<$BlogRSDURL$>
Friday, May 28, 2004

Daschle and Herseth 

The Daschle v. Thune blog has some interesting comments on the relationship between Daschle and Stephanie Herseth, the Democratic candidate in the June 1st special election for South Dakota's house seat.

Republicans and energy independence 

Kerry's speech in Seattle might have been less than inspiring, but the Republican response was pretty funny:

Republicans also complained that if Kerry wants to end America's dependence on Mideast oil, he should support opening Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, which he opposes.

"His solution is to make families drive around in small, unsafe cars," Virginia Sen. George Allen said on a Republican conference call to respond to Kerry's speech in Seattle.

This one really made me laugh. The amount of economically recoverable oil in the ANWR (i.e. oil that can be profitably extracted and sold) is estimated at 5 billion barrels. By comparison, total U.S. oil consumption is 19.7 million barrels per day. When you work this out, there is enough oil in the ANWR to power the country for approximately eight months. Sure, drilling in the ANWR could bring us energy independence -- eight months of it.

I am not necessarily opposed to drilling in the ANWR if it could be shown to have minimal environmental impact; but to claim that drilling in the ANWR would solve the problem of energy independence is like saying that giving a meal to one starving child solves world hunger. The problem completely dwarfs the proposed solution. When you consider that those in favor of drilling point out that "the Coastal Plain of ANWR is America's best possibility for the discovery of another giant `Prudhoe Bay-sized' oil and gas discovery in North America," and even this "best possibility" would only power the country for an estimated eight months, conservation starts to look like a pretty good idea. That's where those "small, unsafe cars" come in.
Thursday, May 27, 2004

Kerry's latest policy speech 

The headline Kerry outlines global mission for U.S. is misleading to say the least. The Bush campaign wasn't far off the mark in saying that Kerry's latest policy speech offered "nothing new in terms of substance." Just more of the same calls for renewed alliances and multilateralism: "Alliances matter... we can't simply go it alone... working with other countries is not a sign of weakness; it's a sign of strength." Okay, already. We've heard this a hundred times. Alliances won't magically fix our problems in Iraq. How is Kerry going to get us out of this mess?

There are good reasons for Kerry not to go into specifics on Iraq policy. Proposing a specific policy that he is powerless to implement, and which will likely become irrelevant as conditions on the ground change, is just inviting political criticism. Specific proposals would just give the attack dogs more grit to sink their teeth into. But knowing this doesn't make it any easier to listen to the same tired old line about alliances for the ninety-ninth time. Not only does it make Kerry sound boring, it makes him sound far too negative. If Kerry won't propose a constructive vision of his own, there's not much ground to cover other than Bush's failures. Sure, that's a vast territory, but it's important to have a positive vision in addition to criticism.

Kerry's unwillingness to go into details about Iraq policy seems to be part of a larger strategy of staying quiet while Bush digs his own grave. So far, that strategy is succeeding admirably. But I'd be amazed if Kerry can coast on Bush's failures all the way to November without ever having to outline a specific foreign policy vision of his own. And frankly, I'd feel a lot better if I knew that Kerry had a plan for how to get us out of this mess in Iraq. Kerry is a good enough politician to know that it can be dangerous to come out and take a stand. But great politicians know that sometimes you have to take a stand.
Thursday, May 13, 2004

The California Patriot 

It's gotten to the point where the word "patriot" immediately makes me suspicious. So when someone tries to hand me a magazine called The California Patriot as I'm walking down Sproul Plaza, it's with a bit of wariness that I reach out my hand to take a copy. It turns out that The California Patriot is "Berkeley's conservative student voice." As you can imagine, Berkeley Republicans are an exceedingly rare and exotic breed of political animal. Most of the articles were good for a few laughs. I learned how diversity programs are actually racist, and how country music is "a genre not afraid to embrace American values." The entire issue can be found online here. But I'm sorry to say that one article wasn't funny. In fact, it was disturbing.

In a piece titled "Rules of Engagement," subtitled "Left capitalizes on brutal attacks," one Errol Tremolada tries to make the case that "the anti-war crowd" was happy that four American contractors were mutilated, killed, and dragged through the streets of Fallujah on March 31st. I'm not even going to touch that part of his argument. What bothers me is Mr. Tremolada's attempt to contrast this crime with the behavior of American troops:

This kind of action is not war, nor was it done for any reason other than the opportunity to rejoice in death. It is nothing the American soldier would ever do or of which he would approve. The American soldiers and civilians in Iraq are not there to torture and mar their opponents or demonstrate total disregard for human life...

Our prisoners of war are fed, clothed, sheltered, and never threatened with barbaric death or gratuitous violence.

If only that were the case. Evidently this article was written before the stories of the Taguba report hit the press. But the article appears in the May 2004 edition of the magazine, and was handed to me yesterday afternoon. It might have seemed reasonable at the time it was written, but in the present context this article is just offensive. The insensitivity shown by The California Patriot's editors in allowing this piece to go to press helps explain why "Berkeley's conservative student voice" remains such a pariah on campus.

New Ohio poll 

From American Research Group:

Bush 43% Kerry 50%

Bush 42% Kerry 49% Nader 2%

Strangely enough, Kerry is polling significantly better in Ohio than Pennsylvania. Unlike Pennsylvania, Ohio has whole cities that are culturally conservative (Cincinnati). My simplistic comparison of Ohio and Pennsylvania demographics: Cleveland=Pittsburgh (rust-belt union city trying to modernize, votes Democratic but not overwhelmingly so); rural Ohio = "the T" (middle section of Pennsylvania which Carville famously likened to "Alabama"). What's left? Philadelphia and Cincinnati. Which one is more liberal? So my conclusion is, a Democratic presidential candidate should have an easier time winning Pennsylvania than Ohio. But that's not what the polls are showing. Maybe someone more familiar with these two states can offer an explanation.
Wednesday, May 12, 2004

Marginally competitive states 

Today's NY Times has a good article on how the campaigns are focusing on marginally competitive states: Kerry recently spent $2 million on ad buys in Colorado and Louisiana; Bush is advertising in Delaware and might try for New Jersey. The list will probably get smaller after the conventions, but no one wants to repeat Gore's mistake of abandoning viable states like Ohio and West Virginia. The Gore campaign gave these up as unwinnable, but they turned out to be close enough that campaigning and advertising could have made up the difference.

Reform Party endorses Nader 

Ross Perot's Reform Party endorsed Ralph Nader today, which assures Nader ballot access in seven states, including Michigan and Florida. This article claims he will also get ballot access in Wisconsin.
Sunday, May 09, 2004

Prison abuse in the U.S. 

(via Josh Marshall) NY times columnist Fox Butterfield compares what happened at Abu Ghraib in Iraq to the routine mistreatment of prisoners here in the U.S. In fact, some of the same people may be responsible:

The man who directed the reopening of the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq last year and trained the guards there resigned under pressure as director of the Utah Department of Corrections in 1997 after an inmate died while shackled to a restraining chair for 16 hours. The inmate, who suffered from schizophrenia, was kept naked the whole time.

The Utah official, Lane McCotter, later became an executive of a private prison company, one of whose jails was under investigation by the Justice Department when he was sent to Iraq.

"Private prison company"? I had no idea these existed. Another wonderful libertarian idea.
Saturday, May 08, 2004

What Geneva Convention? 

One of the soldiers charged in the prison abuse investigation says she never even saw a copy of the Geneva Convention until after she was charged:

One of the seven soldiers facing possible court martial for abusing detainees revealed that she did not read, or even see, a copy of the Geneva Convention until two months after she was charged. Specialist Sabrina Harman, 26, said she now understood that it was regularly breached at Abu Ghraib....

The claims made by Harman, who is confined to quarters in Baghdad awaiting trial, contradict US army assurances that all soldiers are familiar with the Geneva Convention.

Back to blogging 

I've finished my two big projects for the semester, which means more time for blogging. It's amazing how quickly things change in politics. Turned on NPR yesterday after a week of not following the news, and the first thing I heard was "President Bush apologized today..." That sure got my attention. Then I'm biking down Shattuck and glance over at the news stands to catch the headline "Democrats demand Rumsfeld's resignation." Time for some catching up.
Back to the Odd Hours main page
© 2004 Odd Hours
Reproduction permitted provided Odd Hours or the author of the quoted post is credited.