Our heads catching up with our hearts

I have to say that I am immensely proud of the effort by Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, and the Bush Administration in handling what is an enormously complicated situation in addressing emergency humanitarian needs in Myanmar.

World faces limits to getting aid into Myanmar

"After initially agreeing to one flight on Monday, Myanmar's leaders have opened the door to daily flights by Marine and Air Force C-130 cargo planes. As of Saturday, the U.S. military had flown 21 C-130s loaded with about 500,000 pounds of aid into Yangon from their makeshift base in Utapao, Thailand.

Another four flights left Friday from the U.S. military's emergency headquarters at Utapao Air Base, in central Thailand.

'At this time, the needs are so immense, they are so large, that we're taking some risks to hope that we can get the assistance through to the ones who are most in need,' said USAID administrator Henrietta Fore. 'There is an enormous humanitarian urgency to this effort.'

Thai and Indian military missions also have been approved, and British, French and Australian warships were converging on the area.

Still, the U.N. and the international Red Cross say that between 1.6 and 2.5 million people are in urgent need of food, water and shelter. Only 270,000 have been reached so far by the aid groups.

Malloch-Brown estimated that 24 C-130 flights a day would be needed to meet the crisis — far higher than the current level. And, so far, U.S. requests to bring in helicopters, one of the few means of reaching the worst-hit regions, have been denied.

Myanmar's government has less than 40 helicopters, most old and in disrepair, and some 15 transport planes, primarily small jets unable to carry hundreds of tons of supplies.

The lack of motion is all the more visible because of the vast resources that are available to help.

Because of an annual exercise scheduled well before Cyclone Nargis hit, the U.S. has 11,000 troops in and around Thailand, and a Marine ship capable of conducting amphibious landings and long-range helicopter operations is just 30 miles off Myanmar's coast.

The French navy ship Le Mistral was waiting some 13 miles outside Myanmar's territorial waters, hoping to go in and unload its cargo of 1,000 tons of food — enough to feed 100,000 people for 15 days. The aid also includes shelters for 15,000 people.

France's U.N. Ambassador Jean-Maurice Ripert warned Friday that the government's refusal to allow aid to be delivered to people "could lead to a true crime against humanity.'

Frustrated by the inability to use such resources, dozens of U.S. congressmen signed off on a letter to President Bush asking that the United States join any international effort to intervene in Myanmar's stricken Irrawaddy Delta region by bypassing the junta's efforts to interfere with aid.

For the time being, the U.S. military will not send in aid without Myanmar's approval. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Timothy Keating, head of the U.S. forces in the Pacific, have publicly stated that coercive intervention is not on the plate.

'We're not going to do anything unilaterally,' said Lt. Col. Douglas Powell, a spokesman for the U.S. relief effort, dubbed Operation Caring Response.

'Our hope is that they will see we have the means and the capabilities,' he said. 'We need them to take the next step and allow us to do more.'

Aid organizations also expressed doubt that unauthorized air drops would be effective.

'At best aid air-drops can only be a partial solution, at worst they give the illusion that somehow we are addressing this ever worsening humanitarian crisis,' said Jane Cocking, a spokeswoman for the British aid group Oxfam. 'The biggest risk is that aid airdrops will be a distraction from what is really needed — a highly effective aid operation on the ground.'"

Working with the military junta in Burma is delivering in ways that operating by force never could. Americans are pressuring the junta in this situation, but is there anything where Americans or others don't pressure these days? After awhile, that makes that debate kind of moot because the variable can never be assessed fairly without alternatives, and my explanations still explain the situation better, I think. The junta does not want to be shown up by outsiders and is suspicious and does not want to allow outsiders in, but they know they and their people need the help. Working with them diplomatically is working much more effectively than coercing them or using unilateral or even multilateral force. A coalition of the willing could intervene without U.N. Security Council approval. But to do so, at this point, would be foolish.

The patient diplomacy that Robert Gates and administration officials have engaged in is very admirable and clearly much more effective than routes by force.

It also helps that everyone is on the same page with this emergency rather than squabbling and bickering between one another about who is to blame that nothing is being done. There is some agreement that Burma's military junta is to blame. But there is some realism, I think, that playing blame games doesn't get basic needs met for those who need them.

The question all of us need to be asking ourselves, right now, is "What rule made all of this possible?"

Is it international law? Is it our concern for being prosecuted for war crimes? Is it domestic laws about generosity and sharing the wealth? Is it the 10 commandments (though shalt not let thou neighbors go without emergency supplies after a cyclone)?

And if it isn't any of those things, what is it?

You know what it is?

It's our general good will. It's our decency. It's our consciences.

It's the fact that, despite all of our flaws, we are basically decent people.

And no rule could or does make that possible. It couldn't if we wanted to it to with all our hearts. It would always be our hearts that would make the difference.

It is long overdue that our heads catch up with that fact about our hearts. And stop taking our hearts and those who have big hearts for granted. And start appreciating those who care enough to make sure that such situations, like this one in Burma, get taken care of.

And I, for one, would like to thank Secretary Gates, President Bush, the entire Administration, the military folks who are transporting supplies, the people who offered up all of the things being offered to meet peoples' needs, the Thai government and those in Thailand offering up a launching pad for our operations, the French Government and all of those in France who are working to provide supplies, and all of the people around the world providing supplies and transport, the non-profit people on the ground in Burma providing help and reporting on this situation, the folks working in the United Nations to get some kind of movement on this issue, the people in Burma coordinating this effort, the journalists who have daily reported on this crisis, and everyone who has done their bit to make sure that these people, and the folks in China, and all such folks around the world, get taken care of.

Thank you. I appreciate all of your efforts.

Here's to our heads catching up, better, with the love in our hearts.

It's about goddamn time.

Who I respect

This is who I respect in politics, and in the world.

People willing, honestly, to take on their own, for their and our own good. People like John Ridley.

Obama's Struggle with Typical Liberal Hypocrisy

"From the beginning it's been fairly clear a big chunk of supposedly liberal America hasn't been ready for Barack Obama. Their unease obvious in the shock and awe of Joe Biden, and in Newsweek's inane, aloud wonderings of whether or not Obama was 'black enough.' 'Black enough' for the liberals being people of color in the Sharpton/Jackson mold; Old Schoolers devoutly wed to the regressive ideology of loud haranguing and low expectations. Obama -- early on in a Pound Cake-esque fashion urging people of color to do better and questioning race-based affirmative action -- was clearly not 'black enough' for the Liberal Plantation.

Any doubt that Obama was from the jump fighting not only for the presidency, but also against Lefty hypocrisy was shattered into a million pieces by Geraldine Ferraro's 'lucky' black man remark. Those pieces then again refined by Clinton's talk of 'hard-working Americans, white Americans.'

Clearly much of the liberal Left has long seen...oh, your average non-hard-working black, as nothing more than a piece of a loyal voting bloc. Keep us anesthetized, they feel, with promises of hand outs and government mollycoddling and we will mindlessly check the 'D' box on Election Day.

Conservatives are, of course, not a hair less bigoted in their hearts (nor are Independents or anyone else for that matter). But unlike Democrats, Republicans have found a way to play nicely with the ideologically aligned, regardless of the color of their skin.

That, perhaps, is part of the problem; Obama is more his own man than merely a Democratic tool. That he refused to put up a show, and then capitulate, makes him all the more frustrating to those on the Left used to their people of color playing by pre-prescribed rules.

In that regard it's too bad Obama's not an anti-war Republican. His 'Yes We Can' message of hope, his Morning in America redux, would have worked much better had it not be drowned out by the typical gloom and doom drum beat of the liberal machine."

This is how the bullies in both parties are going to be confronted. By thinking people in each party who say to the faithless and meanspirited in each party, "You are a fraud. You do not offer leadership. You offer cynicism. Which leads nowhere. And we will not be following."

We need more people thinking, writing, and leading like this.

Thanks, John, for joining the fold.

Think more, whine less

Wow. Peggy Noonan tells Republicans to buck up and put on their thinking caps.

Pity Party

"The Democrats aren't the ones falling apart, the Republicans are. The Democrats can see daylight ahead. For all their fractious fighting, they're finally resolving their central drama. Hillary Clinton will leave, and Barack Obama will deliver a stirring acceptance speech. Then hand-to-hand in the general, where they see their guy triumphing. You see it when you talk to them: They're busy being born.

The Republicans? Busy dying. The brightest of them see no immediate light. They're frozen, not like a deer in the headlights but a deer in the darkness, his ears stiff at the sound. Crunch. Twig. Hunting party.

The headline Wednesday on Drudge, from Politico, said, "Republicans Stunned by Loss in Mississippi." It was about the eight-point drubbing the Democrat gave the Republican in the special House election. My first thought was: You have to be stupid to be stunned by that. Second thought: Most party leaders in Washington are stupid – detached, played out, stuck in the wisdom they learned when they were coming up, in '78 or '82 or '94. Whatever they learned then, they think pertains now. In politics especially, the first lesson sticks. For Richard Nixon, everything came back to Alger Hiss.

They are also – Hill leaders, lobbyists, party speakers – successful, well-connected, busy and rich. They never guessed, back in '86, how government would pay off! They didn't know they'd stay! They came to make a difference and wound up with their butts in the butter. But affluence detaches, and in time skews thinking. It gives you the illusion you're safe, and that everyone else is. A party can lose its gut this way.

Many are ambivalent, deep inside, about the decisions made the past seven years in the White House. But they've publicly supported it so long they think they . . . support it. They get confused. Late at night they toss and turn in the antique mahogany sleigh bed in the carpeted house in McLean and try to remember what it is they really do think, and what those thoughts imply.

And those are the bright ones. The rest are in Perpetual 1980: We have the country, the troops will rally in the fall.

'This was a real wakeup call for us,' someone named Robert M. Duncan, who is chairman of the Republican National Committee, told the New York Times. This was after Mississippi. 'We can't let the Democrats take our issues.' And those issues would be? 'We can't let them pretend to be conservatives,' he continued. Why not? Republicans pretend to be conservative every day.

The Bush White House, faced with the series of losses from 2005 through '08, has long claimed the problem is Republicans on the Hill and running for office. They have scandals, bad personalities, don't stand for anything. That's why Republicans are losing: because they're losers...

...What happens to the Republicans in 2008 will likely be dictated by what didn't happen in 2005, and '06, and '07. The moment when the party could have broken, on principle, with the administration – over the thinking behind and the carrying out of the war, over immigration, spending and the size of government – has passed. What two years ago would have been honorable and wise will now look craven. They're stuck.

Mr. Bush has squandered the hard-built paternity of 40 years. But so has the party, and so have its leaders. If they had pushed away for serious reasons, they could have separated the party's fortunes from the president's. This would have left a painfully broken party, but they wouldn't be left with a ruined 'brand,' as they all say, speaking the language of marketing. And they speak that language because they are marketers, not thinkers. Not serious about policy. Not serious about ideas. And not serious about leadership, only followership."

What is really terrific about this column is that, unlike Andrew Sullivan's criticism of a conservative who looks like he is voting Democratic, Peggy Noonan is not abandoning the Republican party in this piece.

She is saying, as an insider, "Buck the fuck up, you fuckin' whiners. Put on your thinking caps, take conservative principles seriously, and rebuild your party."

This is much more encouraging to me, at some level, right now, to Andrew's cheering for Obama - as much as I think Andrew Sullivan is one if not the finest conservative journalists and thinkers in the business - because it anticipates what needs to be anticipated: the need for a strong and credible Republican opposition.

Liberals and Democrats, no matter Andrew's frustration with them, right now, are a long fucking shot from having all the answers. There are many, many, many places where Democrats have bad policy perscriptions.

But without a credible Republican opposition, right now, it becomes very difficult to block bad policy and to offer up better ideas.

And Peggy is preparing her party for the next leg in this journey.

Which should be important to all of us. Unless we are deluded with the notion that liberals really do have all answers they pretend to have.

They don't. And that's why Baron de Montesquieu argued, rightly, that we should have divided power to check the arrogance of those who have it.

Peggy Noonan is right. Republicans need to stop feeling sorry for themselves and start thinking their way out of their woes rather than trying to posture their way out.

Pretending to be tough is for pussies.

Real men and women think their way through the challenges they face. And they use force only when it is absolutely necessary, not to rationalize their cowardice.

And Peggy Noonan is basically telling all the poseurs in the Republican party, "Stop being such fuckin' pussies and start thinking about and taking seriously the principles that make this party great. Think more, pose less, you fuckin' losers."

It is a long overdue message for serious and honest thinkers who are tired of their pitifully less thoughtful brethren trying to bully their way through conversations that it hurts their heads to think their way through more seriously.

And fuck them for that.

Thanks, Peggy. It's good to know that honesty counts for something in this business.

The strange direction for the tax policy debate

Ever since the gas tax holiday idea floated by John McCain - an idea that will not resolve America's financial problems, but one that really can't hurt, either, and very well may help - the tax debate in Washington has taken a strange turn.

Steve Chapman's article, in Reason magazine of all places, demonstrates that strange turn.

Republicans and Tax Realities

"Sensible people might not mind the lost revenue if the change strengthened the economy. But chances are it does just the opposite, by encouraging taxpayers to jump through hoops to reduce their tax liability.

A low capital gains rate hinders the free market by inducing people (especially very wealthy ones) to find ways to take earnings as capital gains instead of ordinary income. In other words, it encourages them to do things that would not make economic sense otherwise. A modestly higher rate would discourage such wasteful avoidance.

Like all taxes, capital gains taxes are a burden. But given that the federal government spends nearly $3 trillion a year, taxes are a regrettable necessity. When we cut capital gains taxes, we have to raise other taxes to make up the loss. Or we have to borrow more money—which means raising taxes in the future.

Republicans may abhor the obligation of paying for the welfare state they helped preserve. But for the moment, the only real choice is between doing that job better and doing it worse."

What?

A capital gains tax rate gives people an incentive to pay the government less by offering a way for people to pay less tax and channel resources into capital gains - the basis for investments that grow the economy - rather than into discretionary income - where it is more likely to be spent rather than invested - and this undermines the market?

What exactly is Steve Chapman smoking that the folks over at Reason, rightly, advocate should be legalized?

The budget needs to get balanced. That is a priority. But it can be done in many ways. We could raise taxes. But doing so, generally, undermines economic growth both because it coerces money from other purposes and because one of those purposes, in particular, is the investment of those same limited resources into ventures that can expand those resources to become less limited and thus produce more long-term tax revenue.

It is perfectly conceivable that an enormously bloated Federal deficit and Federal budget could be cut in any number of ways and taxes can remain low or lowered, given a genuine commitment to a balanced budget and limited government instead the charade that is masquerading as such in this debate.

The truth is that those who are looking to raise taxes either do not want to make the budget cuts necessary or they have grown so cynical about all of the political maneuvering on such questions that they behave like such cuts cannot be made, rather than the truth, which is that legislators and constituents, often, do not want to make those cuts.

It's irrational that people would look to pork rather than building the economy, both for themselves and for others.

But Americans - Americans from all walks of life; not just those on welfare - have this irrational sense of entitlement to someone else creating financial opportunities for them rather than creating them in the market, themselves, which is the only place that sustainable and honest wealth can be built.

And it is that wealth that is the basis for both Federal revenues and paying off that enormously overbloated budget. It is also that market, and the democratic conversation around it, that offers the greatest hope in our efforts to offer the best quality services in our non-profit commitments, like health care.

Americans need to come to terms with a simple fact about the economy: the only and best way to create wealth, for profit-based endeavors, but also to more generously and effectively support decentralized, diverse, and better quality non-profit commitments, is through taxes low enough to support the most limited government we can safely and wisely to support.

We can fail to come to terms with that fact. But that failure has consequences too. And none of them are great consequences.

And none of our failure to come to terms with this fact of life makes America or democracy or anyone great.

Facing such facts of life and building a stronger and more liberal democracy makes America, the liberal democratic world, and everyone great.

It is our liberty that makes us strong. It is our liberty that makes us great. And any empirical and clear-headed comparison of liberal and illiberal cultures and the quality of lives of those who live there bears that out.

The question is can be that honest and clear-headed in our outlook.

I think we can.

And I think doing so is what makes liberal democracy great.

How free?

The Economist asks the question America needs to be asking itself.

Land of the free?

"'How Free?' also has some hard things to say about America's criminal-justice system. The incarceration rate exploded from 1.39 per 1,000 in 1980 to 7.5 in 2006, driven, among other things, by the war on drugs. America now has one of the highest rates of imprisonment in the world: 5.6m Americans, or one in every 37 adults, has spent time behind bars. Even though prison-building is one of the country's great growth industries, overcrowding is endemic, with federal prisons operating at 131% of capacity. America is also one of the few countries to ban felons and, in some states, ex-felons from voting. At any one time 4m Americans—one in every 50 adults—is disenfranchised because of past criminal convictions. This includes 1.4m blacks, or 14% of the black male population.

Freedom House's strictures are, if anything, too soft. America insists on criminalising victimless crimes such as prostitution. Last week Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the so-called DC Madam, committed suicide; the government had thrown the book at her, including racketeering and mail fraud, because it really wished to penalise the arranging of assignations between consenting adults. In her suicide note to her mother she wrote that she could not 'live the next six-to-eight years behind bars for what you and I have both come to regard as this 'modern-day lynching'.'

The American legal system also seems to have lost any sense of proportion. Christopher Ratte, a professor of archaeology, recently tried to buy his seven-year-old son a bottle of lemonade at a baseball game. He was handed a bottle of Mike's Hard Lemonade, an alcoholic drink, by mistake. Officials noticed the boy sipping the drink and immediately whisked him off to hospital. He was fine. But the family was condemned to legal hell: the police at first put the seven-year-old into a foster home and a judge ruled that he could go home only if his father moved out. It took several days of legal wrangling to reunite the family.

'How Free?' repeatedly argues, even as it dredges through the most depressing material, that the American system has proved admirably self-correcting. The response of civil-liberties advocates has been swift and dogged. The Supreme Court has forced the administration to extend the Geneva conventions to inmates in Guantánamo and other military prisons. Congress has reined in warrantless wiretapping. The press has repeatedly published leaked material.

This is perhaps a little optimistic—the courts have been slow and Congress half-hearted. But nevertheless the self-correction is now entering a higher gear. All the current presidential candidates, Democratic and Republican alike, have condemned torture and rendition and declared their desire to close Guantánamo. Freedom House's new publication will be an important contribution to this process of self-correction."

I must say that I have a really serious problem with the repressive, aggressive language being thrown about in efforts to defend liberty. It rationalizes such behavior, and it is such rationalizations that got us into this mess, in the first place. I'm tired of people rationalizing this bullshit. And I don't care in the name of what cause it is done.

We know better. We just don't want to own up for our role in this mess.

And that is the problem.

But it is good for reputable folks to be talking about the erosion of liberty openly and honestly.

Perhaps we can develop a more genuine commitment to freedom, rather than the fakery we've been engaged in up till now.

I, for one, would like liberty for real. And for an end to all the bullshit.

Speaking of stupid

I just want the readers of Thomas Friedman's column in today's International Herald Tribune to take a look at and reconcile these two passages.

The new Cold War

"When you have leverage, talk. When you don't have leverage, get some - by creating economic, diplomatic or military incentives and pressures that the other side finds too tempting or frightening to ignore. That is where the Bush team has been so incompetent vis-a-vis Iran."

Now, let's put aside the obvious - that the Bush Administration has already, repeatedly, and with much criticism from the likes of people like Thomas Friedman and me, threatened to attack or war with Iran, the most serious and deadly form of leverage possible - and let's just look at the internal logic of Mr. Friedman's thesis given this argument in the same piece:

"We Americans are not going to war with Iran, nor should we. But it is sad to see America and its Arab friends so weak they can't prevent one of the last corners of decency, pluralism and openness in the Arab world from being snuffed out by Iran and Syria. The only thing that gives me succor is the knowledge that anyone who has ever tried to dominate Lebanon alone - Maronites, Palestinians, Syrians, Israelis - has triggered a backlash and failed."

Mr. Friedman's distinction, apparently, is that anyone who has tried to dominate Lebanon alone triggered a backlash and failed.

If anyone tried to dominate Lebananon, the United States, or Iran with the help of others, on the other hand, everything would be hunky-dory.

Uh huh. Good luck with that one.

In the meantime, fuck liberal democracy. Liberty and genuine democratic engagement is for pussies. Dominance is for real men.

Like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Thomas Friedman, apparently.

Have fun rationalizing what pricks you are, assholes.

And, in the meantime, have fun trying to dominate Lebanon or Iran, until they do exactly what Iran is doing, now, which is get a bunch of friends to fuck you up, if need be.

Noone likes to be dominated. Noone.

And if you do it with me, wait until I get a bunch of friends to fuck you up, too.

Or just avoid you altogether.

I knew there was a reason I didn't read Thomas Friedman's columns anymore.

You gotta fight for your right

I've decided I believe in the right to be stupid.

Because God knows most people, and some, in particular, exercise that right regularly, as it is.

And thank God for that. I don't know what we'd do in this world with too many smart people.

Go soft, I imagine.

Here's to the hardcore dumbasses and dickheads who we all know really make the world a safe place for everyone else.

Thank goodness for them.

Because I'd hate to imagine how shitty this world would be if everyone was smart and compassionate.

What a fuckin' mess that would be.

Nothin' like the goddamn paradise that persists today.

You gotta hand it to morons and the meanspirited.

They're dumber and meaner than they look.

Politicians and Truth Serum

I don't agree with Robert Samuelson's Chris Matthews-inspired column (if you haven't watched Chris Matthews ask Terry McAulliffe how he would describe the Clinton campaign's chances, at this point, I highly recommend it) on every point in this piece. But I like the idea and the constructive criticism from many quarters, this election, that politicians are not honest enough.

If Candidates Took Truth Serum

"'Fellow Americans, I know you worry about the economy. So do I. But, frankly, if you elect me, I won't do much about it. It's a $14 trillion economy. Every three months, 7 million Americans change jobs. Presidents aren't powerful enough to steer this colossus. Sure, we can pass 'stimulus' programs, but if we overdo it -- as we did in the 1970s -- we will make the economy worse. Believe me, presidents would prevent recessions if they could.

'What we can do is preserve an economic climate that favors long-term growth. That means holding down the tax burden to maintain incentives for work and investments. We're already running a $400 billion or so deficit; some broad-based tax increases may be needed. This will disappoint conservatives, who think no one should pay taxes, and liberals, who think only the rich should pay them. But we must also cut spending, because, unless we do, the future tax increases will be crushing.

'Of necessity, spending cuts should focus on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. These programs are projected to grow from about 45 percent of the present budget to 70 percent over a couple of decades. Paying for that exclusively with taxes would be devastating for the economy and our children. Paying exclusively by cutting other programs would gut vital government services. I admit that raising eligibility ages for baby boomers and cutting some benefits are unfair. People should have received more warning. But our politicians have so dawdled that there's no warning time left.

'We've also dawdled on energy. No one likes $125-a-barrel oil. Last year, we paid an average price of $64 a barrel for imports. Some blame the oil companies, but the truth is that we're all to blame. Americans like cheap gasoline and big vehicles. Nothing was done to dampen consumption. Meanwhile, Congress restricted new oil and gas exploration on environmental grounds. So, demand rose and supply fell. In 1985, we imported 4 million barrels of oil a day; now that's 12 million.

''Energy independence' is a fraud. We simply use too much foreign oil. All we can do is limit our dependence by shifting to more-efficient vehicles and increasing domestic production. But these measures will take years and have only modest effects. The same is true of global warming. Without major technological breakthroughs, making big cuts in greenhouse gases will be impossible.

'Finally, let's discuss poverty. Everyone's against it, but hardly anyone admits that most of the increase in the past 15 years reflects immigration -- new immigrants or children of recent immigrants. Unless we stop poor people from coming across our Southern border, legally and illegally, we won't reduce poverty. Period. That doesn't mean we should try to expel the 12 million illegal immigrants already here -- an impossible and morally dubious task. Many families have been here for years; many have American children. We need a pragmatic accommodation: assimilate most people now here; shift future immigration to the highly skilled.

'Vote for me. I'll tell the truth.'

Of course, our hapless candidate would be dismissed as misinformed, offensive, possibly racist and, of course, unelectable. People say they value candor, but in practice they don't. Almost all our major national problems require patience: the capacity to take somewhat painful actions now to avoid greater future pain. In an ideal world, elections would help move public opinion toward such policies.

But that doesn't happen. Politics is mostly about immediate gratification -- about offering up convenient scapegoats and instant solutions for voters' complaints, even if the villains and promises are often false. We in the media bless this process by treating much of the self-serving rhetoric with undeserved seriousness. Is it any wonder that our genuine problems persist year after year and, in the end, foster public cynicism?"

It's a good question. It is the question democratic politics, actually.

And if there is any question I am looking to address - in addition to improving international and American security, which matter an awful lot to me, actually - this is the one.

We need more honest discussion. More importantly to me, we need more assumption of good faith between people who disagree. And we need better treatment of one another, in the meantime.

How we behave like this and call it good or call it leadership or call it wisdom or intelligence is completely beyond me, really.

We all need a little truth serum, is the truth.

But being more honest means having more real courage than most of us are willing to offer up. And the real question is are we willing to demonstrate that kind of courage in the face of our fears of a world that will forever be scary and uncertain. Because that is what courage entails. It does not entail our fears or the basis for our fears disappearing from existence.

Courage involves facing those fears honestly and being bigger than our fears might cower us into being.

A little honesty wouldn't hurt either, if we could show some courage and create some space for more honesty to take place.

But that will involve a commitment to more freedom, not less. When you scare people, they tend to get less honest. It's just a fact of leading by fear rather than by courage.

And getting more honest must involve a commitment to not confusing our fears or our dishonesty, and the repression and lack of freedom that make them so, with something better than they are.

Preparing for a new job

I'm going to write, this summer.

I'm going to spend this summer preparing to do professional investing.

I'm going to do my service at Capital City.

And then I am leaving this field.

I just got a reminder of our new cluster rule that students who sleep in class have to leave.

And I'm thinking, "If you can't ever let these kids fail, they will never learn the lessons. And if everyone is going to be a dumbass, enough, that they never learn the lessons, then I need to leave this foolish final bastion of socialism and all of its ridiculous logic and go do something that actually does some good in this world."

I say let dumbasses marinate together. And if they can't learn the lessons, then they can all deal with the consequences on their own. Especially decisions that are imposed on me against my will.

I am tired of dealing with the stupid consequences of other peoples' stupid decisions. I need a life that is my own and where my choices determine my own fate, good and bad.

I'll use this summer to prepare for that life.

And let dumbasses who would turn to rules rather than freedom to solve their problems to deal with the consequences of their own dumbass decisions.

Life isn't fair

I've finally come to some conclusion about life, for my kids as much as for me.

Life fuckin' sucks, often. And it is often not fair.

But we have to be responsible for it anyway. That's all there is to it. It's too complicated and there is too much room for rationalization to do otherwise.

So life sucks. We gotta fuckin' deal, pick up, and be responsible for the rest of what life has to offer. Because there is no other reliable way out. Period. And if you think otherwise, you're living in a fuckin' dreamworld.

And life doesn't have to be so bad, in the meantime, if only decide to have a good experience despite all the shittiness.

Life is full of assholes who reason poorly. It fuckin' sucks, much of the time, I must admit.

But its the only world we have.

And each of us is generally one of those assholes who reason poorly.

So suck it up, forgive the bullshit, and play ball.

And have a good life while you're at it.

Intractable problems

You know what always strikes me about many seemingly intractable problems, where people have become convinced that perhaps no solutions exist?

They so often happen around issues in life where people cannot even conceive that they may be wrong or not understand well enough the problem at hand.

And it, generally, in such areas of life where people are wrong or do not adequately understand the problem or possible solutions, at hand.

Crazy, huh?

If you need a rule, here it is.

If you're convinced that you're right about something, and you can't even consider that you might be wrong, you probably are. It's just about the most predictable fact of human existence. Those areas where we are convinced, without a moment of hesitation, that we are right are usually the places where our blindspots or our emotional defenses shape our outlook and our reason has been left in the dust.

Millions of people have died as a consequence of this most predictable fact of human existence over the course of human history. In fact, I would venture to bet that when you set aside disease, natural causes, and other causes for death outside of human control, more people have likely died because of this fact than likely any other reason in human history. Nazism, Communism, religious wars, civil wars, genocide, imperialism, nationalism, militarism of so many stripes, and so many many of the bigger killers in human history owe much of their power to this persistent problem in human history.

If there is a problem that perpetually undermines humanity, self-righteousness and the pursuit of power over others is right up there, if not the most serious problem we face and have ever faced.

If you can't even imagine that you might be wrong, you probably are. It's one of the most consistent principles I've ever watched play out in life.

And it is not, in fact, generally, our problems that are intractable.

It is us.

We are the problem we seek to solve, generally.

And that is the beauty of freedom. It offers us the space to figure that out, better, as long as we're not physically hurting others. And even then, people might need some space.

In the meantime, there is only one person that each of us needs to look to for responsibility.

Here's a hint: it's not George Bush.

Palestinian statehood and a sustainable peace

This is one of the most reasonable columns I have ever read about Palestinian statehood, Middle East peace, and the Palestinian right of return.

Priority: Statehood

"In the spring of 1948, my father, George Kuttab, and his brother Qostandi fled Musrara, a Jerusalem neighborhood just outside the walled city, after their sister Hoda's husband was killed in front of her and their children. When Dad used to tell us about the Naqba, the catastrophe that befell Palestinians in 1948, he never talked politics or hatred. He would laugh as he told us how his brother secured their home near Damascus Gate. To assure his mother and brother that the house (in what is now Israeli west Jerusalem) would be safe, my uncle joked that he had double-locked the door, turning the heavy metal key twice. He took that key with him to Zarqa, Jordan, expecting to be able to use it again one day.

As Palestinians look back on the 60 years since they became refugees and Israelis celebrate the 60th anniversary of their statehood, it is important to take stock of Palestinian aspirations...

...Palestinian refugees who have lived away from their homes for 60 years have established themselves elsewhere. Few have a sincere desire to live in today's Israel. Respected Palestinian pollster Khalil Shikaki found in 2003 that only 10 percent of Palestinian refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza Strip were willing to move to the areas that today constitute Israel.

What Palestinians want is for Israel to admit its historic and moral role in creating the refugee problem and its moral responsibility to them. Such an admission by a courageous Israeli leader would satisfy, and neutralize, many Palestinians who hold their keys and demand the literal right of return. As part of a bilateral agreement, surely Israel would allow divided Palestinian families to reunite with relatives who stayed in what became Israel after 1948.

These or similar suggestions cannot be implemented alone. They must be part of a comprehensive agreement that includes real Israeli withdrawal and the creation of a sovereign, viable Palestinian state with territorial contiguity within the 1967 borders.

My father, aunt and uncle all passed away never having had the opportunity to return to their homes in Musrara. Yet their absence has not diluted the yearning of Palestinians for an independent homeland in Palestine. That yearning lives on in my children and their grandchildren and in our people around the world."

Agreed. What is needed, at this point, after Camp David, is an assurance for Israel that peace negotiations will lead to a resolution and not more demands into perpetuity.

What has always been needed between Palestinians and Israelis is leaders who are genuinely committed to peace and not to salving old wounds or leveraging for better deals.

Mahmoud Abbas and Ehud Olmert could be those leaders. So could other moderate leaders in Palestine and Israel.

The question is when they will finally commit to peace, for real, and take the critical steps, including an end to the occupation and security for both Palestine and Israel, to get there.

What is needed is real leadership. We shall see if anyone has any to offer.

Unless he has better ideas

Edward Luttwak, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, has an interesting article on the possibilities of an Obama presidency, this morning, in the International Herald Tribune.

Apostate president?

"As the son of the Muslim father, Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood. It makes no difference that, as Obama has written, his father said he renounced his religion.

Likewise, under Muslim law based on the Koran his mother's Christian background is irrelevant.

Of course, as most Americans understand it, Obama is not a Muslim. He chose to become a Christian, and indeed has written convincingly to explain how he arrived at his choice and how important his Christian faith is to him.

His conversion, however, was a crime in Muslim eyes; it is "irtidad" or "ridda," usually translated from the Arabic as "apostasy," but with connotations of rebellion and treason. Indeed, it is the worst of all crimes that a Muslim can commit, worse than murder (which the victim's family may choose to forgive).

With few exceptions, the jurists of all Sunni and Shiite schools prescribe execution for all adults who leave the faith not under duress; the recommended punishment is beheading at the hands of a cleric, although in recent years there have been both stonings and hangings. (Some may point to cases in which lesser punishments were ordered - as with some Egyptian intellectuals who have been punished for writings that were construed as apostasy - but those were really instances of supposed heresy, not explicitly declared apostasy as in Obama's case.)

It is true that the criminal codes in most Muslim countries do not mandate execution for apostasy (although a law doing exactly that is pending before Iran's Parliament and in two Malaysian states). But as a practical matter, in very few Islamic countries do the governments have sufficient authority to resist demands for the punishment of apostates at the hands of religious authorities.

For example, in Iran in 1994 the intervention of Pope John Paul II and others won a Christian convert a last-minute reprieve, but the man was abducted and killed shortly after his release. Likewise, in 2006 in Afghanistan, a Christian convert had to be declared insane to prevent his execution, and he was still forced to flee to Italy.

Because no government is likely to allow the prosecution of a President Obama - not even those of Iran and Saudi Arabia, the only two countries where Islamic religious courts dominate over secular law - another provision of Muslim law is perhaps more relevant: It prohibits punishment for any Muslim who kills any apostate, and effectively prohibits interference with such a killing. At the very least, that would complicate the security planning of state visits by President Obama to Muslim countries, because the very act of protecting him would be sinful for Islamic security guards.

More broadly, most citizens of the Islamic world would be horrified by the fact of Obama's conversion to Christianity once it became widely known - as it would, no doubt, should he win the White House. This would compromise the ability of governments in Muslim nations to cooperate with the United States in the fight against terrorism, as well as American efforts to export democracy and human rights abroad.

That an Obama presidency would cause such complications in our dealings with the Islamic world is not likely to be a major factor with American voters, and the implication is not that it should be.

But of all the well-meaning desires projected on Obama, the hope that he would decisively improve relations with the world's Muslims is the least realistic."

That last argument would be true, unless his policies are better, that is. That's why it's so important to keep our eyes on the ball and engage in a more substantive policy debate than these foolish little diversions like who is the most charismatic.

Whose policies would be better for the world and for America? Which ideas might be better? What policies and ideas have these candidates not been thinking about that might be constructive? And, most importantly, what policies and ideas have all of us not been or been thinking about that might be constructive?

The fact that we are focussed elsewhere is a sign of our arrogance. It is a presumption that we know more than we do about the challenges we face. And it is that arrogance that is undermining democratic progress and America's role in that in the world, today.

A humble commitment to an honest and genuine discussion about policies, ideas, and what might or might be be good and effective versions of either is where our focus needs to be today and always, to be frank.

It really is better ideas that matter in the world. Because it ideas that offer us some vision of where we are going amidst of world of perpetual uncertainty.

Liberty is one of the more important ideas that we have lost sight of recently. Liberal democracy, generally, is an idea that we have subsumed to our more naked and self-centered ambitions, lately. And much of the talk of law and rules has been a function of this loss of focus and a rationalization for power and a poor presumption that it can do more than it really can do in this world.

A President Obama or a President McCain, like a President Sarkozy or a Prime Minister Brown or a President Calderon or a Chancelor Merkel, might have leadership to offer, in the form of better ideas, better policies, and a genuine commitment to liberal and democratic values, if they choose to engage the discussion and debate about those ideas, policies, and commitments more honestly.

That is the choice that America and all liberal democracies face, these days.

To choose to do so would certainly be wiser and have better consequences for those with an eye on American leadership. It would sort through ideas to find better, more honest, and effective policies. It would engage differences honestly and offer more opportunity for humility in the face of the options and our understanding to choose between them. To choose otherwise would be foolish and have consequences, as well (and already does).

Perhaps America is ready to make a better choice with its elections.

But, if not, there are consequences for that, as well.

Officially fed up

I have to say that I am officially fed up with conservative columnists.

I have read my hundredth bullshit hit piece on Barack Obama, and I have to say that I am beginning to question my support for John McCain.

It's unfair to McCain, really, because it doesn't, at all, necessarily have anything to do with the Republican candidate or policies that he advocates that I think, on balance, are better polices than those advocated by Barack Obama.

It's just that McCain's "intellectual" cohorts are poisoning the well for him, right now. I put that word in quotes because there is so much stink of political spin in the air, right now and because much of the problem for folks like Michael Gerson, Charles Krauthammer, Robert Novak, Michael Barone and the like, right now, is their fear that intellectuals just don't understand their brilliance.

I have a piece of advice for conservatives who are insecure about your intellectual abilities and dealing with the intellectual class:

Prove your intellectual worth, you fucking whiny little babies.

Milton Friedman is taken seriously by the intellectual class. E.O. Wilson is taken seriously by liberal intellectuals. So is Francis Fukuyama. Even fuckin' James Q. Wilson and Samuel Huntington are taken seriously by liberal intellectuals, you fuckin' whiny thumb-sucking little toddlers.

Why? Because they have something to say, you fuckin' sissies.

You want to be taken seriously by liberal intellectuals. Say something really intelligent, you whiny little bitches.

You fuckin' whine your way through a debate while simultaneously puffing up about how tough you are, you look like stupid, whiny little fuckin' mollycoddles, you fuckin' ninnies.

Does that make you cry? Do you want to go home and tell your mommas? Do you need a kleenex, you sniveling little whiners.

How about anteing up with something as brilliant as those conservative intellectuals I just named. And stop your fuckin' whining, you intellectual weaklings.

Do the fuckin' tough intellectual work or go the fuck home and take your whiny little ball with you.

I'm fuckin' tired of listening to the whining, you intellectual milktoasts. Make the fuckin' arguments or go sit in the corner, children, and write a hundred times, "I will not whine my way through a serious policy discussion. I will not whine my way through a serious policy discussion. I will not whine my way through a serious policy discussion."

The crazy thing about all of these morons and the bullshit they've been writing, lately, is that Hillary Clinton already ran this campaign. This smear and sneer campaign. And she lost it, you fuckin' nimrods. I'm sure you're figured out better, you fuckin' dipshits.

But it would be really gratifying to watch you fall on your fuckin' faces.

All of a sudden, a President Obama looks all the more appealing, guys.

And, no matter what points you think you might be scoring with Ma and Pa America - which you're not, you fuckin' dumbasses, because even Ma and Pa America know the difference between decent people and fakers, you morons; why do you think Barack Obama and John McCain are the presumptive candidates, you mindless retards - you look like fuckin' babies to people who actually know your names.

Smart folks like me.

Buck up little soldiers.

Less cryin'. More thinkin'.

Hillari-ous

True dat, Mein Fuehrer. True dat.

All politics stinks

P.J. O'Rourke cracks me the fuck up with this commencement address.

Fairness, idealism, and other atrocities

"All politics stink. Even democracy stinks. Imagine if our clothes were selected by the majority of shoppers, which would be teenage girls. I'd be standing here with my bellybutton exposed. Imagine deciding the dinner menu by family secret ballot. I've got three kids and three dogs in my family. We'd be eating Froot Loops and rotten meat.

But let me make a distinction between politics and politicians. Some people are under the misapprehension that all politicians stink. Impeach George W. Bush, and everything will be fine. Nab Ted Kennedy on a DUI, and the nation's problems will be solved.

But the problem isn't politicians -- it's politics. Politics won't allow for the truth. And we can't blame the politicians for that. Imagine what even a little truth would sound like on today's campaign trail:

'No, I can't fix public education. The problem isn't the teachers unions or a lack of funding for salaries, vouchers or more computer equipment The problem is your kids!'"

True dat. I largely agree with the sentiments. The whole mess makes me want to get out of the nonprofit, public service world and go make a bunch of money.

On the other hand, there's a lot of important shit to get resolved, too. And while everyone's off getting rich, somebody's got to take care of the really big problems and do a lot of the really genuinely good work in the world that doesn't always pay well.

I say let P.J. O'Rourke make a buttload of money. But someone's also got to do the heavy lifting.

Here's to respect for people who do the heavy lifting, even if they're not perfect and even if they don't make the big money.

I'm sorry (for Brandi Fisher)

I just got back from dinner with a friend I hadn't seen in awhile.

I was listening to this conservative Christian station, of all stations, on the radio. And they had this really nice, quality discussion about sex, intimacy, and relationships that I really appreciated. It did a really nice job - a much better job than most conventional discussions around these issues - of getting to the heart of the emotional issues around sex and relationships for men and women in marriages and long-term relationships that was really an encouraging and affirming message, for me, in particular, as I have been readying myself for a new relationship and the new thinking I have about relationships and what makes marriages and families work.

As someone who came from a family that was fairly dysfunctional, it has been very important to me to sort out such issues. And this discussion was a very nice affirmation, I thought, of many of the underlying emotional issues that I agree with the discussants are important to relationships and marriage and that I am, I hope, on the right track for being a quality husband and father after a rough go, my first time around, as a long-time boyfriend on a marriage track.

And I came away from that conversation with one thought that I wanted to share tonight.

I'm sorry, Brandi. I'm sorry I was such a lousy boyfriend. I'm sorry I was such a lousy friend. I wish I could take back a million stupid fights and petty temper tantrums. And I am genuinely sorry, from the bottom of my heart, about how much I failed you as a boyfriend.

And I'm really happy that you found something better and that you found someone to treat you right. And I'm sorry I wasn't that man when you knew me. And I really hope you're happy and have a great and settled life. I think you'll be a great mom. And I'm sure Greg knows, by now, that you're a great wife. And I'm really happy that you found something good for you and your life.

I'm sorry that the first thing that comes up if anyone Googles your name is a hurt and somewhat mean-spirited post by me trying to get you off my heart. I'm sorry that it's the first impression that many people may get of you, because the truth is that you are a really terrific girl. And I'm really sorry that I was not such a terrific boyfriend. And I'm really glad that you found something better for your life.

I listened to that discussion, tonight, and I heard in these really warm-hearted women's descriptions of men in relationships things about myself when you and I were together, that I was not proud of, when I listened. And I'm just very sorry that I wasn't better for you. I hope I'll never make that mistake again. But I know I can't take back who I was with you, either. And I'm sorry for that.

Anyway, I needed to get that out there for Brandi. And to restore her name with the Googling crowd.

Here's to hoping that everyone takes care of their relationships like the precious gifts they are in our lives.

If you haven't done it already, tonight, tell you wife or husband you love them. Do it often. And show it more than you say it.

So when you say it, the people you love know you mean it.

Love,
Ben

Reasoning and its consequences

I'm working with the kids, this week, on reasoning. We postponed our weekly essay, last week, to work on building arguments with evidence, this week.

It's been a fascinating experience. It's been interesting to see how poorly many kids (and adults) reason. And it's been an interesting exercise in better appreciating why reason matters, even as we perpetually play games with it, rationalizing enterprises that are intellectually dishonest for self-centered or other purposes, or generally demeaning honest reasoning and its role in our lives.

Questions that provoke a lot of conflict, political questions, are the ones, in my experience, where we most often, or maybe just with more consequence, reason in ways that get easily distorted by what we want to believe, what we rationalize for our own purposes, what our predetermined opinions about matters are, or other reasons that offer us and others opportunity to bullshit their way through discussions that need reason to offer us honest resolutions of questions.

I watch this swirl of motivations in kids (and adults) as I teach and as I watch politics.

It is the most square challenge to reasonable solutions to many problems we face.

And power and aggression, in its many forms, complicates that discussion, further, by suppressing conversation that informs understanding and thoughtful engagement.

It's the same problem that we have had since the beginning of time, and certainly since the Enlightenment and the budding commitment to liberal values.

And we have most definitely come forward.

But the temptation to be dishonest for other purposes, to suppress honest conversation and disagreement, to rationalize the use and quest for power with self-centered or other purposes never seems to go away.

Until we more honestly face its consequences, I think.

Those consequences are more honestly faced with freedom, I believe, which is exactly why free cultures and nations are stronger. Because the discussions are more honest, as a consequence of the freedom to talk honestly and not to suppress honest engagement in the name of various reasons for suppression, namely that parties come with predetermined ideas of a conflict that they do not want challenged. The fact that people come to discussions in such a way is exactly why they should be challenged, because it is a sign that they fear that their reasoning or arguments are weak, too weak to be persuasive.

Sam Harris, author of End of Faith, makes an argument in this very vein about Islam and how it is discussed in liberal democracies, that gets, exactly, at the problem of rationalizing power to undermine free discussion.

And these last two days, I have had an opportunity to see just how poorly most people reason.

It is disappointing. It is also a fact of life that has, since the beginning of time, undermined more ideal functioning in liberal and illiberal societies.

Poor reasoning, itself, does not, necessarily, suffocate the conversation. What suffocates the conversation is efforts to suppress conversation that people disagree with or to overpower those we disagree with rather than soliciting and engaging honest argument and discussion that arises out of the poor reasoning that some questions are too hot to discuss and reason openly about.

That is Harris' point, actually. That the fact that such topics are so hot is what makes them ripe for open and honest discussion and reasoning.

That is the purpose behind my discussions in class. To tackle such questions head on. This morning students debated the existence of God, the purposes of religion, the purpose of promoting liberal democratic values, and reasoned through even simple discussions like the likelihood of a student moving to a new city.

But the bottom-line is that what has made this era regressive has been so many efforts by people to use power to shut down honest discussion, to limit legitimate freedoms, and to expand or maintain government power, in lieu of more free and open discussion and respect for freedoms that, themselves, promote more open, honest discussion.

Reasoning has consequences. And one of those consequences is to support the confidence that difficult and important questions can be debated openly rather than suppressed with threats, intimidation, and force.

Reason is the alternative to such a world, which has an ugly, foolish, and irrational legacy for us to study in amazement that people are capable of being so ugly, foolish, and irrational.

It is the reason I take it so seriously.

And I am overwhelmed, everyday, by how little others take reason seriously in the name of any number of unreasoning and unreasonable commitments in the world.

And that, of my many reasons, is one of the most important for why I teach.

It's true

If you're going to play guilt by association, this guy is far worse.



Crazy preachers and their hostility to reason.

Makes me appreciate all that book learnin'.

Disability, mental health, and scientific rigor

Anti-psychotic use soars in U.S. and U.K.

What is more interesting to me, and much more fundamental, is the very low level of scientific rigor that is involved, typically, with the diagnoses of conditions that are the bases for these prescriptions.

That will be the subject of my master's thesis. It is the practical legwork for Stephen Jay Gould's brilliant book on the subject, generally, The Mismeasure of Man.

People are constantly looking for biological, immutable, unchangeable bases for social phenomena. That is the subject of that book. And my work can more squarely explain the phenomena, I think, and why people turn to such diagnoses when they are frustrated with issues in the social world that they do not understand well enough or do not want to take responsibility for.

And we have much to understand and take responsibility for.

Prison policy follies

Fiscal Pressures Lead Some States to Free Inmates Early

How interesting and much more fruitful would it be to base sentencing on its empirical likelihood to contain dangerous individuals and either affect or not affect change in behavior?

We haven't explored it not because such a proposal would not be more intelligent and constructive. It would be both. We have not explored it because we are commited to sentencing as an opportunity for retribution or controlling behavior, like drug use (which it has clearly failed to do, by any measure), rather than more effectively correcting behavior.

Until we do, it is nice to watch us fumble forward while we get this figured out.

Opinions and assholes

The more I watch television pundits, even more thoughtful television pundits like Fareed Zakaria and George Will, the more I come to the conclusion:

Opinions and assholes.

Decent people. Good faith. Thoughtful analysis.

Opinions and assholes.

Everyone's got one.

Empirical analysis of policy necessitates independent thought, the longest range analysis, an accountability to evidence, consistent application of principle and a genuine concern for everyone involved in a way that transcends simple or crass self interest.

And even then, opinions and assholes. Myself included.

But it's becoming perfectly clear to me, at this point.

Noone in Washington - not a single one - noone in universities - not a single one - noone in politics, period - not a single one - has any sort of monopoly on truth, whatsoever.

And that is the strongest argument for liberty and democracy that I know, if one accounts honestly for the fallibility that power is then subject to.

That is the reason why all of those Enlightenment thinkers favored liberty as a central virtue of governance. But in our hubris, we have dismissed that wisdom in favor of power. And that is where power begins to corrupt and a more honest democracy begins to break down. And the contemporary American system demonstrates that better than many situations I am witness to, right now. The situation in Zimbabwe is actually much clearer, I think. And America's station in the international community demonstrates the principle fairly clearly, as well. North Korea and Iran should be crystal clear demonstrations of the principle, both in their internal politics and in their relationships with the world community, if we saw it more clearly.

But I am completely clear on this matter, at this point.

The problem of democracy, as with the problem of more benevolent hegemony and was likely the problem with more benevolent imperialism, is not people in bad faith, necessarily, thought there is far too much self-interest, dishonesty, and unnecessary tragedy to rationalize the way we engage in politics at this point in the early 21st century. The biggest problem with democracy in the early 21st century is a failure of more empirical analysis of policies and consequences. It's a problem of opinions and assholes and the ways that we compensate for our analysis of policy when the truth is that we really don't understand many problems or their solutions very well in much democratic policy.

And it is, fundamentally, a problem of not taking liberty or democracy seriously enough and engaging them thoughtfully enough in a liberal democracy.

But the easiest way to say it is: opinions and assholes.

I've spent the last 5 years wondering if any of this policy work would mean anything in my lifetime or in anyone's lives if participants were going to stubbornly attach themselves to policy analysis that matched their partisan outlooks.

Would this work mean anything, I've wondered time and again, if power and the quest for it was going to perpetually interfere with a more honest, empirical analysis of its application and success and failures, even amongst scholars?

Was this just a waste of my life?

I've spent a lot of time thinking about other career paths that I passed up. I was a strong actor in high school and college. I'm a pretty good singer. I think I'd be a pretty good writer (a path that I'm exploring with a few script/book ideas I've working on). I've got my head wrapped around investment enough, I think, at this point, to be a rich man, if I wanted to take that path.

So why in the world did I choose to be a teacher of the roughest kids I could work with, to write about obscure policy matters that very few people will actually read, and to challenge core principles in both fields in ways that leave me feeling very much like a kook and an outsider, I've wondered many times to myself?

But the more I follow policy discussions, the more I keep thinking: there has got to be more to honest, empirical, thoughtful policy discussions than just opinions and assholes.

In the end, we are all left with both. But some opinions are more honest and thoughtful than others.

And more importantly to me, some reflect that people know better what they're doing.

Writing this book, this summer, will give me a chance to see if and how many others agree with my assessment of what that better understanding would look like.

In the meantime, I bring a fresh skepticism to this work. It is not because people are in bad faith or stupid or because I have grown cynical. Quite to the contrary, many people in the process are very much in good faith, thoughtful, and I am far more hopeful, honest, and humble in my commitment in this process, today, than I was when I started.

I bring fresh skepticism because all of that is some of the more important qualities to bring to free and democratic discussions, but they are not enough.

It does matter to understand, better, what is going on underneath it all.

I'll share what I've got this summer.

In the meantime, I'm just another guy with plenty of opinions and an asshole, just like everyone else.

But maybe I can still make a contribution that makes this process more honest and offers more understanding. That just might be worth it.

7000 years of repression

It's been more than 7000 year ago that civilization first offered humanity the opportunity to settle in central locations, with the advent of agriculture, to build cities to meet the needs of those who opted to settle rather than maintain a nomadic life, and to make laws to govern the behavior of those who settled.

For more than 7000 years, we have used repression to create comformity to moral and legal codes of conduct in hopes of settling conflicts and preventing bad behavior.

And for more than 7000 years, repression has not only failed at this task, in the biggest picture, but we have, subsequently, made a slow, all too slow, path towards liberalization to account for and correct the problems, abuses, and tragedy that repression has left in its wake.

It is amazing to me, looking out at a world that has many of the same problems with human conduct that it had when civilization first arrived, save for those that greater knowledge, education, understanding, peace, compassion, and freedom - the fruits of enlightenment and liberalization, including the understanding that traditional religious experience and ideas have had to offer in more liberalized form - have made more available to us, and think that we might still believe that more repression will mean more solutions to our problems.

It is nonsensical to me, at this point, actually. It is conventional thinking flying in the face of reason, for me, at this point. Because reason only and always leads me back to the same conclusion. Repression does not work. It, ultimately, makes many problems far worse and leaves much sad and unnecessary tragedy in its wake. And it is our fears and insecurities about liberty and what it has to offer that keeps us stuck in this cycle of greater repression as the dominant and repeated solution offered to problems that it cannot solve.

If I am wrong about this, I have hardly heard a very convincing argument to the contrary. I have explored this question for most of my adult life, at this point, and I have yet to read, see, or hear a convincing argument for the idea that power does more than make people less likely to share bad behavior rather than correct for its presence.

Power and the capacity to use force are obviously needed for situations where physical force is being used against citizens or when genuine danger lurks. Aggression will always beget aggression. But minimizing the use of it will improve our ability to correct behavior, if we could only see that.

The most convincing evidence for this fact is comparing the most egregious and the most genuinely good behavior of more liberal and more illiberal societies of this generation or any previous generation.

It becomes perfectly clear, when considering that evidence honestly, that more liberal societies engage in less of the worst treatment of their fellow human beings, are responsible for much of the bridge building that brings members of humanity together, including conceiving of a concept of universal humanity worthy of equal dignity and respect, and treat their fellows in humanity with the most concern, compassion, decency, and proactive, responsible efforts to improve their lives and conditions of any of the societies that human beings have conceived. The ugliest, most murderous, most brutal, most indecent behavior by human beings against fellow human beings has happened at the hands of the most repressive, with very few exceptions.

And yet we still harbor this insecurity about liberal societies and liberty that it is responsible for our ills, even as it has perpetually been responsible for our most serious, sustainable, and reasoned progress. And even as we watch illiberal societies languish in the generally impoverishing, destructive, and inhumane consequences of their repression.

For some reason, reasonable people cannot quite make the connection that the difference between the success of Western democracies and the failure of illiberal states like North Korea, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Palestine, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Sudan, and the like is the degree to which those societies are democratic or undemocratic, free or unfree.

We talk of freedom in free societies like it is a dirty word that is responsible for all of our bad behavior. And this despite the ugliest and most depraved acts that humanity engages in being rationalized and practiced far more regularly and without the opportunity for open reflection that a free and democratic society allows in the most unfree places in the world, now and since the beginning of time.

All that I understand of this remarkably ridiculous fact of liberal democratic and illiberal undemocratic existence is that when people are afraid they turn to repression. It forever fails them. It forever causes needless tragedy. And yet they forever turn in this direction. They do it in liberal societies. They do it in illiberal societies. Our saving grace being that in liberal societies, they learn of the folly of this choice in contemporary and past societies thoroughly enough that they learn to question, criticize, and even correct this mistake more openly and more quickly than illiberal societies, past and present, are able to do for themselves.

7000 years of repression. It has failed us that entire time, with terribly tragic consequences. And yet we still turn in this direction out of fear that freedom means a world where people do terrible things to one another. Never quite coming to terms with the clear and present fact that 7000 years of repression is a history littered without end, seemingly, with people doing just that, and some hundred years experience with liberty better correcting that trend.

If someone has a stronger argument, a stronger understanding, a stronger way of seeing things, I am open to it. But I have yet to hear it.

And our propensity toward repression to solve problems it cannot solve and that it makes very difficult to solve more honestly rolls along as we are all left and remain cowards, in its wake, to face up to its failure.

Surely our history suggests a willingness to be better than our failures when those failures become clear to us.

That, it seems, is what we are waiting for. A clear understanding of our failure.

May it happen sooner rather than later. For the sake of all of those whose unnecessary tragedy are its legacy.

A real liberal

In light of tragic and wholely uneccessary death of Deborah Jeanne Palfrey, the D.C. Madam, I thought it a good moment to remind everyone what a more honest liberal had to say about the matter.

"You put a willing buyer [with] a willing seller, and it's up to them. You can argue with them that it's foolish, you can argue with them that it's a bad thing to do, but I don't see any justification for bringing the police into it."

Today was a day, amidst of period of rationalized repression, all around, that I wanted to be reminded what a more honest and consistent liberal - that term originally and will forever mean liberty, when it is used honestly - had to say about such matters.

Amidst a time when freedom is unpopular and power is all the rage, it's nice to consult with someone who really believes in that principle.

Liberal democracy in the age of the internet

This is what liberal democracy looks like.

Blogging Towards Democracy: From China to Iran, Web Diarists are Challening Censors

It is not who gets elected President. Political leaders generally follow where others lead.

Liberal democracy is when citizens expect government to give them the freedom to live the lives they need and want. To live lives of purpose or not. To criticize their governments freely or to abstain. To live lives that are worthy to them, whether goverment or anyone approves or not.

Politicians only lead such efforts when they take liberty seriously. Generally, though, they are following the lead of others.

We are those others they follow.

May our examples be ones worthy of following.

I don't care how you fuckin' cut this one...

...this is fuckin' hot.



FoxSexpert: The Ins and Outs of Shaving Your Pubes

It's a brave new world when I read about Fox giving advice on going Brazilian on the Huffington Post.

All I got to say is thank God for a diverse media.

Politics at its best

Zimbabwe opposition willing to share power with ruling party

Their one condition: Mugabe's got to go.

Smart. And one of the more important examples of how democracy makes a difference.

The opposite of love

This is the profile of a man who lives by a governing philosophy of force.

Joseph Fritzl: a shrewd liar and an obsessive tyrant

"Casual acquaintances knew Josef Fritzl as a jovial fellow who liked to drink beer and enjoyed a bawdy joke.

But former neighbors say the man accused of imprisoning his daughter and fathering her seven children ran his household like a dictator. Piece by piece, a picture is emerging of a shrewd liar and an obsessive tyrant.

'At home, he was clearly the lord of the manor. Even at his campground, he was very strict and his rules had to be followed,' said Anton Graf, who rented Fritzl land along Austria's Mondsee Lake.

'He was inflexible and had no sensitivity,' Graf, 57, told The Associated Press. 'You were sick, something happened, he didn't care ... There was a rule — and that was it.'

Although authorities have clamped down on records, examples of Fritzl's double life are coming to light.

The 73-year-old retired electrician was both a hard worker respected by his peers, and a fiercely private man whose life revolved around the home he ruled with an iron fist."

This is the opposite of love that everyone has been romanticizing as of late.

Lucky for us, love and freedom allow us to choose better.

Making love

What does the guy always railing on about freedom think about on a Friday night?



Making love.

Freedom is a beautiful thing.

But love is better.

Enjoy.

I've decided

I'm going to teach. I'm going to write. I'm going to invest. I'm going to be rich. I'm going do good.

And I'm not going to do a single goddamn bit of it worrying for two fuckin' seconds what anybody thinks about it.

I'm going to be a nice guy. I'm going to be a smart guy. I'm going to be a guy with a great big fuckin' heart that I wear right on my fuckin' sleeve.

And I'm going to marry a woman whose got all the same going for her.

And I'm going to love the shit out of her. And I'm going to raise great kids who can do whatever they want with their lives that they love and that makes them happy and be as fantastic at all of it as they decide to be.

And I'm going to teach them to think for themselves, to listen to their hearts, and to not give two shits what the rest of the world thinks outside of their own conscience and judgments, outside of how it might inform their independent judgment.

And I'm going to have a really nice, happy life.

Patience. Communication. Love. Thoughtfulness. Courage.

I'm going to have all of these things and more in my life.

And I'm going to share them with someone who has the same to offer.

And I won't settle for anything less.

What it means to be a real liberal

Josef Joffe, a co-founder of the American Interest, one of if not the finest conservative political scholarly journal in the country has a really fascinating article in today's Post is well worth the read.

Fear Is a Tax, and We're Eagerly Paying It

In toto:

"Some years ago, I received a terror threat. If I did not apologize publicly and profusely for a column that blasted the Iranian regime, I would be killed by Friday, Sept. 13 -- what an auspicious date! So I sent for the security experts, and this is what they told me: Your front and back doors are worthless; get armored ones. Order bulletproof windows. Build a safe room. Install panic buttons. Get rid of that silly chicken-wire fence and put in a steel and concrete one. Don't use the driveway; try to vary your access routes (which, I think, meant sneaking home through the neighbors' gardens). Pretty soon, we were talking six-figure costs and contemplating emigration to Iceland.

The appointed day of my demise came and went. (Real terrorists don't write letters; they just kill you.) But the moral of this story will remain etched in my mind: When security is at stake, there is no limit to fear or fortification.

Fear, in other words, is a tax, and al-Qaeda and its ilk have done better at extracting it from Americans than the Internal Revenue Service. Think about the extra half-hour millions of airline passengers waste standing in security lines; the annual cost in lost work-hours runs into the billions. Add to that the freight delays at borders, ports and airports, the cost of checking money transfers as well as goods in transit, the wages for beefed-up security forces around the world. And that doesn't even attempt to put a price tag on the compression of civil liberties or the loss of human dignity from being groped in full public view by Transportation Security Administration personnel at the airport or from having to walk barefoot through the metal detector, holding up your beltless pants. This global transaction tax represents the most significant victory of Terror International to date.

The new fear tax falls most heavily on the United States. Last November, the Commerce Department reported a 17 percent decline in overseas travel to the United States between 9/11 and 2006. (There are no firm figures for 2007 yet, but there seems to have been an uptick.) That slump has cost the country $94 billion in lost tourist spending, nearly 200,000 jobs and $16 billion in forgone tax revenue -- and all while the dollar has kept dropping.

Why? The journal Tourism Economics gives the predictable answer: 'The perception that U.S. visa and entry policies do not welcome international visitors is the largest factor in the decline of overseas travelers.' Two-thirds of survey respondents worried about being detained for hours because of a misstatement with immigration officials. And here is the ultimate irony: 'More respondents were worried about U.S. immigration officials (70 percent) than about crime or terrorism (54 percent) when considering a trip to the country.'

The falloff has not been as uniform when it comes to international scholars. Chinese, Koreans and Indians keep coming, reports the International Institute of Education (IIE); for the 2006-07 academic year, growth rates were between 3 and 6 percent. But the numbers of Western scholars coming to the United States is falling. Japan, Germany, Canada, Great Britain, Israel, Australia and Holland show declines of between 1 and 13 percent -- presumably because the richer a country, the less willing its scientists are to brave the indignities they face before entering the United States. Those hailing from poor countries, with limited opportunities -- such as the Chinese and the Indians -- remain undaunted.

The pattern for international students resembles that of the scholars. For 2006-07, the IIE reports the 'first significant increase in total international student enrollment since 2001/2002.' Again, the rise is led by the Indians, the Chinese and the Koreans. The numbers of students from Japan are down; ditto for Germany. Hence the IIE's veiled warning: 'America needs to continue its proactive steps to insure that our academic doors remain wide open, and that students around the world understand that they will be warmly welcomed.' To which all Americans should say amen, as these foreign students contribute about $14.5 billion annually to the U.S. economy, according to the IIE. Higher education, after all, is the fifth-largest service-sector export of the United States. And foreign talent that's willing to stick around is one of the country's critical natural resources.

Some U.S. officials know all this, of course. But while the State Department protests, the Department of Homeland Security makes the rules -- and will invent new verbotens by the day. Nor is there any end in sight. The demand for security, as my death threat taught me, is like an obsession, spreading relentlessly, for which there is no rational counterargument. DHS always asks, 'What if?' -- which always trumps 'Why more?' A more fruitful dialogue with the homeland security apparat would be trying to answer: 'What is the national interest?'

After all, which face does the United States want to show to the world? A mien distorted by fear and suspicion, or the face that America used to present: that of a boisterous, easy-going and welcoming society? America's face used to be George Bailey's genial grin in 'It's a Wonderful Life,' filled with the optimism and trust that can banish greed and evil; now, it's the grim visage of Jack Bauer in '24.'

This is not woolly-headed idealism but sober realism. Just imagine how the U.S. Army would have fared in liberating my home continent, Europe, if the blinkered commissars of DHS had been calling the shots in 1944. The way in which the last superpower chooses to bestride the world brings with it hard consequences. Does the United States open its arms or ball up its fists? Growling rarely elicits smiles, and distrust never reaps its opposite. To present a friendly face to the world is not a matter of saccharine niceness but of well-considered interests, especially for a fearsome giant like the United States. For trust breeds authority, and authority breeds influence.

What is happening to the American character? True, the country has gone through crises of confidence before, some of them cresting in sheer hysteria -- from the Alien and Sedition Acts to Sen. Joe McCarthy's search for a commie under every State Department desk. But the worst acts from 1798 were repealed or allowed to lapse within three years, and the senator from Wisconsin was censured a few years into his red-baiting career. Alas, the USA Patriot Act and DHS have already endured for longer than either earlier excess, and neither is fading.

Will the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks change the American character in ways John Adams's laws and McCarthy's mendacity could not? The answer is still 'no' if you go to the heartland, where trusting little old ladies let this perfect stranger shove his memory stick into a public library's computer; they seemed to think a virus scan referred to the common cold. The heartland is still Jefferson country. But when you travel through John F. Kennedy International Airport or Dulles International Airport, you notice nervousness bordering on angst, which is hardly a classic American trait. No, your neighbor will not let you leave your bag on the seat while you amble over to Starbucks.

Have the 'free and brave' lost it? If so, you are not alone. Look at France, where the controls at Paris's Charles de Gaulle Airport are just as gruesome as those at Reagan National Airport. Like the United States, the European Union now wants to fingerprint all foreigners who enter or leave its boundaries. So there is a larger moral to this tale: Security is an obsession that defies natural limits. And we submit because we like it.

Al-Qaeda likes it, too. Never before have so few terrorized so many with so little."

That last paragraph gets it exactly. We have been behaving the way we have, not because we are brave, but because we have been cowards.

And it is real courage that takes liberty seriously in the face of illiberal threats.

That's what courage looks like. If we'd all stop being such fuckin' cowards.

And it takes a real liberal, like Josef Joffe, to remind us that liberty matters.

A question

Can someone answer me something?

How is it that so many national columnists, politicians, activists, even scholars get important questions wrong so often and yet be so sure of themselves all the time?

Because the only thing they are really sure of is that everyone else should take their opinions seriously, right or wrong.

You ask me, that's a pretty fuckin' stupid reason to trust such folks to know more than they do.

Maybe it's time that such people stop acting like they know more than they do.

And maybe it's time for the rest of us to stop investing so much trust in such peoples' random opinions.

Mean people suck

Makes me appreciate my public school and public university experience all the more.

Best and the Brightest, but Not the Nicest

"During four years at Princeton University and nearly a year at Yale Law School, I have been surrounded by students who dazzle. These are the students for whom application processes were made. They include published novelists, acclaimed musicians and Olympic medalists. They include entrepreneurs, founders of human rights groups and political activists. If they have hobbies such as stamp collecting and belly dancing, by golly, they are the best stamp collectors and belly dancers in America! These youths live a life of superlatives, a life in which being No. 1 is not just an aspiration but the status quo. They can be inspirational, and I am lucky to be able to learn from them. But they are not always nice people.

You know what I mean by 'nice.' I mean the kind of 'nice' that involves showing compassion not merely because membership in community service groups demands it. The kind of 'nice' that involves sharing notes with a student who is sick or lending a textbook to a friend who doesn't have one. The kind of selfless, genuine 'nice' that makes this world a better place -- but won't get you accepted to college.

Of course, top universities accept hundreds of individuals who have demonstrated the highest levels of citizenship. These teenagers have volunteered in more food banks, sponsored more fundraisers and lobbied more officials than any previous generation. They earn, rightfully, the gratitude of their communities and the plethora of honors that come with it. Colleges at the top of U.S. News and World Report's rankings would balk at the notion that these students are anything but the best and the brightest.

I'm not saying different. I'm saying that sometimes some of these students will denounce world hunger but be unfriendly to the homeless. They will debate environmental policy but never offer to take out the trash. They will believe vehemently in many causes but roll their eyes when reminded to be humble, to be generous and to 'do what is right.'

It is these people, though, who often climb America's ladder of success. They rise to the top, partly on their own merits yet also partly on the backs of equally deserving but 'nicer' people who let them steal the spotlight. Before they, or we, know it, they are the politicians and corporate executives subverting the very moral positions they espouse. They are the (frighteningly) many figureheads who purport to be leaders even as they embarrass our country and mar our history books.

Watching the race for the presidency, I cannot help but wonder whether our candidates, with their prestigious degrees and impressive credentials, are nice people. I wonder if, in their trek to the top, they have pushed aside the kind of quietly brilliant altruists who mean what they say and say what they mean."

The world often does reward selfish pricks, with other merits, sadly. Nice guys actually do tend to finish first, often. Warren Buffet is a hell of a nice guy, actually. But there are a lot of self-centered assholes who succeed, as well. And, as Amelia nicely argues in this column, they tend to walk on the backs, manipulate, fuck with, scapegoat and otherwise look out for their own selfish interests at the expense of a lot of these nice folks. All to rationalize why they're such selfish pricks.

Most of us are assholes, at times, in our lives. That's why the only way through is to just forgive ourselves and one another and to stop rationalizing what pricks we all are.

And as Amelia wisely observes, it is all of us assholes that make the world a shitty place, when it is. And the beauty of the scam of those who want to remain pricks is that not a one of them takes responsibility for it. As long they're a prick, that is. Because once they do, they join the ranks of all the nice folks that they take for granted and otherwise fuck with around them.

The trick, really, is for nice people to both call out pricks for their bullshit, to work with them on being nicer folk, to stop rewarding them and otherwise rationalizing their behavior for them, and for people, generally, to start being nicer to one another.

For me, it became an easy call once I became clear about what kind of person I want to spend my life with. I don't like being an asshole. And I despise bitchy women, is the truth, no matter how ambitious they are. In fact, bitchy, ambitious women are generally some of the biggest pricks that the world has to offer.

After Brandi and I split up, I decided, after talking with and dating many such women that I have no interest, anymore, in smart without nice. Smart without nice equals a world of misery and mindless arguments all meant to rationalize why someone remains a shithead rather than owning up.

I can't imagine being married to Hillary Clinton, frankly. Bitchy, smart women are just twice the problem of bitchy, dumb women.

And I'd make my life with a nice, moderately intelligent woman any day of the week over the pricks with female organs who make this world a living hell every bit as much as the pricks with male organs.

Nice people are just better people to hang with. Nice, intelligent people are some of the most quality people in the world to hang with, generally. And pricks of every sort are, generally, over the long haul, unbearable to deal with until they face up to their selfish bullshit.

Hitler was fuckin' brilliant. So was Stalin.

But I wouldn't want my kid to grow up to be them. And I don't want my kids to grow up to be a compromised version of any one of them, either.

Face up to your bullshit, assholes. And when you don't, deal with the consequences.

I've had to. That's how I know.

And if you can't, don't be surprised when people slowly start to figure out that you're just an asshole and that you're not worth making excuses for. Eventually people get tired of your shit.

If you ever get around to reading the Intelligent Investor, you'll get a much clearer idea of why nice guys finish first. And why Warren Buffet made all that money. Smart, arrogant pricks lose a lot of money, as it turns out. Because they're too arrogant to admit what they don't know. And it costs them a lot of money, generally.

Me. I'm looking for a nice girl long before I'm looking for a smart girl or an ambitious girl, anymore. Because nice girls and nice guys are cooler to hang out with, generally. And you can trust that what they have to say is not just about how they can look out for Number 1.

I, personally, couldn't really fall in love any other way. I know because I've tried. It just doesn't work. Because the truth is that I will never trust or respect an asshole or a bitch, no matter how smart, ambitious, or whatever they might be. Because, in my heart, I'll always be thinking, "How did I marry such an bitch?"

And what a miserable fuckin' existence that would be. No matter how many Ivy League credentials you put behind it.