1) I don't trust the Democrats on national defense.
2) I don't trust the Democrats on the Federal budget and big government (and state intervention)
4) The Democrats are not committed to the values of the American Founders as enumerated in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
5) The role of religion in public life. (one can't really separate religion from culture)
6) Regional prejudices. Probably the least rational of my reasons not to be a Democrat: I strongly identify with the American South in my cultural sympathies.

Why am I posting this? As a gratuitous assault upon the Democratic Party? Well, maybe a little. But mostly to explain why, despite my many, many problems with the present-day Republican Party, I can't swap sides.

Could I ever imagine myself becoming a conservative? Probably not, and here's why:

1.) The Elitism Of The Right. The American right thrives on an exclusionary, splintering principle.
2.) The Theocrats. Government has [no] business whatsoever in religion beyond ensuring the free private exercise thereof.
3.) Economics. Tax cuts are not an economic policy. Tax cuts are all the Republican Party has.
4.) Foreign Policy. The use of force should be rare, justified, and broadly supported.
5.) Race. Republicans have no constructive solutions to racial problems in America besides getting rid of the meager stopgap programs already in place and arbitrarily declaring America a true meritocracy.
6.) Personal Freedom and Big Government. Elements of the right would deny people religious, social, cultural, and sexual freedoms that the government has no right whatsoever to interfere in, while simultaneously denying the government even the basic right to govern economic activity as laid out and demanded in the Constitution.

There are more, minor issues, but these are my main qualms with the Republican Party, and until they're fixed, I'm voting Democrat/liberal.

WMD emphasis was 'bureaucratic'


The decision to highlight weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for going to war in Iraq was taken for "bureaucratic reasons", according to the US deputy defence secretary.
But in an interview with the American magazine Vanity Fair, Paul Wolfowitz said there were many other important factors as well.

The famously hawkish Mr Wolfowitz has been a long-time proponent of military action against Iraq.

Picking weapons of mass destruction was "the one reason everyone could agree on", he says in the interview.

The other factor he describes as "huge" was that an attack would allow the US to pull its troops from Saudi Arabia, thereby resolving a major grievance held by al-Qaeda.

"Just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to a more peaceful Middle East," Mr Wolfowitz is quoted as saying.

Last month, the US announced it was pulling most of its troops out of the country.

The BBC's Ian Pannell in Washington says that although Mr Wolfowitz's remarks will be seized upon by critics who claim there was little justification for the war in Iraq, it is unlikely to have any political consequences in the US.

All opinion polls show most Americans are unconcerned about the failure so far to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Speaking earlier this week, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claimed Iraq may have destroyed them before the US-led invasion.

[How] do you explain the following situation: the House Majority Leader was directly and intimately involved in activities that are now the subject of investigations by two cabinet departments and grand jury proceedings in Texas. Yet Washington is still barely paying the matter any attention. How do you explain that?

Both major political parties breed their own brand of populism. The major fringe parties for the most part also run on a platform of populism - in a two-party, polarized system where you're battling over the same electorate, no party can afford not to embrace populism as a political tool. Bush ran as a politician with center-right populist principles and governs as a rightist populist. Gore ran as a center-left populist, and would have governed as a center-left populist. When the Republican party was viewed as anti-populist because of its stance towards favoring businessmen over workers, they switched to the talking points of "small businessmen" and "job creation". Politics ceased to be a battle of the populists versus the elite a long time ago - now, it's a battle of warring populisms cascading over the apparatus of government.

Populism is the window dressing of American policy, becoming as meaningless in real terms as patriotism is with regard to describing any actual distinction between mainstream political ideologies. They're rhetorical clubs wielded with varying degrees of skill by the various spinsters and politicians of the present day, but all they are is clubs, blunt, graceless weapons unsuited to the business of running the intricate machine that is the American government.

UES, US, ME. I took my usual Saturday afternoon walk through the Upper East Side today and had all sorts of thoughts about the neighborhood. One of my first jobs in the City was as a waiter in a now-defunct UES bistro called Daly's Daffodil. That place is a story or twelve in itself (ask me sometime about our three-hundred pound night manager, who would get drunk on Bushmill's every night; we used to pop Irish songs on the jukebox at about 10 pm just to get him roaring along with "Danny Boy," and to get the customers to complain about him). I loathed the district then. I hated its obnoxious wealth. (I was poor.) Moreover, I hated the style of that wealth -- still blow-dried and flair-legged, even in the late 70s, a redoubt of Farrah Fawcett-Majors gloss and cocaine-burnished insouciance in the middle of a City that was still sweatily thrashing its way out of financial default.


In later years, still poor, I took a perverse liking to the Upper East Side, mainly because it was out of style. The mass exodus of otherwise sober youngsters to the hipper precincts downtown (and the more spacious digs to the west) left the place in the custody of dowagers with thick makeup, dazed middle-agers in minks and $500 sport jackets who had not fucked off to the suburbs (or were fucking mistresses or rent boys during the gaps in their appointment books), and young preppies who aped their style and got vomiting drunk each weekend in frat bars along First Avenue. I began also to visually appreciate the queer mix of scrubbed brick townhouses and the blank-faced, modernist architectural abortions that tycoons had placed among them in the 60s and 70s, when they thought the zeitgeist would roll like river branches through their canyons for eternity. Everything was just a little stale and out of mode, though washed each morning with money and daubed with Floris cologne. That, in my jaundiced eye, gave it character. And if that wasn't character enough, you could always go to the Germantown enclave and get some boiled meat, liver dumpling soup, and glass boots full of Weiss beer


Now the Upper East Side is still rich, and its residents still strive to present themselves accordingly. Even their goth granddaughters spend a ton on their dour threads. But what has changed is this: so does everyone else. Even the hippest of hipsters in the hippest of hip nabes drops a wad on his or her dishabbile. Style points vary from geography to geography, but the instinct is the same: if I buy this, I will fit. Which was also true back when, in some places, it cost twenty bucks to fit. But when there's a serious investment at stake, fashion becomes desperation. And that sort of desperation is more far-ranging than once it was.


So of course I don't hate the Upper East Side anymore. How could I? It's just like everywhere else, even though it may be easier for its people to be that way than it is for most.


And, as it happens, the City is still sweatily thrashing its way out of financial default. And, as it happens, so am I.


And Germantown is gone.

THE MISSING WMD....THEORY XVII....Über-hawk Kenneth Adelman offers up yet another possible explanation for the missing WMD:

"It's just very strange," said Kenneth Adelman, a member of a Pentagon advisory board who had predicted weapons would be found a month ago. "There will certainly not be the quantity and proximity that we thought of before." Adelman says Hussein may even have launched "a massive disinformation campaign to make the world think he was violating international norms, and he may not have been."

The weird thing is that I might even buy this theory if I had a couple of drinks in me. The idea that Saddam no longer had WMD but couldn't stand the thought of fessing up to this — well, it kinda fits his personality, doesn't it? He just had to be the biggest, meanest kid on the block. And who knows? Being the out of touch guy that he is (was?), maybe he never believed that we'd actually invade.

No Political Fallout for Bush on Weapons

President Bush appears to be in no political danger from the failure to find chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in Iraq, with Democrats reluctant to challenge Bush on any aspect of the war and polls showing Americans unconcerned about weapons discoveries.

Senator James Jeffords (I-VT):
“As the Independent Senator from Vermont, I have worked with Governor Howard Dean and I know his long-standing record. I am disappointed to see leaders of the Democratic Leadership Council characterize his positions as extreme and elitist, and I call on them to stop their divisive tactics. Since when did it become extreme and elitist to balance the budget, extend health care coverage, offer equal educational opportunity and protect our environment? I have heard such charges coming from Republicans most of my political life, but I find it incredible to hear such charges coming from Democrats."

Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT):
“Lumping Governor Dean with the so-called “liberal elitist” wing of our party will make Vermonters of all political stripes chuckle Governor Dean’s twelve year record in the statehouse was not liberal, conservative or elitist. He inherited a deficit, balanced the budget, pinched pennies, provided healthcare to all Vermont’s children, protected the environment and created jobs. That is a record of accomplishment, achieved with the broad support of Republicans and Democrats in Vermont.”

Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA):
“When I go home every weekend, my constituents talk to me about health care, education and the economy. Dr. Howard Dean has an outstanding record of achievement in all of these areas. As governor, 96% of Vermont’s children had health coverage, and an additional 3% were eligible. He passed fiscally responsible budgets each and every year. He built a strong educational system, and as a result, Vermont’s students rank 6th in the country in overall performance. Dr. Dean’s record is one that ALL Democrats can be proud of.

Dear Sir,

I have made this contact to you with the hope that you can help me out in this
my dilemma / problem. I was the personal aide to the Iraqi minister of education
and research. Dr Abd Al-khaliq Gafar. That died in the war. Before the war, we
had traveled to France to negotiate a contract payment deal on behalf of the
Iraqi government on procurement and payment of educational materials and
components for the ministry, which entailed him to pay off our customers by cash
for onward delivery of the goods via Turkey. Because of international / UN
monetary restrictions /sanction on Iraqi. Since our entire operating bank
accounts had been frozen.

In gust of this he had cleverly diverted this sum ($28.5m) for himself and
secured it properly with a security vault in Spain for safekeeping. As he had
kept these documents in hidden and secret with my knowledge. Now that he is Dead
and I was able to escape to Egypt for safety on political asylum with this
document with me now. Hence I am left with these problems of how to recover and
collect this fund for re-invest in a viable venture in your country with your
assistance and cooperation. Because of oblivious traveling restricts and
sanctions as an Iraqi.

I would really want us to do this deal together if only you can be trusted with
this information and project. For more details do reach me via my direct email :
mustapha_el@mail2guard.com for further instructions and details. I most remind
you that my entire life depends on this fund so please do not relay this top
secret to a third party if you are not interested.

I await you immediate response.

Remain Blessed.

Regards
El - Mustapha .

It's also a bit bizarre to see a conservative saying things like "just as conservatives must remember the limits of government, libertarians must understand the importance of virtue." Well, for one, some of the alleged conservative virtues are highly overrated and stultifying. But there are plenty—prudence, commitment to one's (chosen) community, fidelity to loved ones—that I've never known libertarians to deny. We just don't see a role for the state in promoting them. The notion that libertarians don't "understand the importance of virtue" if we don't want a federal program to promote it is as misguided as the ready inference some liberals make that if we're not prepared to enforce redistribution and federal antidiscrimination laws, we're in favor of poverty and racism.

DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE: I should have expected - but didn't - the headlines around the world this morning trumpeting the "resurgence" of al-Qaeda."Al Qaeda May Be Back, and Stronger" shouts the LA Times. "Al-Qaeda Thrives Where Roots Began" says the Philadelphia Inquirer. The BBC has a round up of more media breathlessness.

I'm sorry but I just don't see it. Al-Qaeda hasn't done much of anything in the last 18 months - except get rolled up by anti-terror police forces around the world. I don't want to make light of the fact that 25 people just perished in a terror attack, but it would seem to me that if America and the West are al-Qaeda's main targets and the best they can manage is blowing up a couple of trucks full of C-4 in downtown Riyadh, then I'd say that's a sign of their weakness, not their strength. A more accurate headline would read, "Riyadh Bombing Desperate Act of Crumbling Terrorist Organization." Or something like that.

Losing control of the Senate in 2002 may have been the best thing to happen to Democrats in a long time. Besides forcing the party to do some soul-searching (the results which should become apparent in this coming election season), it also removes the "obstructionist" boogeyman from Rove's bag of tricks.

The lone Illinois Republican statewide officeholder has rejected pressure from Rove and company, and announced she will not run for Fitzgerald's soon-to-be vacant Senate seat.

Her withdrawl from consideration all but seals the deal for Democrats, who are virtually assured a pickup.

Ha ha! I didn't think things could get more bizarre, but this incident ranks up there:

The Senate was supposed to be debating Bush's tax proposal this week, as Bush himself toured the nation trying to "pressure" wavering senators to support his sop for the rich.

Except that Senate Republicans, led by the obviously inept Frist, debated the wrong bill.

Senators began what was planned to have been a week of intense deliberations over President Bush's biggest domestic initiative, only to discover they were debating the wrong bill.

Democrats refused to give GOP leaders an easy way out of their mistake Monday, and the Senate's tax-writing committee will have to meet again and send new tax-cut legislation to the floor.

Under the Senate's original schedule, senators would have spent the early part of the week debating the legislation as President Bush toured New Mexico, Nebraska and Indiana to bring pressure on senators at home and drum up support for a bigger tax cut than the Senate bill would allow. Because of the gaffe, the president will be back at the White House when the Senate wades into the debate.

The mix-up mattered because the bill that landed in the Senate did not carry special protections that block filibusters — infinite debates — which require 60 votes to end [...]

Other Democrats said the confusion, though funny, unmasked the Republicans for taking advantage of Senate procedures to push through a large tax cut on a party-line vote the same week they plan to increase the nation's debt limit by $1 trillion.

Syrian Reforms Gain Momentum In Wake of War
U.S. Pressure Forces Change In Foreign, Domestic Policy


[ . . . . ] With tens of thousands of U.S. troops positioned just to the east and U.S. officials warning Syria it could be the next object of American ire, Syrians acknowledge they are feeling vulnerable. These regional developments -- nothing less than an "earthquake," according to Khalaf M. Jarad, editor of the state-run Tishrin newspaper -- have prompted Syria to alter its foreign policy to accommodate U.S. demands, while rethinking its domestic affairs. "When your neighbor shaves, you start to wet your cheeks," said Nabil Jabi, a political strategist in Damascus, citing an Arabic proverb. "It means you must study the new situation in your neighborhood."

[ . . . . ] During the past two weeks, the Syrian government has licensed its first three private banks, considered an essential step in modernizing the state-dominated economy, while approving two new private universities and four private radio stations. Officials are now reviewing the possibility of removing military training from the curriculum of schools and universities and eliminating a requirement that all students join youth groups affiliated with Syria's ruling Baath Party, according to sources close to the leadership.

While discussions about reforming the Baath Party have been underway for at least three years, they have taken on a much greater urgency since the collapse of Iraq's Baath Party government, said Syrians close to the leadership.

"If now people feel a more pressing need to do that, so much the better," said Buthaina Shaaban, spokeswoman for the Foreign Ministry. "I think it's normal to be affected by external events and to use it for your own benefit, to reform your reality."

Among the issues now being debated more vigorously by Baathists is whether the position of prime minister should be limited to party members. Shaaban said the upheaval in Iraq had strengthened Syrian President Bashar Assad's case for opening the post to non-party members.

[ . . . . ] Syrians are increasingly saying that the disaster Hussein brought on his country underscores the need for a representative government in Damascus that will not invite a similar calamity. "Whatever policy they make, whatever stance they take, people's lives and livelihoods will be affected. Seeing what happened in Iraq, it's not a joke anymore," said a university professor.

“I guess that the Catholic Church was too busy condemning gays to worry about these people."

At this point, you’ve lost your temper. And who can blame you? You point out that you and your family have been giving money for years to the Catholic charities that built a school and a water treatment plant in this town. You’ve been doing this for years, while Steve was spending his activist energy picketing to legalize pot. You wonder where this holier-than-thou attitude came from, and why it's aimed at people who are actually fighting the problems you claim to be concerned about. And you wonder why he feels that it's OK to lie about about organizations he doesn't like.

I would expect that you would stop reading Steve altogether, and start treating liberals with less respect.

You’ve probably guessed what I’m getting at by now. Steve would be showing the same bull-headed resistance to actual facts that I see again and again when conservatives set their sights on human rights organizations. I just about lost my lunch a week ago when I saw this post at the Corner:

WHAT ABOUT THE ANIMALS?! [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Perhaps human-rights groups will take an interest in Saudi Arabia now….
Posted at 02:13 PM

I could email Ms. Lopez and say, "Here are 99 examples of Amnesty International's interest in Saudi Arabia. Here are 28 examples from 2002-2003 alone demonstrating Human Rights Watch's interest in Saudi Arabia. I believe that these organizations have shown far more dedication to human rights in Saudi Arabia than the Bush Administration, which specifically rejected the recommendation to place Saudi Arabia on an American blacklist of countries that violate religious freedom." (In fact, I just did.) But honestly, I'll be very surprised if it has any effect.

The first topic was Iraq's economy, and Mr. Chalabi held forth like a modern-day Ludwig Erhard, the father of the Deutsche Mark--and of Germany's postwar economic miracle. Mr. Chalabi understands the urgency of replacing the many jobs that have disappeared from Iraq's state-run economy. "It has to be privatized immediately," said the former banker, referring to state-owned industries. As for trade, "we should immediately streamline customs regulations and investment regulations." And if that means Iraqi companies "will be slaughtered" by foreign competition, that "is not a bad thing." "I am advising Iraqi managers to learn from the [postwar] Japanese," about quality control, he adds.

Mr. Chalabi rejects the Nasserism (protectionism, "self-sufficiency") that has handicapped Arab economies for decades. Privatization means "we will sell to foreigners." And he hopes that Iraq will be able to draw on the experience of its four million exiles. Rebuilding the country, he concedes, is a "sophisticated process which requires foreign financial expertise."

Where Mr. Chalabi echoed Erhard was in saying that "what you must address first is the question of the currency." At the current exchange rate of about 2,000 per dollar, there's an estimated $750 million worth of Saddam-faced dinars in circulation. Mr. Chalabi suggests the "transfer of bank balances from dinars into dollars at a fixed rate." Government banks, he says, have hard currency reserves to cover that. At a later date, those dollars could be redeemed for hard dinars--Saddam-less, of course.

An important step in enabling Iraqi reconstruction will be the end of U.N. sanctions and the oil-for-food program. But even with the country back in control of oil revenues, Mr. Chalabi hints some debt forgiveness will be necessary. He estimates commercial debt to foreign banks (never mind Gulf and Iran-Iraq war reparations) at over $100 billion. But at current oil prices and with Iraq's OPEC quota of about 2.1 million barrels a day, the country can pump only about $18 billion worth of crude a year. And "we cannot just summarily leave OPEC." Why? "Because the U.S. will I think be against it." The U.S. has many oil-producing friends, he notes.

Mr. Chalabi also rates de-Baathification high on the list of priorities. "The Baath Party should be eradicated"--outlawed, assets confiscated, uprooted from civil society. And the party's upper echelons--about 30,000 people--"should be excluded from politics." Mr. Chalabi suggests that the State Department and the CIA would prefer to eschew such a radical restructuring in favor of a smoother transition. Their rationale "is the same explanation that Mussolini gave--the fascists make the trains run." But though the level of support for American involvement is amazingly high here--the word on the street is "Garner good," referring to administrator Gen. Jay Garner, and "Don't leave too soon"--a number of Iraqis say the best way to sour opinion toward the U.S. is to allow Baathists back into positions of power. Mr. Chalabi notes that de-Baathification is critical for economic reform too, to prevent the crony privatizations that have hamstrung post-Communist economies.

[Landrieu] opposes Bush's tax cut this time and she's not budging. "Basically the [jig] is up," she said. "We're not confused about what this is anymore. It's a one-way street, all about raw party politics and winning at all costs."

Recalling Bush's campaigning against her last year despite her support for his earlier tax cut, she concluded: "He's kind of burned his bridges with most of us [Senate Democrats], maybe all of us."

The thaw in relations came after Atal Behari Vajpayee, the Indian Prime Minister, told parliament that he was restoring civil aviation links, broken last year, and would appoint an ambassador to Pakistan.

Mr Vajpayee said that he was willing to grasp every opportunity of improving relations with Pakistan.

[ . . . . ]

Mr Vajpayee told parliament that he would like to leave a legacy of peace between India and Pakistan.

The United States sided repeatedly with Iran and other repressive regimes at the annual session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women last month. The commission's agenda was to address women and technology, and violence against women.

The first topic wasn't controversial. The second was.

The American delegation joined with Iran, Pakistan, Sudan, Libya and others in efforts to delete a phrase - included in previously agreed-upon UN statements dating back a decade - that calls on countries to condemn violence against women and "refrain from invoking any custom, tradition or religious consideration" to avoid the obligation to stop the violence.

It joined objections to a passage about women in armed conflict, aligning itself with fundamentalist regimes in trying to change a reference to "forced pregnancy" - listed along with murder, rape, systematic rape and sexual slavery as by-products of war and societies emerging from conflict. The term "forced pregnancy" is seen by some anti-abortion groups as a pretext for promoting abortion.