other side will always "respond" to an attack. Many times it's also used as an epithet trying to emphasize how sad things are in the region.

Allow me to put forth another version of the "cycle of violence", one which makes more sense to me. It works like this: Hamas gets up in the morning and hates Israel. Hates Israel so much, in fact, that killing Israelis is secondary to the livelihood of the Palestinian people.

So Hamas gets up and shoots a few rockets at Israel, sends in a few suicide bombers, shouts Allahu Akbar a few times, and before you know it there's dancing in the streets and someone's passing out candies to kids because they "struck a blow" by lobbing in ordnance that killed random Israeli civilians. And a few hours later, wouldn't you know, Israeli troops are lobbing missiles back or coming through the streets looking for the terrorists (Hamas) who are responsible. And since there's been a suicide bombing and rocket attack, Israel locks down their border, and goods don't flow, and workers can't cross over.

And so in a day or so, Palestinians are miserable. They don't have jobs anymore, the money supply dries up. People get hungry. And Hamas comes back, because they see an opportunity. They can hand out a few loaves of bread, shout "we are protecting you from the Occupation", fire their guns into the air, and gain popularity. And they repeat the process: shoot the Israelis, make sure the border stays closed up or locked down, or at least on heightened security, let the people starve, come by with a few loaves of bread, give a sermon about how Hamas are "saving" the Palestinian people...

Nevermind that had Hamas not attacked in the first place, the Palestinians would still have jobs, would not be worrying about Israeli missiles or troops, and would be eating real meals rather than the lousy loaf of bread Hamas is handing out. Because by this point, all the Palestinians have been fed for years is the Hamas propaganda.

That's the cycle of violence in a nutshell. A really cynical ploy, based on keeping Palestinians down for the political goals of Hamas - because the last thing Hamas or any of the other terrorist groups needs, even the Palestinian Authority themselves, is a HAPPY Palestinian populace.

However, in anticipation of one comment: no, the common suggestion doesn't work. It doesn't work for Israel to just leave their border open. Why? Because if they do, we're going to see more buses bombed and more innocents killed by suicide bombers. And they have every right to do what they can to keep their own citizenry alive.