A fun new transit tool from Google

Google's got another amazing new project... check out Google Transit. You can only use it in a few areas (my hometown of Seattle being one of them), but I would assume they are actively working to expand it, and then perhaps incorporate multi-city capability?

Update: I guess it's been around for a few months, which takes some of the sheen off. That said, I think there's potential... but not everything with potential develops, as Ryan Anderson knows.

Will we ever return to 'normality'?

Perhaps the greatest contribution of our 29th president, Warren G. Harding, to American life had nothing to do with politics. When I say "perhaps," I mean almost certainly, because as president, Harding was essentially a zero.

However, Harding's campaign slogan was a "return to normalcy." "Normalcy" was, at the time, not actually a word. The "-cy" suffix can sometimes be used with adjectives to create new nouns, for example "literate" and "literacy"; "pregnant" and "pregnancy". However, the suffix with the word normal was (and should still be) "-ity," hence "normality," the quality of being normal.

It is funny that I get annoyed about this, because I am generally not a proscriptive linguist; I believe in descriptive linguistics and that it's not really anybody's job to get involved in the development of language beyond providing explanations (at least in the case of majority, non-endangered languages). I just think that the word "normalcy" is really annoying.

Here's the example that set me off this time:

While difficult for inveterate hawks to admit, the victory for normalcy in Vietnam, celebrated by Bush last week, came about not despite the U.S. withdrawal but because of it.

(This is from Robert Scheer's column that I generally agree with, via Mahablog.)

It seems to me, though, that I see the word "normalcy," and get mad about it, at least one every couple of days.



Irrelevant, immature side note

(Also notably, according to the current version of the Wikipedia entry I just referenced to figure out what number president he was,

Warren Hardon (November 2, 1865 - August 2, 1923) was an American politician and the 29th President of the United States, from 1921 to 1923. ... In the 1920 election, he defeated his Democratic opponent James M. Cox in a naked pillow fight in the oval office, 69 % to 31 % (404 to 127 in the electoral college), becoming the first gay president to win office after a naked pillow fight.

Yes, it's immature, but I still laugh at this stuff sometimes, as much as at the people who have nothing better to do as at the content.)

Shorter title

I'm trying to think of a shorter title for this blog. If you can help with any ideas, email me! (Or, you know, just comment).

Getting scarier in Gaza

The situation in Palestine is getting scarier (if this is possible). The prime minister, or head of the PNA "government," Ismail Haniyeh, is declaring that the shots fired at his limousine were an assassination attempt.

The context for this is that Haniyeh had gone on a visit abroad and was attempting to return to the open-air prison in Gaza with some money for food and salaries to alleviate the misery that continues to increase in the territories. Haniyeh had to leave about $30m in Egypt and eventually, after diplomatic negotiations, was allowed to return. But hey, humiliating the head of "government" is always an acceptable step.

The PNA should have been dissolved long ago, when Abbas could still make the decision himself to end the charade and return responsibility to Israel. If your "government" is arrested by its supposed negotiating "partner," then what sort of "government" is it and what does it "govern"? The Israelis still have all the cards and, like true Likudniks, treat the Palestinians elected as the elected representatives of the prisoners (sorry, "Arabs of Eretz Israel"). But now, Hamas and Fatah cannot agree on anything, and neither will concede for fear of giving the other some sort of edge; and even if they did, other groups make the situation impossible.

As for the horrible situation in the Territories, this can be credited almost entirely to Israel as the power broker. The Palestinian track, if such a thing exists, no longer has anything to do with diplomacy; it is entirely about Israeli domestic politics. Peretz and Olmert jockey for who gets to talk to Abbas or other Palestinians (who hasn't met them in person since the election, but is forced to receive lower ranking Israeli diplomats). Israel's refusal to negotiate or concede any points, and its policies in the Territories, were largely responsible for Hamas's election victory (along with its attempts to subvert Fatah and make it a dependent puppet); and now the boycott and the checkpoints, and the closure of Gaza to almost any traffic, are sealing the deal.

So Israel, as Danny Rubinstein opines in Ha'aretz, will probably have a full-scale Palestinian civil war on its hands soon. If they are hoping the Palestinians will horribly weaken themselves again, they may well be correct, but the fallout won't be pleasant, and the Palestinians won't go away.

What could be done about this? A circumvention of the boycott to pay civil servants through roundabout means, including U.S. funds; release of Palestinian tax funds stolen by the Israeli government to serve this purpose; an alleviation of the unnecessary WB checkpoints; extension of the Gaza "ceasefire" to the WB; an immediate halt to outposts and dismantling of some; resumption of negotiations and diplomatic overtures to Abbas; encouragement of a Palestinian unity government; reopening of the Gaza-Karni and Gaza-Rafah checkpoints to allow agricultural export, movement between Gaza and Egypt and products to move between GS and WB.

What will be done about this? None of the above. At some point, the Israeli government may decide to kill or arrest someone else, to show that they can.

The Belgiumization of Belgium

If you were Belgian, it would probably scare you (or make you happy, one of the two) to turn on the TV and hear that your country no longer existed.

Belgian public broadcaster RTBF ran an on-air spoof for almost two hours, claiming that Flanders had declared independence. Their reason, they said: to provoke debate about the current state of the nation's affairs.

Belgium is, kind of, an example of successful federalism--it's a federal state with six federal entities, three of them regions and three of them cultural communities, which overlap. "Kind of" successful because the system keeps changing to accommodate additional demands, and Flemish nationalists in particular (Vlaams Belang) continue to perform well at elections. When I studied in Granada, Spain, my European politics professor spent two classes going over just the Belgian federal system. In part this emphasis was because most of my classmates were (1) not polisci majors and (2) didn't speak Spanish as well as I did, but I did learn a decent amount about how Belgium is ridiculously complex.

While we in the U.S. might immediately know that a news report that the South had seceded again was fiction, in Belgium, you can't be sure--hence, the alarm and controversy surrounding the broadcast decision.

Brace yourself

I'm almost done for the holidays. Be prepared for the onslaught of posts to follow...

Another part of the gay agenda, revealed

Wondering why your kid is gay? Here's the explanation.

Next time, let his mother eat the tofu herself.

(Via PoliBlog)

The #17 university in the world?

Not that I like to criticize my own university, in general, but...

As I was updating my blogger profile I decided to include a tongue-in-cheek reference to the Jiao Tong university rankings of global institutions. The top 20 include such recognized centers of learning as Harvard (1), Cambridge [UK] (2), Stanford (3), UC-Berkeley (4!), and... the University of Wisconsin at Madison (16) and the University of Washington (17)??? Umm, are we talking about the same UW here? Apparently it is ahead of Michigan, NYU and Northwestern.

This becomes somewhat more logical when you see that the rankings are basically based on the volume of publishing by faculty and prizes won. By sheer size, UW has an advantage there, being a larger-sized institution than most, and some of the faculty are pretty good. However, the rankings have almost nothing to do with the student experience. Admittedly, universities aren't made just for students; but students play a vital role in them. And from my young perspective, there is no way the University of Washington is #17 in the world...

An interesting note about the survey is that pretty much all the top schools are American. This, and the way the rankings are made, is just another citation for the fact that American schools are much better at facilitating research than European ones.

Pinochet dies

General Augusto Pinochet has died at the age of 91. I believe the initial reaction from the UK foreign office was appropriate:

We note the passing of Gen Pinochet and want to pay tribute to the remarkable progress that Chile has made over the last 15 years as an open, stable and prosperous democracy.

Margaret Thatcher has apparently said she is "greatly saddened." That saddens me.

Según La Tercera, un 55 por ciento de chilenos opinan que Pinochet no debiera recibir honores de ex presidente en el funeral. (According to the Chilean newspaper La Tercera, 55% of Chileans believe Pinochet should not be buried with the honors of an ex-president).

News flash!

Via Milkmoney or Not

Ecuadorian elections

As usual with Latin American elections, the talk has all been about the presidential election in Ecuador, where leftist Rafael Correa defeated banana magnate Alvaro Noboa. Correa was originally aligned with Hugo Chavez in Venezuela but has moderated a little bit since, at least according to the Economist, who I trust more than I do in a matter to which I haven't paid a horribly large amount of attention.

There has been less discussion of the legislative elections. (The Wikipedia article doesn't really mention them yet). However, Ecuador uses a rather unusual voting system. For a discussion of how the system works, check out my comment at Fruits and Votes (the original post regarding both Correa's win and the legislative polls). Essentially, it is a strange open-list system. As far as I can tell, it's also possible to cheat. Individual votes on the open lists are weighted by the average number of votes everyone casts for candidates. In big constituencies (there are a couple, with 14 and 18 seats), pretty much nobody casts all those votes. In Guayas (18 seats) the average was about 8 votes. This means that if you voted for every individual that your party nominated, your 18 votes * 1/8 = 2.25 votes for your party, effectively. As far as I can tell, that's perfectly legal and possible.

Full results can be found at the Ecuadorian TSE.

Chávez coasts to another win

I have not said much about the upcoming elections in Venezuela. Suffice it to say that I would support Rosales and, when he loses, I will be disappointed but not surprised.

Day of reckoning

Everyone's out but the top five (Dryden will be eliminated in the second round as he has chosen not to drop out). Dion crept past Kennedy in the first round (by 2 votes), Ignatieff did not do as well as expected.

Predictions: I am rooting for Kennedy now. However I think that the odds are (1) Rae (2) Dion.

They are counting the second ballot now.

9:49 AM CT Check that. I predict Kennedy goes to Dion and Ignatieff's delegates go to Dion. Dion wins.

I think I heard someone on TV say they thought Kennedy "bombed" the speech. What?? Kennedy's speech was one of the best. Definitely better than Dion and Ignatieff. Unfortunately it is not the sole determinant of what happens.

1:37 PM CT I was at work for a while today and couldn't blog, but I was watching as Kennedy moved over to Dion. Kennedy sounded deflated and disappointed, but made it clear he was supporting Dion as the most in agreement with him and said that the goals were more important than the person. Now it's a toss up--Dryden went to Rae (but "freed" his delegates); Ignatieff was still ahead but not really growing; Dion and Kennedy together pass Rae, if Dion takes all of Kennedy's delegates.

Crazy and exciting...

1:43 PM CT I made it home just in time. This is ridiculously exciting!!! Rae is eliminated. My predictions are coming true. Question: What does Rae do now?? Deal with Dion, or with Ignatieff? I think most of his delegates would rather go to Dion.

1:52 PM CT Rae has released his delegates and will not endorse anyone. Well, Dion finished first, Ignatieff second. Ignatieff grew by only about 5 percent, representing Kennedy's delegates who didn't follow their candidate. Dion is on the move. I think the majority of Rae's delegates fall to Dion, and Dion wins. If that happens, what is the political future of Rae and of Ignatieff?

2:56 PM CT Talk continues. Comments on how Dion and Kennedy have been a team. Hedy Fry is backing Dion.

3:47 PM CT Jean Chretien is speaking. Gives Paul Martin a line by noting that he voted for his father 50 years ago. Notes that Liberals are the party that voted "no" on the war. No shot of Ignatieff's reaction. Continues speaking about Liberal accomplishments and unity.

4:46 PM CT And we're almost here. Ignatieff camp looks dejected, Dion and Kennedy look pretty happy. A lot of talk about the benefits/drawbacks of a convention vs. OMOV. The commentators do make a legit point that the leadership convention is extremely exciting. They talk a lot about how a convention shows young people that the party is fun (okay, but you don't have to have a leadership convention, any convention will do). The point, of course, is that the outcome is best--not to get caught up in process. I wouldn't say I know enough about the history of the whole thing, as it relates to Canada, to weigh in.

5:04 PM CT Dion is the winner 2521-2084. He and Gerard hold their hands up. Ignatieff looked almost like he was going to cry. He now is taking the stage and conceding--it's actually a pretty good concession all things considered. Now Martin is up to introduce Dion. Think this is about all I'm blogging. Until later...

Selecting Canada's next PM

I'm watching the Liberal convention online...

I have not taken the side of a single candidate during the race, although I have been most impressed by, and lean toward, both Stephane Dion and Gerard Kennedy. Dion's "three-pillar" approach emphasizing the environment and his experience are impressive; Kennedy's freshness, drive and enthusiasm, and his commitment to values, recommend him.

I have not seen any of the candidates give a speech before. I found Dion not particularly interesting, but his English was fine, something that has been mentioned as a weakness. He took too long and got sent off stage by the music. Kennedy's French has been, conversely, mentioned as his weakness. Not speaking French, I cannot evaluate, though he sounded all right to me. What I can say is that Kennedy really, really impressed me. His speech was risky--it placed blame on the party for its defeat and called on the party to find its values--but I found it both authentic and passionate, as well as true.

Of course, Ignatieff and Rae are still the front-runners, but anything can happen--it's a convention, after all.

More to come.


7:42 CT Rae gave a speech without notes about the Canada he wants. It was okay and the broadcasters liked it but it was not as energetic as Kennedy's and, of course, had fewer specifics and a few platitudes. Ignatieff's up and his pre-speech video is currently running. I've been trying to figure out what irritates me about Ignatieff, and I think it's just his conceitedness, which seems to permeate the campaign, and everything it produces as well... a little bit too slick and media-driven.

7:44 CT Ignatieff's brother Andrew (the original "Iggy"), in the video, noted that "it's not arrogance, it's normal human shyness." That's the word I was looking for--arrogance.

8:03 CT Ignatieff: "We are the party that will take us there." Right...I suppose he was talking about all of Canada, not the Liberals. :) A good speech, especially towards the end. Emphasis on Canada's place in the world, Canada will have the best, can have the best, so on. I'm surprised the cameras weren't on Volpe the whole time--they've been spying on him nonstop waiting for him to make the move over to Rae. Now they're trying to rope Brison into admitting that he's going to Ignatieff but he won't bite (even when they ask the same question five times, imagine that!).

I still don't like Ignatieff. His smug smile alone annoys me...

There we go, the announcer mentioned Volpe again. Commentators don't like Ignatieff as much as Rae or Kennedy. I still say Kennedy was the best.

Who needs a government?

Looks like things are a bit more complicated in the Netherlands than I thought. First, CDA + VVD + PvdV (Wilders) doesn't add up to a majority. Not to mention, nobody really wants to work with Wilders, who is rather controversial due to comments on Islam.

Okay, quickly apply the cordon sanitaire, and go... where? Christian Democrats and Labor (CDA + PvdA), ignoring the fact that they hate each other, still don't have a majority. The rumors have had a small Christian party (economic left/social right), CU, joining the government. Except that PvdA has demanded that the big gainers, SP, be involved in any discussion.

One of the outgoing Liberal (VVD) ministers commented that "the only winners are the anarchists" due to the inconclusive nature of this election. But it seems to be becoming a pattern, with Germany, Austria and the Czechs all voting inconclusively. Why? And will it lead to anything other than strengthening extremists, especially on the right?

Guy at A Fistful of Euros has a good commentary.

To the extreme...

Looks like the Rwandan government is going what we call "overboard"...

One can surmise that Kagame would have liked to do this for a long time and now he has a pretext to do so. He has never had good relations with France, as the RPF saw France as backing the genocidaire government. He and his ministers are probably legitimately offended (to be mild) at the accusations--if they're not true, they're essentially falsely blaming Kagame/RPF for allowing the genocide to begin (and if they are true then it's certainly an unpleasant reminder of a failed strategy, nonetheless). There is also the colonialist/colonized angle to this (who are they to judge us?). That has some merit.

Even so, to block all state institutions from operating, including the French school and RFI, is quite extreme and certainly shows the poor state of relations that Kagame and the French have had for years. As, of course, does the warrant that sparked off the whole situation.

Shouldn't be a surprise

To update a previous story,

BBC: Rwanda cuts relations with France

Rwanda has accused Paris of trying to destabilise its government. France said it regretted Rwanda's move to cut ties.

Paris has insisted the French judge, Jean-Louis Bruguiere, acted on his own authority and in total independence.

Issuing the warrants, Judge Bruguiere accused President Paul Kagame - who under French law has immunity as head of state - of ordering the former president's death. Mr Kagame has denied involvement.

Good move, Harper!

If you pay any attention to the winds that blow from up north, you know that there has been a debate among the politicos for a few weeks now: is Quebec (the province) a nation? This debate was sparked by the Liberal Party's Quebec branch, which, in advance of the upcoming leadership convention, passed a resolution declaring that the LPC should recognize Quebec as a nation, and sending it on to the convention. This has, thereby, stirred up a great deal of controversy in Liberal (and non-Liberal) ranks, with Michael Ignatieff generally blamed for having brought the issue up and played with the constitution for his own political ends, and other candidates paying lip service to "Quebec-as-nation" but saying further steps are not currently necessary.

Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe finally seized on this entire issue to introduce, in the House of Commons, a resolution that "Quebeckers form a nation." And then Prime Minister Stephen Harper (a Conservative, for those not familiar), who wisely had avoided commenting on the entire situation and had been allowing the Liberals to self-destruct arguing about it, was forced into action. He pulled a very astute move: he introduced a resolution declaring that "the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada." In English-speaking Canada, "Quebeckers" generally refers to everyone from Quebec, and "Québécois" to French-speaking Quebeckers. (In French, of course, the entire thing is much more complicated, and much of this matter is the semantics: exactly what you define a "nation" to be and who or what is being referred to in the statement).

Essentially, Harper proposes to recognize French-speaking Quebeckers as a (sociological) nation. This is not a particularly controversial statement, not nearly as controversial as according the status to a legal entity, the province, which might indicate more rights. It is generally accepted, at least as far as I am aware, that the Québécois are a nation. Harper used words carefully and, as far as I can tell, he definitely wants this resolution to be interpreted as applying to francophone residents of Quebec only. [I tried to discern everything I could from the various blog entries, news articles, and the Hansard record of debate]. He has outflanked nationalists while reaffirming the unity of Canada, and all he is really conceding is that the francophones in Quebec are their own nation, which everybody knows anyway.

Now, I know there are a lot of details about this that I might not understand, not being Canadian or a lifelong student of Canadian politics, so I could be entirely wrong on my interpretation. Indeed, there are plenty of Canadians who are mad about it, there have been newspaper editorials against Harper for this. But much of the reason has been a lack of clarity about the two points I note above: who or what is being defined as a nation? and what is a nation?

Again, my take in the end--Harper did what he had to do, and well. The only people who really should be angry (besides the separatists, who got outdone) are the francophones everywhere else, who really are kind of cheated by this.

I'm posting only one link, to a blog post, but rest assured everyone is writing about it, so just search for "people from Canada" and you'll probably get about 30 million human comments and 9 million from polar bears (who, by the way, are the next in line to get nation status).*

*I love Canada. All in good humor.

Movies: Stranger than Fiction

How much of our lives is predestined? How much do we owe to the small details? How many of those details are coincidence, how many of them are fate, and how many do not concern us? Such questions have long concerned theologians and are addressed, with somewhat more humor, in Stranger than Fiction.

The essential premise of Stranger than Fiction, revealed within the first couple minutes (or in the previews, assuming you have seen them) is that lead character Harold Crick (played by Will Ferrell) is, apparently, a character in the story of some anonymous narrator, whose voice he can hear going through his head. Harold is assigned to audit a bakery owned by Ana Pascal (Maggie Gyllenhaal). He needs to deal with the information he learns from his narrator and try to figure out what is happening to him, at the same time that he starts falling for Ana.

The lead actors are all satisfactory in their roles. Ferrell acquits himself well in a film with serious value (the film is semi-serious, treating what is really weighty subject matter with a very light and comical touch). The only character truly developed in the story is Ferrell's, although we do peripherally learn about Gyllenhaal's Ana. Her character is somewhat clumsily developed, and her relationship with Ferrell never entirely makes sense, one of the few flaws in the film.

Should we take the main premise of the story at face value, there are two logical problems with Harold's predicament that I discerned as I watched (and possibly others, of course, that I did not catch). One, to my satisfaction, played a substantial part in the movie's denouement. The second was not addressed, and apparently is something that one has to "swallow" in order to believe the larger story of the narrator's control of Harold's life.

For Stranger than Fiction, a viewer can leave satisfied about the conclusion, or about the questions the movie brings to mind. The movie is not complex because its plot is multifaceted, but rather because it brings to mind questions about life which we can never truly answer, except to ourselves. In the end, the message I gathered was: (1) you create your own life, and it is authored by others (whoever they are) only to the extent that you allow it to be; (2) the details are the story; and, more heavy-handedly and explicitly, (3) there are many ways to change the world. Whether or not you derive the same messages depends on your incoming bias, and there are many other takes on the same material. However, whatever your thoughts on the topic, Stranger than Fiction can offer a convenient jumping-off point for such a discussion.

*** 1/2 (3.5 of 4 stars) - Stranger than Fiction (2006): Will Ferrell, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Emma Thompson, Dustin Hoffman, Queen Latifah. Directed by Marc Forster, screenplay by Zach Helm. Running time 1:53. Viewed in theater (Edwards 23, Houston).

The Dutch say "no" to a grand coalition

The Netherlands held a general election today and the results are coming in. It appears that Dutch voters decided they definitely didn't want a "grand coalition"-style government, as both major parties, the Christian democrats (CDA) and Labor (PvdA) lost votes, netting under 50 percent combined (compared to over 56 percent at the last election).

The big winners of the day appear to have been Geert Wilders, whose new conservative party (founded in a break with the main liberal-conservative party over Turkey) took around 6 percent, and the Socialists, the leftist alternative to Labor. The Socialists appear to have won over 16 percent of the vote, an increase of over 10 percent. About half of this is Labor voters who appear to have shifted left to avoid a centrist coalition.

Another interesting note is the emergence of the Party of Animals, the first explicitly animal-rights party to gain representation in a parliament, anywhere. Meanwhile the classical-liberal D66 was demolished and took under 2 percent of the vote.

The Netherlands has a proportional-representation system that effectively works on the national level (the closest referent is Israel) and has no real threshold. This means that tiny parties can make parliament (there will be 10 in the Tweede Kamer this time around, looks like). In such a context it is really surprising that major parties are able to hold as much of the vote share as they do, and a shift to a more multipolar context (as is happening in Israel as well) seems inevitable. This is especially true today, where the number of issues confronting the electorate is larger and fits less well into a traditional left-right spectrum.

As for a government, chances look good that the current PM, heading the still-largest party CDA, will be returned to form Balkenende IV. CDA with the VVD (conservative liberals) and Wilders' new party appear to come close to a majority. The alternatives seem to have been rejected by the electorate.

The Dutch electoral authority does not seem to post results online. I am seeing the best results from a Dutch newspaper, here. Also, the BBC gives a summary. Wikipedia has an extensive article, with the usual caveats.

New: Israel is taking land from Palestinians!

So many Israeli settlements, in particular Ma'ale Adumim, are built largely on private Palestinian land. So that accounts for about 40 percent of their land area. So?

This information was leaked from inside the Civil Administration (the Israeli government body responsible for the occupied territories). The Yesha Council, as usual, responded by lying (see the Ha'aretz article cited below) and the government responded in its usual way--by essentially admitting that this was true and saying nothing. For example: "Miri Eisin, a spokesperson for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, said that Israeli officials would have to see the data and the maps and added that ownership is complicated and delicate." Of course they need to see the data and the maps, it's not as though they've had access to them before! Inevitably they will have to conclude (after seeing the data and the maps for the first time) that the expropriated land is necessary to protect Israeli citizens from terrorism.

I find it interesting that the organizers (Peace Now) apparently placed as much emphasis on getting the information to The New York Times--where it was reported prominently, and who actually spoke to the informant--as to the Israeli public, though they did, according to Ha'aretz, hold a press conference in Jerusalem. The American public doesn't already know these facts. The Israeli public is well aware already, and by and large, doesn't care.

Yes, this should cause an outrage, but it's just another one of those things that should cause an outrage that is all too common in this conflict and won't really change anything.

Rwanda's reaction

Predictably, the BBC notes,

Rwanda has angrily rejected calls by a French judge for President Paul Kagame to stand trial over the killing of his predecessor, which sparked genocide.

Rwanda's foreign minister said France was trying to cover up its own complicity in the 1994 killings of some 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus.

Maybe Kagame and RPF were involved. The downing of Habyarimana's plane still hasn't been solved, though Hutu extremists in the Rwandan armed forces and presidential guard have been blamed (see my previous post) and it makes more sense that they were responsible given the apparently non-spontaneous nature of the events that followed. As the Wikipedia article notes, though, there is substantial dispute.

Either way, of course, there is no chance of getting Kagame to stand trial.

Everyone's day on a dollar

Caveat: This blog headline is not at all original, as it basically copies The New York Times. And they weren't original either.

So, apparently the plan is to put every president on a dollar coin, much as every state was on a quarter. I think we can all agree that every state deserves its own quarter... well, maybe the Dakotas should have shared one, but for the most part, every state.

But every president? Do Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore and William Henry Harrison deserve their time on a dollar? Franklin Pierce? James Buchanan? Those presidents truly deserving of recognition are already on currency (Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, JFK). Jackson and Grant are also on currency; admittedly, the former was a formative figure, if someone I can't stand, and the latter was a good general, so perhaps can be justified under the same criteria of "important person," as we (justifiably) have Hamilton and Franklin on currency as well.

But really, there are better characters than Taylor, Fillmore and Harrison (either of them, for that matter) to populate our money. Are we really avoiding recognizing them because deciding which ones to recognize might cause a controversy? That's the kind of discussion that should be in the public discourse!

Okay, of presidents, I could countenance the following--John Adams, Madison, TR, Wilson, Truman, LBJ, and Reagan. Take off LBJ if you think I am being too partisan. The rest of the deserving are already on money. Madison gets on not for his presidency but for the Constitution.

Other notable figures abound in American history. This is a chance to honor women and minority figures of note, as well as other contributors who happen to have been white and male. Yes, this digs up a lot of questions about anti-Semitism or other racism (Henry Ford et al); the economic system (well, Ford again, and the "robber barons"); and the rightness of war (generals, especially Western generals). But can we agree that Tecumseh and Chief Joseph deserve the honor? How about Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, and for that matter, Thurgood Marshall? Martin Luther King Jr. or Susan B. Anthony (well, okay, she already got it--how about Elizabeth Cady Stanton)?

I think that someone with more time on his/her hands could develop a great list of American innovators, thinkers, and leaders that deserve recognition more than an undistinguished, unelected president who, after leaving office, ran again as a candidate for a group of xenophobic nationalists.* Or the 30-day president who is otherwise best known for crushing Indian tribes.** Or the guy who was only even elected as part of a corrupt bargain that ended Reconstruction in the South and handed it back to the white elite.***

I don't know... what do you think?

*Millard Fillmore
**William Henry Harrison
***Rutherford Hayes

Let's go bowling

Quick, if you played college football, which one would you rather play in...

San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl
PapaJohns.com Bowl\
New Mexico Bowl
Gaylord Hotels Music City Bowl Presented by Bridgestone
Chick-fil-A Bowl
MPC Computers Bowl
GMAC Bowl

If you're wishing for the days of the (now-defunct) Silicon Valley Classic or galleryfurniture.com bowl, you're not alone. Of course, as a Huskies fan, I am just hoping for a shot at New Mexico...

France annoys people, again

A French judge says that Rwandan President Kagame should be tried for the murder of ex-president Habyarimana in 1994, the event that started the Rwandan genocide.

Now, Kagame has done plenty of things that I (and, more importantly, other people who matter) don't like, such as throwing ex-president Bizimungu (his own hand-picked transitional president) into jail for opposing him, and silencing dissent on the grounds that it "provokes genocide."

However, it is generally agreed that Kagame and the RPF didn't kill Habyarimana, but that it was planned and executed by Hutu-extremist elements within the former Rwandan armed forces which then used it as a pretext to carry out the genocide. France, meanwhile, provided cover and support (military and diplomatic) to the genocidaires, with whom it had close ties. Which makes the issuing of a warrant for Kagame, in addition to unenforceable, just another ridiculous example of the French superiority/inferiority complex.

If you want to know more about Rwanda, I have read this book about four times, and highly recommend it. Note that the author is sympathetic to Kagame and the RPF (but who should he have sympathized with? the genocidaires?).

Juice

Fox and its subsidiaries have canceled everything they had to do with O.J. Simpson's new book.

I would say "good for them" and "they reversed a mistake"... but it's Fox, so they knew exactly what they were doing. Even if they weren't, this was a book about how O.J. Simpson hypothetically would have killed people that he actually killed.* I rarely want to throw up (except after going on those spinny things at the carnival) but that brings me pretty close.

*probably.

UPDATE: Watching CNN, they note that 55% characterize it as "offensive," 30% as "inappropriate" and 12% as "nothing wrong." I wasn't sure at first whether they were referring to the Bush presidency but on review, it does appear they were talking about O.J.

Apple Cup, and the other important game

Dawgs win! Unfortunately, because we lost to Stanford (of all teams) last week, we will not be bowl-eligible, at 5-6. But there is some reason for future optimism.

#1 Ohio State beat #2 Michigan--the second #2 they have beaten this year (the other one being Texas). Michigan is still the #2 team in the country, but they probably won't go to the national championship. But, of course, there should be a playoff. Right after they get the Big East out of the equation.

Where will undefeated Boise State go? Not to the BCS...

A new strategy in Gaza

So, Palestinians are using human shields en masse to block IAF targeted bombings of houses (BBC, Ha'aretz). A couple quick reactions, both of which are actually negative for the Palestinians:

(1) Bad publicity. Supports those who say that Palestinians deserve the treatment they get because they are supportive of terror in their midst. Generally, this is rebutted by the assertion that Palestinians in places such as Beit Hanoun have no choice because they would be killed/hurt if they object to the launching of Qassam missiles (or suicide bombings or what have you).

(2) Paves the way to let Israel launch these attacks unannounced, based on the negative publicity of (1). Deliberately putting citizens in harm's way is a crime, regardless of who is doing it. Citizens who decide to put themselves in harm's way are becoming combatants.

I don't think this is a good way to go. As regards my point (1), I still don't agree with it--I just assert that a lot of people will invoke it. This is one way that the Palestinians in Beit Hanoun can show their opposition to Israel. I don't think it necessarily shows that they support Qassam launching, just that they can't do anything about it, and they may as well express their anger about the situation in some sort of manner that may help save some people or houses as well. It's like the Lebanese who were caught in the Israel-Hezbollah conflict: what are they supposed to do, side with Israel?

The decline continues

What kind of country allows this sort of statement from a member of its government?

I mean, we all knew. But for Olmert and, especially, Peretz and Labor to sit there and act like this is acceptable is disgusting.

To say that any statement made by a member of the government automatically represents the government is false; but there are certain lines that should not be crossed.

An eventful weekend

Well, I was doing a lot of work this weekend, but I did manage to do a couple of really fun things, which I will talk about in chronological order.

First, I got to go see Borat on Friday night. Of course, everyone was looking forward to this. I was wondering what sort of reception it would get. No worries. It was a bit more lowbrow than I expected (not sure why I expected it would be any more sophisticated) and while it had its moments of higher-level humor it had plenty of gross-out antics as well (more than plenty, really). I think everyone was fairly satisfied. Personally, I give it 3 of 4 stars - of course, the same as Berardinelli.

Second, I got to go to the TAMU-OU football game on Saturday in College Station. It was a close A&M loss (17-16). I did get some cool pictures which I will try to post when I get a chance (probably on Facebook first though). I guess Coach Franchione has been taking some heat all year for questionable calls and there were definitely some in this game. A&M's defense made good adjustments and was great after a tough first quarter, but the offense never came through, and Franchione made two decisions to kick field goals in the second half rather than going for it on fourth down. Had they made it once on fourth down and gone on to score a touchdown, they would have at least tied this game.

Bush is predicting again!

"If their electoral predictions are as reliable as their economic predictions, Nov. 7 is going to be a good day for the Republicans." --George W. Bush on the Democrats. (see article)

Several possible reactions:

a) Which economic predictions are talking about here? The ones that said that inequality would continue to increase and good jobs would continue to not be created?
b) Or the ones that said tax cuts would close the deficit?
c) Perhaps if "good day for the Republicans" means the day their pensive rebuilding can begin.
d) And if your electoral predictions are as reliable as your Iraq predictions...

Beitenu is home

So Lieberman has agreed to join the government and take one ministry. He hopes to force out Labor eventually and take more. Meanwhile Labor is evenly divided about what to do. Arab members of Labor say they'll quit if Lieberman joins and Peretz is technically opposed, but influential members want to do it. Peretz is doomed and Labor is weak...

Who is Labor? What is the reason for the party's existence, other than opportunism? Technically, I guess, it represents secular, economic left, non-dovish voters. But how many of those are around? Eventually everyone who represents the hawkish (and economically liberal) wing will join Kadima (or whoever succeeds it) and everyone from the dovish side will unite with Meretz-Yahad. Or so one would think. But the remaining structure and advantages that exist (resources) to campaigning with Labor may continue to prolong the agony.

My relative optimism

It is finally time to be optimistic again about U.S. politics. Kind of. I mean, the Democrats still have no plan whatsoever, but at least the Republicans will have to stop implementing their plan, and that's worth it.

As I'm still not registered to vote in Texas (oops), I will be voting absentee for, uh, whoever I am registered to vote for in Washington. That means a vote for Maria Cantwell, and perhaps Jim McDermott, or maybe Jay Inslee, if one of those is my representative (maybe it's someone else entirely). Inslee is a good representative of the 1st District and he'll be in Congress for a while to come unless he leaves of his own accord.

On the national level, I'd still love to see Lieberman get beat. Not that I love Ned Lamont (who?) but I hate Joe Lieberman. Here in Texas we have a four-way governor's race that means Governor Perry will probably get reelected somehow. I daresay this won't help Houston's inequalities.

Perhaps more later, but we all know the States isn't my specialty.

Quantifying coffee

The New York Times has an interesting article about Starbucks in which is discussed the company's foray into creating culture (not just the perfect brew).

Meanwhile, from here in Houston I've been debating how to label Starbucks. It's certainly true (as most would agree) that the experience here is not the equal of that in the Seattle area. So far I've come up with a few areas: ambience (environment, cleanliness), service (speed, friendliness), drink quality, etc. There are a number of subcategories to each. As a former barista I have the advantage of knowing what was looked for by "Snapshots" (the outsiders the company hires to rate service).

Soon I hope to start categorizing the service I get and, hopefully, become influential on the Houston Starbucks scene.

On the world today

It's been a while since I've had the time to make a post on here. The world has changed in those three months. We've gone from "convergence" in IsPal to the new Lebanese war... Iraq is, well, okay, Iraq is still bad and getting worse...

Briefly: I never thought I'd be getting tired of the Middle East, but I finally am. Like everyone else, I have my tolerance level. That said, I still read Ha'aretz pretty regularly and I still generally think a real Palestinian state is the best way to go. The proposed unity government will be a good thing if it gets off the ground. For a while, the calls for the dissolution of the PNA looked like a good idea, but at this point if a unity government can be constituted and call for deployment of an international force in the territories, it would be a very positive step and one that Israel would have less traction in responding to (at least it would put Israel on the defensive, not that they'd ever agree to the idea, yet).

And Mexico! The U.S. government has done a good job of staying out. Calderon is the winner, and I feel comfortable saying that having supported AMLO in the election. Once the IFE certifies Calderon, AMLO will have a much tougher time getting out supporters, or so it should be hoped.

Plenty else is going on, but I don't have that much time. I'll be back as soon as I can to keep offering my unrequested thoughts on whatever catches my eye.

On leave...

Hey all, should have mentioned it earlier, but I'm taking some time off, since (1) I just graduated from college, so I am no longer a random college student, and (2) I'm in a pretty intensive summer program at the moment. So, I will be back... when I'm back!

Referendum?

Abbas says he'll call a referendum. Hamas says he'll need to go through Parliament to do it. In the end, he'd probably be able to do it...

The plan that was worked out in an Israeli jail isn't that new. Would there be any ramifications beyond Hamas' agreement? Doubtful--surveys have indicated Palestinian support for the same thing for years and had no effect. Israelis have never particularly cared about the Palestinian stance, only about their own practical concerns.

About a referendum... I assume this is a PA referendum and not a "Palestinian" referendum, since there is talk about the PLC needing to approve the thing. The latter sort of referendum would encompass Palestinians in camps in other Arab nations--and possibly other exiles too. A logistical nightmare, but to be truly legitimate, the referendum (or at least the final referendum on a peace plan, if there is one) would have to include them. It won't. They are being ignored and will continue to be, except as a bargaining chip.

Another interesting note: So, the boycott led Hamas to agree to transfer control of finance to Abbas. Huh. Weren't they elected to clean up Palestinian government and crack down on corruption? And now Abbas and Fatah will control finances again? Huh. Oh well, the boycott was worth it...

Social democracy as a principle

“Social democracy,” as an ideology, as a phenomenon, has certainly seen its more popular days. The post-Cold War-driven shift to the center, the “Third Way” as it has been called (though many things have been referred to by that moniker), has altered the concept in many ways, although the core values remain the same.

Social democracy, at its beginning, referred to a peaceful Marxist transition from capitalism to socialism via the democratic route (“reformism”). It was a broad enough concept at the beginning of the century that Lenin’s party was called the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. After the Russian Revolution, the historic socialist-communist split led to the foundation of explicitly Communist revolutionary, pro-Soviet parties, and the remaining “socialist” parties gradually drifted rightward, though the balance between the socialist and communist parties differed in various countries.

Today, we are seeing the second transition of social democracy. Social democrats in Europe have been admitting officially what they had already conceded privately—that socialism is not the end goal, that a “tamed capitalism” and a mixed economy are the goals of social democracy. Liberty, equality and solidarity remain the principles of social democracy, but the movement’s concept of and approach to pragmatism and reality has been altered substantially.

As with any other ideology, the effect and reality of social democracy in government is correlated to the environment in which the individual party finds itself. The general trend towards moderation (though not without disputes) in SD parties has continued, but moderation is a relative term depending on the country (with SD parties in Scandinavia, for instance, still defending their traditional welfare state).

Classical liberals may want to claim for themselves the mantle of historic pragmatism. But liberalism has its not-so-proud moments, its regressive alliances over the years, not to mention its (classical) refusal to admit the value of public goods above and beyond the basic provision of markets.

Social democracy differs from liberalism in more than one way. Whereas liberalism is individualism at its pinnacle, adopting the principle of “individual gains” and “rationality” and accrediting it as the natural order of things, social democracy is idealistic, change-oriented and yet simultaneously pragmatic. Social democracy recognizes the need for substantial public goods and the maintenance of the collective, the commons, in ways other than simply the sustenance of clearly visible economic gains via the market. Social democrats believe that health care, quality education, employment, a quality environment, and other public goods are crucial to the survival of the market, and are positive not just as mechanisms for increasing productivity, but in creating a society that can support all of its citizens and maintain its long-term legitimacy.

This implies the most vital thread of social democracy: social democracy can be a way of living, not just a political ideology. Liberalism fails as a way of living: a belief that the individual gain will always be the major consideration is self-fulfilling. Pragmatic social democracy believes that the individual gain and the collective gain are oftentimes competing principles, which must be reconciled as best as possible, but that we must always strive towards an ideal, where we can see equality of outcomes produced across society.

None of what I write here is new, of course, but hopefully it puts my opinions into context.

"These innocent people"

"[Palestinians] are the victims of their own extremist, fundamentalist, religious, inflexible and unyielding leadership, and we will do everything in our power to help these innocent people." --Ehud Olmert, quoted in Ha'aretz, 19 May 2006

How, exactly, does Israel propose to help the innocent Palestinians, who apparently chose Hamas to lead them without realizing the character of the organization, and apparently before earlier this year were the victims of something else. Exactly what they were the victims of (previously) isn't specified. Certainly not Israel, or the settler movement, of course. It really is too bad that all these innocent people are around in the Middle East and the only reason there is no peace is the intransigent, recently elected Palestinian leadership.

I'm sure that Ehud Olmert will do everything he can to help the Palestinians. Energy payments, essential goods out of the Palestinians' money that he won't give them? That will resolve the situation.

And Israel will continue to be the good guy, and the gentle father of the Palestinians. Sorry... Palestinians?... the Arabs of Eretz Israel. It's too bad about their leadership.

Countries that don't back terrorism

We're restoring diplomatic relations with Libya? Great!

Maybe they have a veteran revolutionary leader who is a sometimes-erratic dictator and has financed armed movements from time to time... whose domestic policies we don't entirely agree with... but that's no reason to punish their people.

The guy on the left, that's their leader, isn't it?



Oh wait, the guy I'm thinking of doesn't have the best human development in Latin America? My bad.

Of intellectual creativity, and moral responsibility

Two very different fields for comment today...

First is an interesting article in the New York Times about French universities from a couple of days ago. To summarize briefly, French universities are in a fairly poor state because nobody pays tuition, and spots are guaranteed (on a geographical basis) to those students who pass their baccalaureate. The article tends to reflect what other publications (such as The Economist) regularly say about European education, although should this article be accurate, it would suggest that French universities are in a worse state than elsewhere on the continent.

This story provides an interesting insight into the self-perpetuation of institutional rules. The agreement in the 1960s of the de Gaulle government to give almost-free university education to anyone has led to the creation and entrenchment of a norm--namely, that it is everyone's right to get a free university education, regardless of the effects of such right on society.

University education is absolutely vital, and of course it is only right that those without the appropriate means be assisted, with public funds, in order that society progress toward equality of opportunity and outcomes. But when there is no effort required to obtain that education, and when the "right" to education for all leads to the crumbling of its credibility and capacities, then it clearly becomes a hindrance to society.

I wrote in an earlier blog entry about my support for a high-tuition, high-aid model, even in pubilc universities such as the one I attend. I will echo that sentiment again here. It is that model, as well as substantial public and private R&D investment, that has allowed American universities to be the pioneering research bodies and competitive institutions they are today.


Curing cancer?

Tonight I had the chance, for the third successive year, to drop by Relay for Life, a charity benefit for the American Cancer Society. R4L has been one of the most popular fundraising events for any cause that I've seen at the university, and certainly the money donated for cancer research is for a good cause.

Yet it is events like R4L which sometimes give me pause to think about our good fortune and a rather chronic, media and money-driven incorrect focus of charity (and the haphazard allocation of private donations versus the potential for a more coherent public policy). Americans are lucky to have so many people with cancer--and in saying so, I mean on a relative basis: Africans would love to have the chance to live long enough to have the same rate of death from cancer that we do. Instead, they die of malaria, AIDS or preventable diseases, ignored due to a lack of relatively small amounts of funds.

How many Americans would think about malaria as an important issue? Yet the fight against malaria has been referred to as the most effective use of money possible in terms of saving human lives. It's easy: bed nets, medications. The same is true of other easily preventable diseases which ravage African populations.

It is unfair to say that nobody has noticed: in particular, the Gates Foundation has made a significant donation. But there are plenty of Americans willing to buy the "stop the genocide in Darfur" T-shirts, sure... but how many of them know where Sierra Leone or Liberia are? Or know anything about the Democratic Republic of the Congo? How many care? Those in Darfur can thank the media for, at least, shining the spotlight on one part of the continent.

Immigration...

Don't you love it when I give a list of the matters I'll comment on someday and never comment on any of them?

But... immigration is certainly the hot-button domestic issue of the day (who exactly has put it there? I guess this is one issue on which the Republicans feel they have some sort of traction...).

I've heard plenty of ridiculous statements on both sides... but honestly, it's probably time to sit down and look at some hard facts:
(1) Illegal immigrants are going to keep coming, as long as there are employers for them.
(2) Illegal immigrants are less likely to use social services, because they're afraid of getting caught. I'm not going to go look up the numbers, but feel free to do so yourself. Additionally, in states such as the one I live in, there's no income tax, which means that immigrants do pay tax (sales tax). Those who are on the payrolls of legit corporations are accounted for in payroll taxes.
(3) The issue isn't that nobody would do the job immigrants do; American citizens/legal residents would do so. The question is what the expense would be. Raising the minimum wage might actually push more jobs into the informal category.
(4) The border is really, really long, and it would cost a lot of money, and burn a lot of (figurative) bridges, to build a barrier, not to mention probably be at least partially ineffective. Greater enforcement is also going to be pretty expensive.
(5) Guest worker = eventual permanent resident, whether you like it or not, and regardless of the technical law.
(6) Americans don't really want to pay higher prices for things.

So basically, point (5) suggests that a legitimate guest-worker program is pretty much impossible. You're left with three options: (a) Try to contain immigration and harshly penalize anyone employing immigrants, and greatly ramp up enforcement, (b) Say you're trying to achieve plan (a) [this plan is what's been going on for a long time], (c) Admit defeat, lift quotas on immigrants from the Americas and try to deal with it by bringing their jobs into the formal economy.

Plan (a) is extremely expensive, which is why so many administrations have been able to make do with plan (b). But now the issue is becoming intensely politicized, so plan (b) is no longer okay (at least for now). I would be tempted to say that the issue might slide out of the public view again, but now immigrants' rights groups also are mobilized on behalf of the human rights (health care, etc.) of illegal immigrants and the question is whether they will let it die.

What about plan (c)? Well, there would probably be more immigrants, at least at first. But, if you made the one requirement to cross having legal employment, and you made all the employers pay minimum wage, this would certainly raise costs for consumers, but not by as much as by converting the jobs to Americans who would likely demand higher wages. Moreover, you could do away with much border enforcement and cut costs there. It's a lot like the "war on drugs"... what exactly are we fighting, and what is our goal?

Unos pensamientos de perspectivo

Escribo hoy de Washington, D.C., donde estoy para unas entrevistas...

Una cuestión de perspectiva

Siempre encuentro interesante cuestiones de perspectiva cuando uno se habla de otros. Bueno, pues, alguien que conozco muy bien el otro día me dijo (sobre “los hispanos”) algo como:

--Los hispanos tienen valores muy buenos y la familia es importante para ellos. Cuando llegué al paradero de autobuses unos jóvenes hispanos estaban allí y el líder dijo a los otros que se levantaran para que pudiera sentarme. No creo que unos americanos lo hubieran hecho.

¿Hay cierta problema con esto? Para ser más directo, ¿de dónde viene esta identificación de ser «americano» con ser blanco? Bueno, es muy de acuerdo con lo que aprendemos en mi clase de la sociedad y el estado, de la ciudadanía «republicana» que otorga privilegios a ciertos grupos. Si no consideramos los negros una parte integral de la sociedad, y ellos llegaron a la Costa Este al mismo tiempo que los blancos, ¿qué podemos creer de otro grupo de lo que la mayoría es más reciente y tiene problemas con la inmigración ilegal?

Y otra cosa:

Yo fui el martes al partido de béisbol en Washington (para ver los Nacionales y Rojos). Cuando compré una cerveza, la chica me pidió la identificación (soy joven, yo lo sé…). Sabéis (espero) que soy del estado de Washington, y ella ojeó la tarjeta y dijo que «Siempre tengo problemas con estas IDs del Distrito.»

Hay mucha gente que confunden el Distrito de Colombia con el Estado de Washington. Pero ¿qué significa que la vendadora de cerveza en un evento en el Distrito no sabía que mi identificación no fuera del Distrito? (¡Hay una gran montaña en la tarjeta!) No sé… quizá no puso mucho atento, o quizá a los que residan en el Distrito no les alcanza el dinero para asistir a los partidos… o por lo menos comprar la cerveza…

La República Española y Latinoamérica

Un tésis que propongo es que hay mucho que ganar de estudiar la Segunda República Española, un período de gran inestabilidad en España, y la época inmediatamente antes, para saber mucho también de Latinoamérica. Las instituciones españoles, por supuesto, influyeron en el desarrollo de las instituciones en Latinoamérica, y las dos regiones tuvieron que enfrentarse con problemas semejantes.

Sólo lo quería mencionar hoy, pero tengo mucho que quiero discutir y investigar sobre esta tema y espero encontrar unos libros muy provechosos.

A sorely needed update

There's a lot going on around the world, and it's been a while since I've stepped into the blogging world, so I have a lot of random comments to make...

First, the parliamentary elections in Ukraine. Viktor Yushchenko can proudly point to the fact that these elections were basically free and fair. The results were also to be expected: the pro-Russian opposition was basically united behind Yanukovich, while the more European-leaning Orange factions were split. The big surprise, as has been noted, was the performance of Yulia Tymoshenko as opposed to Yushchenko. A tripartite Orange government is clearly the eventual solution; what will have to be resolved is the distribution of government posts and the government's overall goals. Yushchenko has failed to revive Ukraine's economy; this is the clear priority.

There was also an election in Israel, of course. In the Palestinian territories, the trend is clearly towards moderation within Hamas; reports coming out today suggest that Hamas and Mahmoud Abbas are preparing to talk about Hamas' acceptance of a two-state solution. The question is what empirical effects this has on the behavior of the organization, and what the long-term goals of Hamas are. International pressure has clearly been beneficial to the point and must be maintained even if Hamas accepts negotiations and recognizes Israel--but the pressure should be redirected toward creating more openness in the Palestinian political space.

The Israeli election was a severe rebuke to Binyamin Netanyahu, who is probably seeing his political career at an end, at least for the moment. He is facing an open revolt within his party led by former foreign minister Silvan Shalom. Of course, we've seen Netanyahu rebound before. The upcoming coalition will clearly be centered on Kadima and Avoda. Ha'aretz has indicated that Amir Peretz will take the defense portfolio in exchange for getting some veto rights on the budget and guarantees of social spending, and leave finance to Kadima. This is probably the politically smartest move as well. One of the biggest questions right now is whether Yisrael Beitenu will sit in the cabinet, and if so, whether they will remain in when Ehud Olmert's "convergence" begins.

The next major upcoming poll will be seen in Peru, where nationalist Ollanta Humala leads the polls but will have to face a second round. It's tough for me to lend support to anyone in this race, given that (1) Humala's commitment to democracy is very questionable, (2) Lourdes Flores is right-wing and very pro-business and (3) Alan García has a horrible track record from the late 1980s. Given that, I will support (passively, as always) whoever runs against Humala in the second round, as both Flores and García have indicated they will support the other. President Alejandro Toledo has been positive in this race, and has stressed ensuring a free and fair election--perhaps he hopes a smooth transition will be one of the few legacies he passes on, given his exceedingly low popularity ratings.

I'll be back shortly with more in-depth commentary on Evo Morales in Bolivia, the effects of proportional representation in Latin America, a look forward at the Mexican presidential election, the question of the Israeli electoral system, and comments on Vladimir Putin.

A rare digression to domestic politics

I am going to take a brief respite from my commentary about foreign politics to comment on the situation here in the United States, something which has never quite interested me as much in its minutiae but is, of course, of unquestionably greater relevance to my life personally.

With one party essentially in control of all the branches of government, we are seeing it fall to battles between various factions that make up its "coalition." The president, in his attempts to placate these groups, has failed to come with a coherent synthesis, and moreover, his installation of figures personally known to him have been ill-advised and corrupt (it's not the Harding administration, but a comparison with the 1920s isn't far off, especially in regard to our burgeoning inequality).

What we need is a government that works, not a government full of figures who engage in ideological posing. Unfortunately the system of governance that we have, because of its (1) lack of regulation [due to the framers' belief that the federal government would be very small] and (2) winner-take-all system results in unresponsive government.

It is time to create a group of centrist figures, capable of carrying out significant change. Such a change can be recognized as incorporating the following:
(1) A foreign policy aimed at supporting democracy (and realizing that it will not always go the way we want) while refraining from using American military power unless absolutely necessary;
(2) Maintaining a presence in Iraq until that country's government is stable or requests our withdrawal;
(3) Supporting significant reform in health care that incorporates the role of private enterprise while expanding guarantees of health care to the working poor, and lessening the burden on businesses;
(4) Repeal of the worst tax cuts (especially restoration of the estate tax), but not full reversion to the previous tax system; simplification of the tax code and elimination of many deductions;
(5) Continued educational reform and encouragement of experimentation to improve failing public schools, including greater teacher pay and accountability, without further promoting mass exit from the public system;
(6) Increasing the tax deductible amounts that can be invested in retirement plans, leveling of Social Security benefits, and increase in the amount that is subject to Social Security tax;
(7) Refusal to incorporate any group-specific clause as a constitutional amendment (i.e. no gay marriage amendment), while recognizing each state's right to decide the issue;
(8) Campaign finance reform that incorporates significant free advertising time for candidates;
(9) Government commitment to a national childcare benefit, one that does not rely on tax deductions which do not help the poor.

Clearly there is more that could be included, but these points form a solid base.

We didn't mean to take democracy seriously

The New York Times yesterday reported that the Israeli and American governments were discussing something along the lines of "making life tougher for Palestinians", essentially as a punishment for electing Hamas. Sounds like a good plan, as always grounded in a solid perception of the Palestinian mindset.

[I would like to note that stories like this are frequently inaccurate or reflect the opinion of a certain segment, and don't end up influencing policy. I actually don't expect this as reported to fully become policy--generally the administration has been smarter than that. That's not to say that it won't become partly true.]

Let's see... Palestinians elected Hamas because they are irritated that Fatah was not able to make any progress and their living conditions are deteriorating as a result of Israeli action... so let's screw them over some more so that they reelect Fatah, who we would rather work with, thereby invalidating democracy, instead of doing anything to help Palestinians, boost civil society and increase the sway of alternative liberal and moderate left-nationalist groups that support democracy. Makes sense, in the whole picture of things.

But really, this is the same dilemma which continues to bite the U.S. The key is to strike the necessary bargain with Islamist groups, recognizing their authority and allowing them their turn, as long as they agree to participate in a democratic system. (The Palestinian territories present a more complicated situation, of course, given the lack of sovereignty coupled with mutual violence). Doing this incrementally, and increasing assistance as an Islamic party proves its commitment, is the best way to go.

Of course, as widely noted, this problem is the result of our past support for secular dictators, Saddam, the emirs, King Hussein, Mubarak, and so forth... and the strategy of cracking down on the secular pro-democracy opposition is a failed one. The question is whether American foreign policy will finally realize, as it should have at the beginning of the process, that democratization will lead to Islamist victories and act accordingly to encourage the maintenance of a intrasocietal dialogue and consensual institution building.

Doesn't really need a comment, but of course, Putin's invitation to Hamas is purely opportunistic and an attempt to reinsert himself in the process. Yep, Hamas is a terrorist group that won a democratic election. So are the Chechen rebels, who aren't worse than Hamas (and neither is the Israeli army particularly worse than the Russian army in terms of behavior). And the French backing for Putin was, of course, realpolitik as well. Not that anyone really acts differently, all talk of liberalism aside.

So what will actually happen with Hamas? Well, as I previously commented, little dialogue was occurring between the PA and Israel anyway. Any progress will wait until the new Knesset is in place and the composition of the Israeli government determined. At that point... well, there will still probably not be progress, although we will probably continue to see backchannel communication.

"A change of government, not a change of country"

As the Canadian results were coming in I was watching CBC, and saw Martin, then Layton, then Harper speak. The new PM, Stephen Harper, will have a tough time in Ottawa, if only because the only practical party for him to work with is the secessionist Bloc Québécois. It is easy to see the BQ and CPC agreeing for a few months on devolution and more provincial authority, but hard to see agreement on any more substantial issues.

The CPC victory was in large part made possible by the refound ability of the Conservatives to win votes in Quebec. As late as six weeks ago I felt it might be a good idea for the CPC to have an "affiliate party" in Quebec and thought the CPC might never win votes there. Now we have a CPC which won 10 seats and a solid 25% of the vote in Quebec.

Meanwhile, this election is a big loss for the Bloc, which fell only to 51 seats, but took only 42% of the vote and was outvoted by the two big federalist parties (Lib + Con), who combined took 45%. Gilles Duceppe began the campaign hoping to convince the general public that a majority vote for the Bloc--much of which would have been a protest vote against the Liberals--would mean some sort of implied majority for secession. By the end, the Bloc had lost seats, as Québécois finally have another national option, and they realize that continually sitting in Opposition is not particularly productive for Quebec or Canada.

Ironically, the long-term best option for the Bloc might be to endorse a change to proportional representation. This would allow the Bloc to possibly hold the balance of power in coalition governments. On the other hand, if the current FPP system is maintained, the likelihood is that the Bloc will be squeezed out by the two big national parties, although they admittedly will have to make some concessions to public opinion in Quebec.

It seems likely the Harper government won't last two years; there is too much working against it. The Liberals will have no reason to cooperate with Harper and will instead constitute a revitalized opposition. The NDP does not hold the balance of power, unless Bloc deputies defect to the Conservatives (or Stronach crosses in reverse), and anyway is ideologically millions of miles from the Tories. The Bloc is not a stable partner for the CPC. Therefore, Harper's government will last until the point when Parliament breaks down and everyone feels the public will accept another early election without too much grumbling. Maybe another 18 months?

Anders Fogh has it right...

It's not common practice for me to defend the actions of a figure of the center-right, but this is a situation where I will go out and do so. Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen is absolutely right to refuse to make any sort of apology for the cartoons appearing in Jyllands-Posten that have, apparently, offended Muslims worldwide.

Of course this is entirely a political issue, with Islamic governments playing the "pity card." I say Islamic governments because I certainly don't blame all Muslims for this issue... it's part of governments' search for backing among the religious citizenry. So Libya and the Saudis will withdraw their ambassadors from Copenhagen... fine. So what? It's not the job of the Danish government to apologize. What happens when "offensive" caricatures appear in Saudi or other Arab or Muslim-world newspapers? I certainly don't see a lot of apologies from Arab/Muslim governments... check out Alhamedi's Religious Policeman blog for some examples of wonderful drawings from KSA.

Social democracy includes the value of freedom of speech. If you're offended by it, tough... showing Mohammed depicted as a terrorist is not a threat to anyone, and there's no reason why any rational person should get anything more than momentarily upset. Of course it's against the tenets of Islam. But there are plenty of things that occur everywhere, every day, that violate the tenets of something, and if everyone got angry about them, then where would we be? (probably in a strict Islamic country, or possibly in Israel/Palestine, or in a PETA meeting, or the Republican National Convention).

Finally, the actions of al-Aqsa Brigades in storming the EU mission to Gaza are totally uncalled for. The EU has been nothing but helpful to the Palestinian cause of late, and while the Europeans certainly could be more assertive, armed threats don't seem to be the proper response. It's a good illustration of the total lack of control in the Territories that, just maybe, Hamas will start to do something about now.

The worthless apology

I think it's briefly worth mentioning that the antithesis of the Danish approach is taken by Pat Robertson, who goes out of his way to offend pretty much anyone and get in the news with statements such as: we deserved Hurricane Katrina; Ariel Sharon got his stroke for leaving Gaza; the U.S. should assassinate Hugo Chavez; and so forth. And then he apologizes. And then he makes another comment.

Does this help anyone? Maybe Pat Robertson, who stays in the news a bit longer due to his apology...

But it certainly is not Anders Fogh's job to apologize for having a free press, and he deserves credit for, so far at least, standing at its defense.

It's not as dramatic as you think it is...

Of course, everyone who followed the Palestinian elections is erupting about Hamas this and Hamas that and how the Hamas victory changes everything and kills the peace process, or how it exposes the true Palestinian desire to destroy Israel, or just how it was so stunning and overwhelming.

It's really not any of those things, though it's easy to think that way.

Here's the breakdown:

(1) Hamas won so big because of the PA electoral system, not because it actually won big. The method of election to the PLC involved 66 constituency seats and 66 proportional representation list seats. The constituency seats were divided into multi-member districts, from a size of one (Jericho, Tubas, Salfit) to nine (Hebron); the PR seats were divided based on an overall ballot.

This system was a major improvement on the previous system, which used only the constituency method; however, it still was meant to favor Fatah, the governing party. Since each voter had as many constituency votes as seats, most voters wound up (predictably) voting for all the members of a single slate. The top vote getters were elected, irrespective of percentage obtained. Therefore, this system functions in many respects like a first-past-the-post majoritarian system.

Fatah had, of course, intended that it would receive a narrow majority. Unexpectedly, the opposite occurred, resulting in the following results in the constituencies: [these are preliminary results]

Change and Reform [Hamas], 46 seats (but only 42.9% of the party list vote)
Fatah, 16 seats (but received 39.8% of the party list vote)
independents, 4 seats

The proportional seats, divided according to the party list vote, were much closer, and several small leftist/secular trends won seats: Mustafa Barghouthi's Independent Palestine, the Third Way of Hanan Ashrawi and Salam Fayyad, and the leftist PPP/DFLP/etc coalition took 6 seats on 7.7% of the vote (again a preliminary figure). The overall Hamas majority, however, occurred because half the seats were selected in a system heavily favoring parties winning by a small margin.

(2) Hamas' victory doesn't mean that Palestinians want to abandon the idea of the peace process, or that they are suddenly Islamists. What it does mean is that (a) they didn't think the peace process was yielding any gains that a Hamas victory would reverse, and (b) they saw Hamas (Hamas succeeded at portraying itself) as the only "clean" party with a viable chance of winning. It doesn't mean they support all of Hamas' ideas about Islamic law or believe that erasing Israel from the map is a reasonable political goal (I won't venture a guess on "desirable" as I don't know the numbers).

(3) Hamas' victory isn't all that relevant, because the PA isn't all that relevant. Israel has basically destroyed any capacity the PA once had to administrate in the West Bank. As Israel controls all the levers of power, including control over travel between population centers, and is working unilaterally and not dealing with the PA regardless, nothing really changes. The PA cannot do anything except attempt to administer cities and prevent Palestinians from backlashing against their desperate situation. The Hamas victory does not change this.

With regard to Gaza, the one place where the PA might have a chance of actually administering something, Hamas already had effective control. There is no change.

Perhaps this victory will place the focus back where it belongs: on the Palestinian liberation movement as a whole. During the past 12 years the refugees abroad have become increasingly ignored, though they deserve a voice in the process alongside their brothers in the 1948 and 1967 territories ["1948 territories" is a common Palestinian euphemism for Israel]; and perhaps there will be a voice again for those who have been marginalized by the emergence of the autonomist administration. For a few years now I have advocated the dissolution of the PA as a protest against Israel's refusal to allow it any semblance of authority, and Israel's continued use of the body as a scapegoat; and perhaps now the PA can appropriately fade away.



What will happen now? Israel will not, publicly, work with a Hamas which is, publicly, committed to its destruction. The best-case scenario, though, is that the people behind Hamas are pragmatic and act as the Likud of Begin, the people in power in Israel (Olmert and his crew) are pragmatic and will talk to them behind the scenes, Hamas is actually able to assert authority in the territories in a way Fatah could not in recent days, and the groups can work out a settlement.

This is, of course, Israel/Palestine, where best case is never reality. I cannot hazard a guess as to what the ultimate outcome will be, but I will predict: (a) Hamas will form a "government" [of nothing] with smaller factions but not with Fatah; (b) Abbas will continue as president; (c) publicly no negotiations will take place, but back channel discussions will occur.

A workable two-state solution

In this blog in the past I have commented on the desirability of the "binational solution." It would be useful to note that such a solution is not favored, as a large majority both of Israelis and Palestinians desire their own states. However, my argument has been predicated on the inevitability of such a solution given the lack of political mobility on both sides and the demographic situation which prevails in the Occupied Territories as well as within Israel itself.

But there is another possibility: a workable two-state solution that recognizes the existence of Israel/Palestine as one land under two political leaderships. This is a two-state solution that stresses working and living together on the land while recognizing the right of each group to self determination within national boundaries.

As such, the principal tenets of such a solution would be:

*The agreement on final borders. Palestine includes the West Bank and Gaza (with East Jerusalem), excluding settlement blocs on the borders which are annexed to Israel. However, Arab areas north of the West Bank, including Nazareth, are annexed to Palestine. Certain areas deep within Palestinian territory are put on long-term sovereign lease to Israel (including Ariel, Ma'ale Adumim, and Qiryat Arba). The two parts of Palestine have a transportation connection.

*The agreement on security. Palestine agrees not to have a navy or air force, and an army of limited size for a certain period. Additionally, a transitional period will take place, under international supervision and with a peacekeeping force stationed in Palestine, to ensure stability.

*The agreement on refugees, return and citizenship. Everyone who is an Israeli citizen in areas coming under Palestinian control has the option of citizenship in Palestine or permanent residency while retaining Israeli citizenship; the opposite is true of Palestinians in areas coming under Israeli rule. Palestinian refugees born before 1948 may return to Israel as permanent residents (not citizens), but not with any descendants. All Palestinian refugees may return to Palestine as defined under Palestinian law. [However, right to live in Israel for all Palestinians as noncitizens is contemplated below, in a longer-term scope.]

*The agreement on Jerusalem. While Jerusalem is under two sovereignties, there is a Jerusalem Municipal Authority with representatives of the two municipal administrations to coordinate urban planning, and freedom of movement within the city.

*The agreement on holy places. Holy places are administered by the most appropriate religious authority, and open access is guaranteed both to residents of both countries and to pilgrims.

*"One land for two peoples". In places of "one country for two peoples," there is "one land." Split political sovereignty, but shared land. In that spirit, the long term goal of the agreement is to allow citizens of either Israel or Palestine to have permanent residency rights in the other, much like the European Union today. Such a goal is dependent upon improvement in economic conditions in Palestine, which will help with the other necessity, an improvement in the security situation. This end goal does not mean that citizenship and political rights will be obtained by one group in the other's country, but it means that a Jew can live in Hebron or Jerusalem or Nazareth or Tel Aviv or wherever, and a Palestinian Arab can live in Ramallah or Jaffa or Acre or Gaza or Safed... while preserving the separate political identity and statehood of each, in a piece of territory that really is too small to divide with walls and barriers.

Such an agreement would require daring on the part of both political leaderships, but if they wish to avoid being caught in the one-state solution, would be the best step. We have seen that "trust-building" steps always break down on the demands of one political constituency or another. What is needed is a bold initiative on the part of Olmert and Abbas to reach a permanent status agreement that will unite, rather than divide, the land, and tear down barriers rather than erect new ones.

The Middle East... and Canada.

Well, a lot has gone on in the world since I last posted, obviously. I'm going to go around and post about the biggest issues I see going on today.

First, I must admit that I'm impressed by how Evo Morales has handled his victory in Bolivia thus far. I somewhat regret my earlier, however reulctant, support for Quiroga (which was due to risk-averse assessments) and I'm hopeful for Morales, that he can turn Bolivia around and empower the indigenous majority, helping to create a truly democratic state.

Israel/Palestine

With Ariel Sharon out of the picture, Olmert looks like he is capitalizing on the resulting support that has remained with Kadima. He is maneuvering politically and has announced that he will withdraw from a number of outposts. I view Olmert, at this point, as a pragmatist. While Peretz has openly announced that his government will consider making Arab parts of East Jerusalem part of a Palestinian state, Olmert has not done so, but his comments (allowing a Palestinian 'presence' in East Jerusalem) point to much the same conclusion.

What must be attained, if the two-state solution is to succeed, is a two-state solution built on the eventual vision of free movement between Israel and Palestine. That is, Israel and Palestine are really one; they are the same country, held by two different peoples and nations with their own states; but they are the same land. The vision must be an Israel and Palestine where, though parts are governed by separate entities, there is free movement, free access to holy places, the right to live wherever one wishes. That is, a Palestinian could choose to reside for however long he wants in Jaffa, or Be'er Sheva, or West Jerusalem, or Safed, and so on. An Israeli could choose to reside in Hebron, Jericho, Nablus, wherever. The point is that the land belongs to all.

This vision does not entail flexible citizenship. That is to say, Palestinians are citizens of Palestine, and vote for its leadership; Israelis are citizens of Israel, and vote for its leadership. But anyone should, in the end, be able to reside anywhere within the territory of Israel and Palestine, because it truly is one land.

That said, this vision cannot be implemented immediately, first, obviously due to security concerns, and second, the economic gap. Palestine must catch up economically if the relationship is not to be an exploitative one. And of course, there must be agreement on the general issues of borders, security, and all that. But I will come to that in due course, in a separate entry.

What seems likely in the Palestinian elections is that Hamas will win a large faction in parliament; Fatah will win slightly more seats; and other factions will fill in the gap. I would see Fatah continuing to form the government, and the other factions siding with Hamas or Fatah as the case may be, on an issue-by-issue basis. The peace process will have to wait until Israel votes, although one can make the assumption that the Palestinians will be dealing with Ehud Olmert, a pragmatist like Sharon, probably in coalition with Labor.


Iraq

The results of the elections have just been released. I have to say that I certainly believe the strong showing of the UIA was assisted by compulsion of various types in the southern provinces, but also, it is an inevitable outcome of the power struggle in Iraq. Those wishing to uphold the rights of the Shia, who were still worried about Sunni dominance, had difficulty voting for Allawi, and we are seeing in Kurdistan the cartelization of power by the KDP and PUK instead of competition, with the Islamists the only alternative.

We must hope for a unity government; although such a government certainly holds out plenty of opportunities for corruption, so, honestly, does any government formed at the present moment, and it would be better to have the Sunni in government.

When will Iraqis begin to vote by political platform? When substantial agreement on the bases of the state has been attained. When will that be? Who knows. But there must be substantial compromise in order to see the salience of ethnic/religious cleavages reduced.


Canada

The Canadian elections are approaching shortly and I'm ready, of course, to watch the CBC coverage all night. The polls all show the Conservatives headed for a landmark victory that would make Stephen Harper the prime minister; the question is whether Harper will be able to form a government, as he'll certainly have to cut a deal with somebody if he doesn't get a majority.

A majority still seems unlikely, therefore, Harper will have to deal with the Liberals, Bloc, or NDP. The least likely scenario would be Harper and the Liberals, as the Liberals would likely prefer time to revitalize in opposition. Harper and the Bloc seems far-fetched, but might actually be the most likely, if they can reach agreement on some details of greater provincial control over various issues. The CPC and NDP are separated quite a bit on most major issues, except, at this point, on some gun control and crime issues, and it seems unlikely that agreement could be reached on much unless the CPC abandons substantial parts of its (already moderated) platform.

I, of course, endorse wholeheartedly the New Democratic Party of Jack Layton. The NDP is committed to defending Canada's Medicare system, and is looking toward electoral reform, an issue that I support, for those who don't know me. None of the parties have impressed me greatly, but the NDP is much more ideologically coherent than the diverse and somewhat opportunistic Liberal camp; and the NDP will be capable of providing a strong counterpoint to the Conservatives in Parliament. Hopefully, we can see a scenario where the NDP will play a kingmaker role in Ottawa.

As a final note, there are some interesting sites linked to by the CBC which project seats either based on poll numbers or as based on a trading market. Especially interesting is the UBC election stock market. The link to the links page is below:

http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/voterstoolkit/projecting.html