Monthly Archives: October 2007

Friday QuickTakes

Posted on by

A semi-random collection of thoughts too brief by themselves for a solo blog entry:

I remain appalled by Turkey’s near complete denial that a mass killing of Armenians even took place almost a century ago. Turkey’s objection to whether or not it is called a genocide is almost beside the point (see this NYT article). It is too reminiscent of Holocaust denials (which sadly also remain in the news thanks to, among others, Iran’s President) and is just as disgusting. Still, doesn’t the U.S. Congress have more important things to worry about than whether or not to call this chapter of history a genocide? Especially so given the political headaches it is causing? This is one of those rare occasions where I actually agree with Bush’s position.

I haven’t yet seen the new documentary “My Kid Could Paint That.” From the reviews I have read, however, it appears to raise some intriguing questions. Is a 4-year-old capable of producing quality abstract art? If so, what does this say about our definition of such art? What really separates the wheat from the chaff in this arena? The film also raises the question of whether or not Marla received help in producing her art. What the film apparently does not address (although it is of interest to me) is: Why should it matter whether or not Marla received help? If it is a great work of art, shouldn’t it remain a great work of art whoever created it? Or has Marla already become like Picasso. A Picasso painting would turn out to be worth a lot less if it were discovered that it was painted by someone else. In such cases, the value of the work is more due to who created it than the merits of the work itself.

On the face of it, the idea that we may bomb Iran before next year’s Presidential election seems too crazy to be true. With support for the President’s war in Iraq at an all-time low and continuing to fall still further, with the public finally aware of how many lies it has been fed to fuel support for this war, how can Bush even think about getting away with starting yet another Mideast war? Yet, people are taking this prospect seriously. Even worse, many Democrats seem unwilling to vigorously oppose the idea. Hillary Clinton is one of these Democrats (see this NYT column). Democrats in Congress are not much better. They now seem poised to give immunity to the telecommunications companies that assisted Bush in his illegal wiretapping program, another component of his “war on terror.” Is it too soon to say “A pox on both their houses”?

Enough already with America’s anti-attitude towards any new tax. It’s time for it to end. To those of you are wealthy enough to pay an increased tax without any financial burden, I say: “What is with you? Isn’t it enough that you can already afford to fly on a private jet, own three multi-million dollar homes, and take vacations that cost more than most people make in a lifetime? How about also supporting a tax increase to pay for some truly valuable government programs?” And to those with a much more moderate income who still resent any additional dollar given to the government, I say: “Not every tax increase is a bad idea. The government pays for all sorts of things that you support, from police to schools to roads. It is underfunded in key areas that you probably favor, including drug oversight by the FDA and telecommunications oversight by the FCC. We could use more money to fight the effects of global warming. And how about better health care? None of this is free. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you want the government to do more, at some point you have to pay more.” Now is that point.

A lesson for progressive Democrats?

Posted on by

James Dobson has a column in today’s New York Times where he states that, at a meeting of 50 pro-family groups, a decision was made: “If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate.” He further adds: “The other approach, which I find problematic, is to choose a candidate according to the likelihood of electoral success or failure. Polls don’t measure right and wrong; voting according to the possibility of winning or losing can lead directly to the compromise of one’s principles.”

I don’t agree with Dobson’s position on abortion (or on much else for that matter). But I do admire his political drawing of the line here. It forced me to take another look at my own views on this matter.

Taking such a hard line entails two very huge risks. Let’s start by assuming that whatever third party candidate you endorse is going to lose. Either the Republican or Democratic candidate will win anyway. That said, there are two possible outcomes. On the surface, neither of the outcomes would be welcome.

The first is that the candidate of the party you would of otherwise endorsed (Republicans in the case of Dobson) wins anyway. If this happens, you run the risk of marginalizing yourself. The party sees that they can win without your support, indeed with your active opposition, The result is that your future influence is seriously eroded.

The other outcome is that, because of your shift to a third party, the party you would have otherwise endorsed loses. In Dobson’s case, this means the Democrats win. The risk for Dobson here is that he winds up putting someone in the White House who, on issues other than the key issue of abortion, disagrees with him far more than the Republican candidate does.

The Democrats faced this exact situation in 2000 when Ralph Nader, as the candidate of the Green Party, siphoned off enough votes from disgruntled Democrats, that Bush won. Although some dispute whether or not Nader’s candidacy altered the result, it remains a commonly held belief. The result was that, among mainline Democrats, Nader and his supporters were vilified. “If it wasn’t for you, there would have been no Bush and no invasion of Iraq…” And so on.

But perhaps mainline Democrats took the wrong spin here. Perhaps they should have said: “If we moved our positions closer to those of the Green Party on key issues, Nader would have not gotten so many votes. We would still have retained our votes and we would have won!”

What I like about this alternative spin is that it fosters change. If you get too frightened by the dual risks of going with a third party, and abandon the option under any circumstances, the two major political parties lose the incentive to respond to any concerns outside their comfort zone. You wind up getting a candidate like John Kerry, whom many Democrats supported reluctantly because they thought he could win rather than because they were excited at the prospect of him winning. And he lost anyway.

Maybe progressive Democrats could take a lesson from Dobson here. What we may need, if and when we are not satisfied with the party’s candidate, is not less support for third parties but more support. Sometimes you really do need to draw a line.

Clarence Thomas on Nightline

Posted on by

I watched Nightline’s interview with Clarence Thomas the other night. Mr. Thomas should be embarrassed to have given that interview. If he had any wisdom, he would request that all copies of it be destroyed. I know that Mr. Thomas sees it differently. He’s written a book describing how differently he sees it. That’s the problem.

Never mind that he once again asserts that Anita Hill was lying in her testimony, even though he offered no evidence to back this up. Indeed, at the time of his hearings and even now, it makes no sense to me why Anita Hill would subject herself to the public wringer that she went through if there was no truth in what she was saying. Maybe I am naive, but I believe her testimony more than I believe Thomas’s protestations. [By the way, you can read Ms. Hills’ reply to Thomas here.]

The real problem however is not Anita Hill. It is that, in the interview, Thomas revealed himself to be so bogged down in his own prejudices that it is hard to imagine how he can ever deliver a fair and reasoned ruling.

First, he blames everything bad that ever happened to him, and most especially the problems he had getting confirmed, on racism. Thomas sees every slight as a racial insult. If he gets the wrong change at a restaurant, it must be because the waitress is a racist.

Now, I am white and I readily admit that I can never fully understand the currents of racism that are felt by those of color. But come on! Assuming you go with the conservative interpretation of history (which I assume Thomas does), the same thing that happened to him happened to Judge Robert Bork. In fact, it was worse; Bork did not even wind up with an appointment to the court. Bork’s very name has become a verb to describe the sort of political manuveuring that can shoot down a nomination. And, guess what? Bork isn’t black. Racism did not figure into the Bork process any more than it was a significant factor in the opposition to Thomas. Thomas sees his opposition as a coordinated racist conspiracy (even when some of his opposition came from African American groups) rather than groups of people that opposed him on ideological grounds that had nothing to do with race.

Second, he describes “liberals” (which, according to Thomas, includes pretty much anyone and everyone who opposed his nomination) as worse racists than “Southerners.” This is a pretty broad stroke to paint. Especially so when you consider than the political left wing has been at the forefront of the civil rights movement from its very beginnings. The venom with which he speaks leads me to believe that there is a likely revenge motive in his rulings. “Take that, you liberals…” I imagine he says to himself when voting on a decision. “You may have conspired to prevent my appointment. But I made it to the court anyway. And I have the rest of my life to do my best to make sure that no Supreme Court ruling ever goes your way.”

Not exactly the sort of attitude you hope to see in a Supreme Court justice. To me, his interview does nothing to repair his reputation. It only serves to confirm why he never should have been appointed to the court in the first place.