Race

What's the difference between "finding bread and soda from a local grocery store" and "looting a grocery store?"

Iraq Withdrawal

Democracy Arsenal has more on the question of troop withdrawal. If we were to start withdrawing, the way to do it would be in the manner that Juan Cole talks about.

Troop Withdrawal

Over at Democracy Arsenal, Heather Hurlburt makes A Glum Prediction about the future of Iraq if we start pulling troops out of Iraq. The only valid reason for going in to Iraq in the first place was to remove a vicious tyrant and provide a stable, democratic government in Saddam's place. If all we do is to remove the tyrant without leaving stability, then we fail.

I'm back!

After many adventures (I spent a couple of weeks in Guatemala) I am back home and ready to get back to blogging. I have a digital camera now, so maybe I'll start putting some pictures up.

I think a good way to return to the blogosphere is with Belgravia Dispatch's analysis of where we are in Iraq. Like BD, this talk of withdrawing troops does not sound good to me. The argument that our troops are provoking the insurgents does not seem to take into account the increasing number of insurgent attacks against Iraqis. A significant reduction in US troops would likely increase those attacks, and therefore the liklihood of civil war.

So for once, I actually agree with what Bush seems to be saying. I just can't understand why Rumsfeld still has a job.

More Obama

The Chicago Defender has an interview with Barak Obama with more info about what he's doing about Darfur.

"We End Up Being What We Practice Being"

Any blog that describes it's subject matter as "faith and culture, theology and beer, movies and books, and miscellanea," must be worth reading. So check out the parish. He has a great post and discussion about worship. There is a follow-up post as well. His key question, which every church should ask, is:

does the collection of practices in which we engage on a Sunday morning make me a better Christian or a better consumer?

Obama news

The Chicago Tribune reports that Barkck Obama has hired Samantha Power, "a high-profile human-rights activist, Pulitzer Prize-winning author and lecturer from Harvard."

I read Power's book, "A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide," which won the 2003 Pulitzer, a few months ago. I highly recommend it. It is a history of America's response to genocide in the 20th century. If Obama wants to take a leading role in our response to the genocide in Darfur, he could not find a more knowledgable advisor than Power.

Obama is really taking his position on the Senate Foregin Relations Committee seriously. What a great position for a freshman Senator, especially if he is persuaded to run for President one day. Here's hoping!

Africa

There has been a lot of talk in the blogosphere about Africa and the G8 summit. Some think that nothing the G8 countries do will help, other think that pouring more money to the continent is the way to go. democracyarsenal.org has another one of their top ten lists of ways that President Bush could show that he is really serious about Africa.

1. Make good on existing promises.

2. Launch a major push on vaccine availability.

3. Stop lumping all of Africa together.

4. Address each stage of development.

5. Create a governance aid program.

6. Channel more aid through NGOs.

7. Take action on Darfur.

8. Help Zimbabwean opposition groups.

9. Explore AFTA.

10. Develop aid partnerships.

Be sure to read their comments about each of these items.

Nicolas Kristof has written another article praising Bush for doing more than any previous President to aid Africa, while also criticizing him for not living up to his own rhetoric. Here is a summary.

...the fact is that Mr. Bush has done much more for Africa than Bill Clinton ever did, increasing the money actually spent for aid there by two-thirds so far, and setting in motion an eventual tripling of aid for Africa. Mr. Bush's crowning achievement was ending one war in Sudan, between north and south. And while Mr. Bush has done shamefully little to stop Sudan's other conflict - the genocide in Darfur - that's more than Mr. Clinton's response to genocide in Rwanda (which was to issue a magnificent apology afterward).

...All that said, in the right circumstances aid can be tremendously effective, especially in well-governed countries - Mozambique is an excellent example. And Mr. Bush's new push to help Africa is smartly designed, targeting problems like malaria and sex trafficking, where extra attention and resources will make a big difference on the ground.

Mr. Bush's signature foreign aid program, the Millennium Challenge Account, is off to an agonizingly slow start, but is shrewdly focused on encouraging good governance and economic growth. The first grant went to Madagascar, a well-run country, to clarify property rights there. This isn't sexy, but nothing would help the poor in Africa more than giving them clear title to their land so they could secure loans and start businesses.

...And while Mr. Bush has done much more for Africa than most people realize, there's one huge exception, because anything with a whiff of sex in it makes some conservatives go nuts. Mr. Bush's decision to cut off funds for the U.N. Population Fund means that more African girls will die in childbirth. Even more tragic is the administration's blind hostility to condoms to fight AIDS - resulting in more dead Africans.

Mr. Bush has another blind spot as well: while he is right that aid is not a cure-all, sometimes he seems to use legitimate concerns about aid as an excuse for stinginess. Aid has shortcomings, but Mr. Bush himself has shown that it can be used effectively to save lives by the millions.

Yet Mr. Bush is resisting the G-8's calls for further help for Africa; he thinks the sums are better spent on cutting the taxes of the richest people on earth than on saving the lives of the poorest. Come on, Republicans! You need to persuade Mr. Bush to be more generous this week, because his present refusal to help isn't conservative, but just plain selfish.

Worship as Higher Politics

Christianity Today has an article that is a healthy reminder for Christians who are interested in politics. Here is the opening:

George W. Bush is not Lord. The Declaration of Independence is not an infallible guide to Christian faith and practice. Nor is the U.S. Constitution, nor the U.N. Universal Declaration on Human Rights. "Original intent" of America's founders is not the hermeneutical key that will guarantee national righteousness. The American flag is not the Cross. The Pledge of Allegiance is not the Creed. "God Bless America" is not the Doxology.

Sometimes one needs to state the obvious—especially at times when it's less and less obvious.

An interesting strategy for dealing with Med-Mal

The Wall Street Journal (?) took a look at how Anesthesiologist addressed their high medical malpractice insurance rates over the past twenty years.

Anesthesiologists pay less for malpractice insurance today, in constant dollars, than they did 20 years ago. That's mainly because some anesthesiologists chose a path many doctors in other specialties did not. Rather than pushing for laws that would protect them against patient lawsuits, these anesthesiologists focused on improving patient safety. Their theory: Less harm to patients would mean fewer lawsuits.

There has been a nice little side-effect from their efforts.

Over the past two decades, patient deaths due to anesthesia have declined to one death per 200,000 to 300,000 cases from one for every 5,000 cases, according to studies compiled by the Institute of Medicine, an arm of the National Academies, a leading scientific advisory body.

The article talks about other specialties, like the American College of Surgeons, are starting to follow the anesthesiologists lead in studying closed insurance claims in order to understand how poor outcomes occur.

Dr. Griffen of the College of Surgeons says that more surgeons have begun to see a connection between improving patient safety and lowering malpractice premiums. The college's closed-claims study so far involves about 350 cases, and the group hopes it will grow to 500 this year.

At the University of Utah Hospitals and Clinics, Dr. Kochenour says his institution has tried to emulate the anesthesiologists by concentrating more on identifying systemic errors and less on individual blame. But these efforts run headlong into thinking drummed into physicians since medical school, he says. "I don't think physicians are very good systems thinkers, by and large," he says. Many, especially surgeons, prize their independence, he says, and that makes it hard to achieve the kind of cooperation necessary to reduce errors.

I wonder if other medical specialties will be able to make similar improvements as the anesthesiologists. I don't know if other physicians are making mistakes of the same magnitude that anesthesiologists were 20 years ago. If not, then they would not have the room to make such dramatic improvement.

I wonder if the comments about physicians not being good system thinkers sheds some light on why they have taken the political position to focus on caps as the most important part of tort reform. This focus, I believe, largely comes from the fear of what could happen to them as an individual if they were saddled with an outrageous jury award. This is perfectly understandable. Unfortunately, they do not think as much about how caps would lead to more harm for patients across the board. Taking a more systematic approach to the problems of med-mal, as the anesthesiologists did, would protect both conscientious physicians and patients.

Being White House Press Secretary is Tough!

Editor & Publisher has part of the daily briefing from June 16. ABC correspondent Terry Moran actually expected Press Secretary Scott McClellan to answer his question! He asked McClellan about Cheney's recent assertion that the Iraqi insurgency is in its last throes.

Q Scott, is the insurgency in Iraq in its 'last throes'?

McCLELLAN: Terry, you have a desperate group of terrorists in Iraq that are doing everything they can to try to derail the transition to democracy. The Iraqi people have made it clear that they want a free and democratic and peaceful future. And that's why we're doing everything we can, along with other countries, to support the Iraqi people as they move forward?.

Q But the insurgency is in its last throes?

McCLELLAN: The Vice President talked about that the other day -- you have a desperate group of terrorists who recognize how high the stakes are in Iraq. A free Iraq will be a significant blow to their ambitions.

Q But they're killing more Americans, they're killing more Iraqis. That's the last throes?

McCLELLAN: Innocent -- I say innocent civilians. And it doesn't take a lot of people to cause mass damage when you're willing to strap a bomb onto yourself, get in a car and go and attack innocent civilians. That's the kind of people that we're dealing with. That's what I say when we're talking about a determined enemy.

Q Right. What is the evidence that the insurgency is in its last throes?

McCLELLAN: I think I just explained to you the desperation of terrorists and their tactics.

Q What's the evidence on the ground that it's being extinguished?

McCLELLAN: Terry, we're making great progress to defeat the terrorist and regime elements. You're seeing Iraqis now playing more of a role in addressing the security threats that they face. They're working side by side with our coalition forces. They're working on their own. There are a lot of special forces in Iraq that are taking the battle to the enemy in Iraq. And so this is a period when they are in a desperate mode.

Q Well, I'm just wondering what the metric is for measuring the defeat of the insurgency.

McCLELLAN: Well, you can go back and look at the Vice President's remarks. I think he talked about it.

Q Yes. Is there any idea how long a 'last throe' lasts for?

McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Steve....

Maybe I'm a Truman Democrat

Like many in my generation, I'm rather uncomfortable labeling myself and try to do that rarely. Over at democracyarsenal.org, Michael Signer wrote about something called The Truman Project. He described this as "an extraordinary new group of young people who want the Democratic Party to reclaim strength on national security and foreign policy as a basic progressive value." Singer's comments are worth checking out here. At their recent annual meeting, the group came up with six values that "grounded" their discussion. For the most part, these are values I could affirm.

1) American exceptionalism: Like the neoconservatives, we believe that America is the greatest country the world has known. We are historically, morally, and intellectually unique. Unlike the necons, however, we believe we must constantly earn our exceptionalism through our moral conduct. Our uniqueness stems from our values, and so we bear a unique responsibility for living up to those values in shaping and influencing the world.

2) The use of force: Like the neocons, we're comfortable with the use of force for morally good ends. Unlike the neocons, as a general matter, we believe force shouldn't be the default choice for achieving our ends. We're neither reflexive doves nor pacifists; rather, we're pragmatists on the use of force.

So far so good. I want to be a pacifist, but Romans 13:3-5 keeps me from it. "For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience." I do believe that part of a government's God-given responsibility sometimes involves the use of force.

3) American hegemony: Like the neocons, we want America to retain its supremacy as the military, political , and economic leader of the world in order that we can maintain our own security, help strengthen the world's safety and stability, and accomplish morally right goals. We are and should be a unipolar power. Unlike the neocons, however, we believe we must constantly earn and affirm the right to exercise that power.

I do believe that "we must constantly earn and affirm the right to exercise" power, but I don't know that I would say we need to be a unipolar power to do that.

But Truman Democrats also add three new principles of their own:

1) The world community. The traditionally conservative (rather than neocon, but still threaded through the current Administration's foreign policy) viewpoint borrows heavily from libertarian principles. As a matter of right and obligation, conservatives often believe people are and should be fundamentally selfish and individualistic, and that collective action is wrong. Truman Democrats believe, on the other hand, that the world is a community. America can lead that community -- but, to paraphrase John Donne, we are not an island, and any death diminishes us, because we are involved in mankind. To switch to a more prosaic metaphor, America is like a quarterback for the world. Although he's the most critical member of the team, the quarterback can't win alone; he needs the confidence and loyalty of his teammates, which he earns through leadership.

The recognition that people are selfish and individualistic AND the recognition that the world is a community are not mutually exclusive. One of the areas where liberals have traditionally failed is in trying to ignore the fact that people are sinners. The conservatives who celebrate selfishness and oppose collective action are missing the boat, too. The reason that people need to work together, and be a community, is to overcome our selfishness.

2) Liberal-mindedness: Neoconservatives believe that the discovery of ideas is basically finished. That's why they constantly return to the ancient theorists and ancient values in search of some lost nobility and greatness. Truman Democrats believe instead that knowledge is constantly expanding, and that to conclude that we have finished knowing, or that ideas are presumptively wrong because of where they come from, is both arrogant and dangerous. We believe in a resilient, flexible national mind, avoiding the calcification of ideology. We believe in learning from events and fitting our thinking to facts, not the other way around. This is why democracy (which encourages the growth of knowledge) is our political system of choice.

3) Helping the least well-off: Conservatives and realpolitikers have generally believed that wealth and power should be the key determinants to foreign policy decisions regarding other countries. Following philosophers like John Rawls, Truman Democrats believe we should instead help the least well-off before we help the most well-off. So building up the economies in many developing nations, or addressing the AIDS crisis, is not only a matter of stability -- it's a matter of moral right. Moreover, helping the least well-off also helps us. Being the only wealthy house in a poor neighborhood makes us the target. Helping the whole neighborhood become richer makes us a leader.

I think that the Truman Project is something that I will continue to follow.

US detainees

The Christian Science Monitor has a commentary on the issues related to Guantanamo Bay and Amnesty International. Amnesty called Guantanamo the "gulag of our times" and the Bush Administration flipped their lids. Here's the bottom line, according to the Christian Science Monitor.

Yet beneath this struggle over spin, the two sides appeared to be making different points. The word "gulag" is ugly on several levels - harsh on the ear, harsher in meaning. The administration focused on the Soviet gulag's human cost, making the point that whatever abuses have occurred at US detention centers are a grain of sand compared with the hundreds of thousands of casualties suffered by those who disappeared into Soviet prisons. Amnesty International was trying to make a point about the mystery and injustice it believes is inherent in the US approach to detainees - that many are being held indefinitely without trial, in unknown locations.

Leaders of the human rights group have conceded that their language may have overreached: On Sunday William Schulz, executive director of Amnesty International USA, said in a broadcast interview that the gulag comparison "is not an exact or literal analogy."

But he noted that his group is far from alone in criticizing the underlying tenets of the US detention system. US courts have ruled against certain aspects; internal military investigations have found disturbing incidents of abuse, even murder, from Abu Ghraib to Afghanistan. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld offered to resign in April 2004, when pictures of Abu Ghraib practices first surfaced. The US government has undertaken some 370 military investigations into the charges, with some 130 personnel facing some degree of punishment.

While the Bush administration has trumpeted the cause of freedom around the world, it has said much less about the corresponding value of justice, says George Perkovich of the Carnegie Endowment. Yet to advance its interests, mollify its friends, and quiet its adversaries, it must be concerned not only that justice be done, but be seen to be done, in its actions.

If nothing else, Amnesty International's use of "gulag" in relation to US actions may bring home to the administration just how much other nations' perceptions of US morality have declined.

"They're trying to jar the [US] system and say, 'You're doing what the Soviets did, remember them?' " says Perkovich.

Top 10 Things To Do for Darfur Short of U.S. Military Intervention

democracyarsenal.org is perhaps too fond of top 10 lists, but they have some interesting ideas of what we could be doing about the genocide. I think that the first two are the most likely to pay off immediate dividends.

1. Put the heat on NATO to buttress the AU – The US, UN, EU and NATO have been passing the hot potato when it comes to taking action in Sudan. NATO has its limitations, but its better positioned than any other organization to become the focal point for partnering with the AU to try to make that mission effective. The U.S. should take the lead in pushing the alliance to prove its relevance by getting involved. NATO should take the lead in negotiating terms with the AU, instead of waiting until broader help is asked for. This month’s G-8 meeting in Scotland would be a good opportunity to make the case (though other G-8 members may turn the tables wanting support for their anti-poverty plans in Africa).

2. Put NATO troops on the ground – It will be impossible to turn around Darfur without putting substantial numbers of competent and equipped troops on the ground quickly. That’s an impossibility for the AU, so partnering effectively with them means sending in a portion of the 17,000 troops NATO supposedly has at the ready. All else under discussion – airlift, training, advisers – are half-measures. But in doing this, we need to realize that a NATO "bridge" until the AU is ready to take over may wind up lasting a long while.

Paul Revere A Despicable Tattletale, Says GOP

This is the most, um, perceptive comments I've seen about the "reaction" from G. Gordon Liddy, Chuck Colson, et al. to Deep Throat's identity.

Barak Obama

This quote is one of the reasons I'm interested in following Barka Obama.

Obama said the Schiavo case underscored "one of the difficulties that Democrats and progressive liberals have always had - that they see both sides and argue with themselves."

Obama said Republicans such as House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas, who led the case for federal intervention in the Schiavo case, had an easier road.

"It's a lot easier if you're Tom DeLay to say what you think because you're not really spending any time thinking about it," Obama said.

Day 141 of Bush's Silence

Nicolas Kristof's column in the NY Times is where I first heard about Darfur. He is currently in Darfur, and today's column tells one refugee's story.

Darfur

I am currently reading A Problem From Hell, a book about America's response to genocide during the 20th century. So far I have read the parts where the author covers the Armenian, the Jewish, the Cambodian, and Iraqi Kurd genocides. The book also covers Rwanda and Bosnia. From what I have read so far, I highly recommend it!

It is interesting to see to what extent we are repeating our history. We have done little other than talk in the many months that we have been aware of the genocide in Darfur. We did concluded that a genocide is currently taking place, but there has been little follow-up in the month since Secretary Powell used that word. In the past we did not acknowledge the occurrence of genocide until after the genocide is over. We also recently pledged to help fund the African Union force that, while currently present in Darfur, has been unable to do very much. Unfortunately our pledges under Bush have not had much follow through, especially in Africa.

The US still has the chance to intervene in Darfur in time to save lives. It is important to acknowledge that we are doing better than we have previously (although that is a ridiculously low standard to meet) but we have not done enough for a country whose foreign policy goal is to spread freedom. democracyarsenal.org has some thoughts about the role that NATO might play in Darfur.

We applaud NATO's commitment to the ongoing crisis in Darfur but we also believe that this successful military alliance, strengthened by the warrant of Security Council legitimacy, could do much more to bring a halt to Darfur's horrific humanitarian crisis. The ever-popular mantra 'never again'’ has to mean more than expressing political sentiment and issuing lukewarm resolutions that fail to stop the violence. It is not too late for meaningful action.

This is tough stuff, to be sure. Last week the U.S. and European countries agreed to provide critical assistance -- including $300 million to fund a larger AU force, air transport, armored personnel carriers, troop transport trucks, and training. These are very positive steps, but much more is needed. For example, the money pledged still falls nearly $150 million short of what the AU says it needs.

With the U.S. military over-extended as it is, we would need to rely mostly on the Europeans for further support, especially troops -- although, significantly, as Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick explained last week, the U.S. has already agreed to airlift the Rwandan contingent of the AU force, help build communications facilities and assist with training. But I believe greater American leadership could be decisive. Zoellick has made Sudan one of his highest priorities -- he has already been to Darfur once, and is going there again this week.

Memorial Day Thoughts

Mark Shields' column today is interesting.

...War demands equality of sacrifice. That is a genuine American value that has been ignored, if not repealed, in the Iraqi war, now in its third year.

All the sacrifice and all the suffering have been borne by those Americans who volunteered to serve their country and their loved ones. For all the rest of us, we have been asked to pay no price, to bear no burden.

This is the longest war in U.S. history to be fought without a military draft and without tax increases. Instead, our leadership has asked to underwrite the war by accepting three tax cuts.

...Ralph Whitehead of the University of Massachusetts, who has thought long and hard about these changes, believes our contemporary culture has devalued individual sacrifice for the common good and no longer honors our reciprocal obligations, as fellow citizens, to each other and to our nation.

This surely makes it more difficult for any leader, so inclined, to summon the nation united to sustained sacrifice.

Here is Whitehead's analysis: "Over the past generation or so, liberals in America have 'deregulated' the nation's culture while conservatives have been busy 'deregulating' the nation's economy."

...What has emerged, if we are candid, is an American society and culture where individual autonomy and self-expression are revered, where the individual's pre-eminent obligation is to himself and where the uninterrupted, private pursuit of wealth qualifies as a contribution to the common good. There is little room in this equation for sacrifice.

...By today's standards, it is quite easy to become a patriot. It involves no personal risk or sacrifice. All you have to do is to give enthusiastic, uncritical backing to the unilateral invasion and occupation of an agreed-upon unfriendly nation.

Last night our PBS station showed a repeat of Frontline's report A Company of Soldiers. Frontline spent a November of 2004 "embedded with the soldiers of the 1-8 Cavalry's Dog Company in south Baghdad to document the day-to-day realities of a life-and-death military mission that also includes rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure, promoting its economic development, and building positive relations with its people." Here is a blurb from Frontline's website about the program.

Filming began three days after the Fallujah campaign was launched in November 2004. There was a surge in violence as an insurgent group, thought to have come from Ramadi, launched a series of ambushes and attacks in Dog Company's sector.

The campaign of violence began when two huge car bombs exploded at Christian churches. The unit responded immediately but found both churches sustained heavy damage. As they returned to base, they were ambushed and came under attack from gunfire and rocket-propelled grenades. They fired back, forcing the insurgents to flee, but in the process a civilian was hit by a ricochet and fatally wounded.

The next day, the situation escalated further. A Dog Company patrol was ambushed and in the fighting Spc. Travis Babbitt, a gunner, was hit. Despite being mortally wounded he managed to return fire before collapsing, killing several insurgents and saving the lives of his fellow soldiers in the process.

Back at the base, patrol leader Capt. Jason Whiteley called his men together to break the news.

"Babbitt was a superb soldier, and he was a great friend to all of us, and he died like he should. He went out fighting," said Captain Whiteley. "We all loved him like a brother, and it's going to be very, very difficult for all of us, including me. But what we have to do now is be strong for the guys who are on the team, for each otherÂ…. Because later on tonight, tomorrow morning, we're going to be back on the same road, we're going to be going back into another ambush."

The loss hit the unit hard.

"I don't have a wife or kids. I don't have somebody waiting for me back home, so sometimes I wish it was me, and not Babbitt," says Private Josue Reyes, who at age 19 is the youngest member of the unit and was sent to Iraq straight from basic training.

I remember hearing Bush tell the American people following 9/11 that the best way to respond to the terrorists was to go shopping. The sacrifice of "going shopping" pales in contrast to the sacrifice that Spc. Babbit made.

What are they teaching in the military academies?

OxBlog looks at the profiles in Time and the Washington Post of the the class of 2005 from West Point and the Naval Academy. Take a look!

Egypt again

Abu Aardvark reports this question and answer from the President at a press conference.

Q Mr. President, President Bush, the First Lady under the Egyptian pyramids this week enthusiastically endorsed Mubarak's first steps towards direct presidential elections. Two days later, Mubarak supporters attacked the opposition in the streets. Was it premature to back Mubarak? What's your message to Mubarak now?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I also embraced President Mubarak's first steps and said that those first steps must include people's ability to have access to TV, and candidates ought to be allowed to run freely in an election and that there ought to be international monitors. That's -- and the idea of people expressing themselves in opposition in government, then getting a beating, is not our view of how a democracy ought to work. It's not the way that you have free elections. People ought to be allowed to express themselves, and I'm hopeful that the President will have open elections that everybody can have trust in.

Abu Aardvark also reports how the Arab media covered Bush's statement. Basically, they focus on the fact that Bush criticized Mubaraka. Now that's good news. This is what public diplomacy ought to look like. I'm also glad that Bush said that the referendum was a good first step, and I hope that he encourages Mubarak to take more steps.

Moral of the story: if America does the right thing, it can and does get the benefit of the doubt in the Arab media. No lesson could be more important for thinking about public diplomacy. It is really worth reflecting on this, given the relatively tepid nature of Bush's criticism of Egypt and the fervent embrace of those comments by virtually the entire Arab media - across the political spectrum, from al-Arabiya to al-Jazeera, from al-Sharq al-Awsat to al-Quds al-Arabi. Forget about building a lousy television station that nobody watches, forget about spin, forget about advertising and public relations. Say the right thing, do the right thing, and Arabs will in fact notice and give the U.S. a chance.

Condoleezza Rice Interview

Sec. Rice was asked about Egypt yesterday. Let's hope that she studies the reports, and the referendum, more closely.

"MR. MACKLER: In Egypt, we're also having a referendum on the political reforms today. We've had reports on our wire and AFP reporters have seen people, who are opposing this process, are actually being beaten by police and stuff like that. It's anecdotal. I can't say how widespread it is. There have there been complaints that the reforms that are adopted are a step forward, as you've said, but are still not really geared to have a significant challenge to President Mubarak. Do you think -- how do you react to these opposition complaints?

SECRETARY RICE: I've not seen the reports that you're talking about today. We have said to the Egyptians that this process needs to be as open and as forward leaning as possible because political reform is a necessity for Egypt. Now, they are taking steps forward. Not everything moves at the same speed and there are going to be different speeds in the Middle East. But again, if you just step back and ask yourself whether a year ago or two years ago, you would have seen these developments in the Middle East, if you could have predicted that you would have seen these developments in the Middle East, I would think you probably wouldn't have.

So the whole character of the conversation has changed about what needs to be done in the Middle East, about what's possible in the Middle East, about what the expectations are in the Middle East. And having done that, I think we want to continue to encourage governments to be supportive and proactive about reform. Not every step is going to be an ideal one, but if we can keep the forward momentum going, I think you're going to see a lot of changes in many of these places, including in Egypt."

Washington Post editorial

The Washington Post weighs in on Laura Bush's stop in Egypt. Apparently the referedum passed, so Egypt will have so-called multi-party elections in the future. By multi-party, they mean that every canidate will need to be approved by Mubarak's party. Hmm.

I wonder what Sec. Rice will say today about the voting.

The Emergent Mystique

For more on Brian McLaren, read this article by Andy Crouch (another of my favorite writers) that was published in Christianity Today last fall. McLaren responds to Crouch's article here. Notice the emphasis on conversation, but in the article and in the way that McLaren responds. My sympathy to this mode of thinking about the Gospel is related to my interest in blogs.

Egypt round-up

Here is Abu Aardvark's round-up of the Egypt referendum coverage, which he titled "Lovely. Laura must be so proud." Basically, those opposed to Mubarak were beaten and sexually harassed, sometimes by thugs and sometime by the police.

Here is the NY Times explanation of the referendum.

The measure, which is expected to pass by a wide margin, will ostensibly let rival candidates challenge President Hosni Mubarak, who is expected to run for a fifth term in September. But the opposition says the details of the law make it virtually impossible for any credible opponent to run, and dismissed the referendum as a ruse.

"This was not a referendum, but an extension of Mubarak's rule and a guarantee that Gamal will inherit from him," said Abdel Halim Qandeel, spokesman for Kefaya, Egypt's largest opposition movement, referring to the president's son, Gamal Mubarak. "We refuse for the people of Egypt to be insulted like this.".

...Under the amended Article 76 of Egypt's Constitution, which was voted on, independent candidates would need the support of 250 elected politicians drawn from the upper and lower houses of Parliament and from each of 26 provincial legislatures to be allowed to run for the presidency.

Given the domination of those institutions by President Mubarak's National Democratic Party, few if any independents would be likely to come close to meeting the requirements.

I wonder what the White House will say, and more importantly do, in regards to this. How serious are we about spreading freedom and democracy?

Egypt

Abu Aardvark has been covering the referendum in Egypt. Most observers think the reforms are a sham. A few days ago, Laura Bush visited Cairo and praised Mubarak's "democratic reforms." So, moderates in the Middle East have yet more evidence that the US is hypocritical in our support for the spread of freedom and democracy.

Abu Aardvark wonders if Laura was unprepared for the question about Mubarak (she was there on Sesame Street, so maybe nobody thought that she would be asked any political questions) or she actually conveyed the opinion of the White House. I remember some people talking about how disastrous Theresa Heinz Kerry would have been as a First Lady. Would she have made such a mistake?

10 Questions for Brian McLaren

ChurchGal mentioned this interview with Brian McLaren. If you are not familiar with McLaren, this is a good introduction. I have read some of his books, and listened to a number of his sermons (his church provides MP3's of his sermons on their website) He is someone to watch.

U.N. Forces Using Tougher Tactics to Secure Peace - New York Times

This seems to be good news. The article talks about how the UN has learned from its mistakes of the past in the realm of peacekeeping. The article talks a lot about Congo, because it is the largest of the UN's peacekeeping missions, with 16,500 soldiers.

The peacekeepers in Haiti, as well, are using Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, which allows them to protect their soldiers or innocent civilians by using force. Peace missions in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, Burundi and Ivory Coast - each with its own rules of engagement - have also moved well beyond the traditional notion of peacekeeping in which blue helmets occupy a neutral zone between former combatants.

Judicial Filibusters Unconstitutional?

Talking Points Memo goes into more depth in how Frist wants to end judicial filibusters. As I said below, it takes 67 votes to change the rules of the Senate, and Frist does not have 67 votes. It only takes 51 votes to find a Senate rule to be unconstitutional, so they will claim that the judicial filibuster is unconstitutional.

Their reasoning will be that the federal constitution requires that the president makes such nominations "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate" and that that means an up or down vote by the full senate.

Nobody believes that.

Not Dick Cheney, not any member of the Republican Senate caucus.

For that to be true stands not only the simple logic of the constitution, but two hundred years of our constitutional history, on its head...

You can think the filibuster is a terrible idea. And you may think that it should be abolished, as indeed it can be through the rules of the senate. And there are decent arguments to made on that count. But to assert that it is unconstitutional because each judge does not get an up or down vote by the entire senate you have to hold that the United States senate has been in more or less constant violation of the constitution for more than two centuries.

The furor among the Republican party, and particularly with the Religious Right, over judges is because they believe that "activist judges" ignore the clear meaning of the constitution and instead twist it to fit their agenda. In order to ensure that the kind of judges they like will be confirmed, they will need to ignore the clear meaning of the constitution and twist it to fit their agenda.

Filibusters

Republican Gordon Smith from Oregon made the principled case against the filibuster on the floor of the Senate yesterday. Here are a few highlights.

When I ran for the Senate, I promised the people of Oregon that when it came to advising and consenting on judges, I would not have a litmus test, that I would respect the results of elections, that I would evaluate nominees for their academic achievement, their judicial temperament, for their personal integrity, and I would then vote on that basis without regard to a cultural litmus test.

I tried to demonstrate that when President Clinton was living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, although I was not on the Judiciary Committee, I followed closely the deliberations of that committee under the leadership of Senator Hatch. There were a number of Democratic nominees that I specifically advocated for and tried very hard to help in their confirmation, and in the most part succeeded, even though their views were different from mine on a range of issues. I remember, in particular, the work of the committee on two controversial judges who were, by every measure, on the left wing of the spectrum politically, Judge Berzon and Judge Paez.

I remember Senator Hatch got them out of the committee, and I remembered my promise to the people of Oregon. One of our colleagues began to filibuster against proceeding in violation of what had been a gentleman's agreement of 200 years and more; that is, you don't filibuster judges when they clear the committee process and they come to a vote. So I voted in both instances to invoke cloture and then to confirm their ascension to the appellate court. I remember hearing a lot of disgruntlement by conservatives in Oregon who felt very strongly that they should be defeated.

But I do think elections have consequences. Presidents have rights and we have a role to play in advising and consenting. But I also feel that when we use the Senate rules to essentially overturn the right of a President and the result of an election, we do more than just violence to the executive branch of Government. We do serious injury to the judicial branch of Government. And we send a chilling effect into judges' chambers that they are going to then, in the future, be held to a standard that is so politicized that the best and brightest of liberal and conservative minds need no longer apply for service in the Federal judiciary.

Unlike Bill Frist, who voted to filibuster Judge Paez, Smith is being consistent.

As Senator Durbin, the assistant minority leader, would probably like to know, this is one Republican who does listen to him and I was listening to him last night when he spoke about Priscilla Owen. I heard his comments earlier when she had come up for confirmation in the 108th Congress, and among the many things held against her was her membership in the Federalist Society. The Federalist Society is something I have never belonged to. When I was in law school, I did not know about it. But it is an organization that believes apparently the judicial branch of Government should strictly construe the laws and be reluctant to get into political questions, to leave the democratic processes working, and to strictly interpret their judgments from the black letter of the law. I do, however, remember when I was in law school that one organization was very active in recruiting, and that was the American Civil Liberties Union. That is an organization that believes

it stands for the protection of the Bill of Rights and believes that those who should be on the court should expansively interpret those rights. As I understood the assistant Democratic leader, he was saying that Judge Owen's membership in the Federalist Society should disqualify her. Well, if that is now the standard--and, Mr. President, it will be the standard if the new Senate rule is 60 votes--then I promise my friends on the Democratic side that there will probably be more than 40 Senators on this side who in the future will hold ACLU membership against nominees.

... Mr. President, I come to this place believing that the brightest of conservative and liberal thinkers best serve American justice and the evolution of American law rather than having a standard that says if you are unwritten and unrevealed and unaffiliated, you have a chance, but if you are a Member of a political organization, if you are affiliated with the Heritage Institute or the Brookings Institute or you are a member of a religious faith, these standards will begin to erect barriers to service in public office. I think that is a very dangerous thing.

This would be problem with a supermajority requirement for judges.

Nevertheless, in former years, our colleagues made many modifications to the filibuster rule. It began in 1917. There was no limit to filibusters until then. The standard was then set at 67 votes to invoke cloture, end debate, and go to a vote. But still, this was not a standard applied to the Executive Calendar.

Further on, many changes have been made to the filibuster rights of a Senator. There are, in fact, 26 laws on our books today abrogating the right of a Senator to filibuster. For example, you cannot filibuster a Federal budget resolution. It was known as the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. The Budget Act of 1974 restricts debate on a budget resolution and all amendments thereto and debatable motions and appeals in connection therewith to not more than 50 hours. That is a very significant restriction on the right of a Senator to filibuster.

Another restriction is that you cannot filibuster a reconciliation bill. Like the budget amendment, a reconciliation bill cannot be filibustered on the Senate floor, so it can pass by a majority vote. So you cannot filibuster anything connected with a resolution or reconciliation, such as an amendment or a conference report.

I think the public would be surprised to know that at the end of a session, when the work of the Finance Committee and much of the work of the Appropriations Committee comes to this floor, usually in a big omnibus bill or reconciliation package, it passes by a majority vote because it cannot be filibustered. In fact, I suspect half of the work we end up doing here, because of decisions made in former days, is not the subject of filibuster, even though it is part of the legislative calendar.

Another instance: You cannot filibuster a resolution authorizing the use of force--the War Powers Resolution. You cannot filibuster international trade agreements, and that is called the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority. You cannot filibuster legislation under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.

Time and again, our colleagues before have recognized that to move the business of the United States, there had to be some kind of limits. When I speak of the filibuster, I speak of it respectfully; I also understand its importance to slow down debate and to give Senators all the opportunity they need for debate. But I also understand that the country's business has to move forward. So colleagues, in former decades, have narrowed the right of the filibuster.

If this is accurate, and I have no reason to think that it is not, it addresses my "slippery slope" fears.

The Senate rules are not Scripture. They have been changed repeatedly throughout the history of this institution. We may now have to do that again. I had hoped that a compromise could be found.

Here is the place that I have some questions for Senator Smith. I wonder what he thinks of the way that Frist is planning on changing the rules of the Senate. As I understand it, it takes 67 votes to change those rules. Since he obviously would not have 67 votes, he instead will claim that judicial filibusters are unconstitutional. If 51 Senators agree, then the rule would be changed. Does Smith really believe that the filibuster of judicial nominees is unconstitutional? I know he thinks it is unwise, and that he thinks that it violates a "gentleman's agreement," but does he really think that it is unconstitutional?

The Best P.R.: Straight Talk

Tom Friedman nails it again.

Instead of sending Mr. McClellan out to flog Newsweek, President Bush should have said: "Let me say first to all Muslims that desecrating anyone's holy book is utterly wrong. These allegations will be investigated, and any such behavior will be punished. That is how we Americans intend to look in the mirror. But we think the Arab-Muslim world must also look in the mirror when it comes to how it has been behaving toward an even worse crime than the desecration of God's words, and that is the desecration of God's creations. In reaction to an unsubstantiated Newsweek story, Muslims killed 16 other Muslims in Afghanistan in rioting, and no one has raised a peep - as if it were a totally logical reaction. That is wrong.

"In Iraq, where Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni Muslims are struggling to build a pluralistic new order, other Muslims, claiming to act in the name of Allah, are indiscriminately butchering people, without a word of condemnation coming from Muslim spiritual or political leaders. I don't understand a concept of the sacred that says a book is more sacred than a human life. A holy book, whether the Bible or the Koran, is only holy to the extent that it shapes human life and behavior.

"Look, Newsweek may have violated journalistic rules, but what jihadist terrorists are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan - blowing up innocent Muslims struggling to build an alternative society to dictatorship - surely destroys the Koran. They are the real enemies of Islam because they are depriving Muslims of a better future. From what I know of Islam, it teaches that you show reverence to God by showing reverence for his creations, not just his words. Why don't your spiritual leaders say that? I am asking, because I want to know."

He goes on to list a few examples of Arab intellectuals and Iraqi journalists who are doing this. Maybe Karen Hughes will help encourage this truth-telling, when she starts working FOUR MONTHS from now. Why do we keep shooting ourselves in the foot?!?

Blowing Up an Assumption - New York Times

Daniel Drezner pointed me to this story in the NY Times about suicide bombings. The author "compiled a database of every suicide bombing and attack around the globe from 1980 through 2003 - 315 in all" and found that religious motivations are much less prevalent than conventional wisdom would suggest.

What nearly all suicide terrorist attacks actually have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland. Religion is often used as a tool by terrorist organizations in recruiting and in seeking aid from abroad, but is rarely the root cause.

...Understanding that suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation rather than a product of Islamic fundamentalism has important implications for how the United States and its allies should conduct the war on terrorism. Spreading democracy across the Persian Gulf is not likely to be a panacea so long as foreign combat troops remain on the Arabian Peninsula.

More on Newsweek

The Columbia Journalism Review takes the rest of the media to task for their coverage of the Newsweek story. Their criticism applies to many of the blogs I read.

Editor & Publisher highlights the hypocrisy of the White House and Pentagon in their comments.

I wish someone would put together a good timeline of this story.

One of those debates I was talking about

Joseph Britt just finished guest blogging at The Belgravia Dispatch and asked the question What Is World Order For? This is the kind of question that the American public should have been asking before the last Presidential election. How should the US be involved in other's countries affairs when we do not have an obvious short-term interest.

Fifteen years ago Zimbabwe could feed itself, and even export food; it was an example other small African countries seeking to develop could hope to emulate. Now it is a basket case, its government dependent on international handouts to keep part of its population from starving to death and willing to use its food aid as a political weapon. Sudan is expelling refugees by the tens of thousands while killing many of those left behind; it has done this, in different parts of its territory, for about two decades now. And of course North Korea is seeking a nuclear arsenal even as its government's policies drive its people toward starvation and itself toward collapse.

These situations ought to concern us. They ought to concern other countries even more, though, and we do not use that fact to our advantage nearly as often as we could. It is too glib to say that the solution to the Zimbabwe problem has to go through South Africa; to Sudan, through Egypt; to North Korea, through China. Each of the larger countries in these instances have reasons for the actions they have taken, or rather and for the most part have not taken. But in each case those reasons have led them to follow a course fraught with indignity, dishonor or great physical risk. Other governments are no less likely to do foolish things than ours is, and as we are able to correct our mistakes, so are they.

...In all these cases, but especially the last two, an honest assessment of American national interests would have to conclude that a policy of benign neglect has much to recommend it.

Britt recommendation is a "deliberate American encouragement of regional powers to lead the way in quelling or preventing upheavals in smaller neighboring states." He acknowledges risks in this path, but there are huge risks in our current approach. Since we can only invade a few countries at once (and Republicans have ruled out even talk of a draft), our options in dealing with North Korea, Sudan, and Zimbabwe (not to mention Iran) are limited. With the nomination of Bolton to the UN, the administration is showing that it does not think the UN should have much of a role in these problems. So what is the Bush plan? Six party talk with North Korea (which Bolton undermined) Let the Europeans negotiate with Iran (which Bolton tried to undermine) Hmm. Britt's plan does not seem so bad to me.

If there is to be a stable, multipolar world order some of the poles in it will have to play a larger role than they do now, or than they are now inclined to do. I am skeptical of the value of pressing countries around the world to become democracies whether their people and cultures are advanced enough to adapt to this very demanding form of government or not. There are cases in which pressing nations to alter their foreign policies to serve the interests of civilization seems a more promising means of making this world a less brutal, a less morally degraded and perhaps a less dangerous place.

The BBC on Newsweek

The BBC covers this story better than anyone else. Here is the conclusion of the article:

It is hard to avoid the inference that the people who are really to blame are the men and women who have abused their prisoners, not those who have reported allegations about the ill treatment.

What happened in prisons like Guantanamo, Bagram and Abu Ghraib after 2001 has done serious damage to the United States and its allies: not just the dwindling number who still have troops in Iraq, but the new governments in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Do not blame the news media for this. Instead, all the effort needs to go into convincing the world that the abuse has stopped, and will never be allowed to start again.

So should Newsweek be let off the hook? I'd say that they should not have included the information that they could not verify, even if other media outlet had published it. Their source did not show them the report that contained the information about the Koran flushing, so they should have found independent verification of the incident.

Flushing the Koran?

There have been a lot of reports lately about rioting in Afghanistan after a Newsweek report was that US soldiers had flushed a copy of the Koran down a toilet to intimidate Muslim suspects in Guantanamo Bay. This rioting has resulted in at least 15 deaths and many injuries. Newsweek is now backing off of that report.

Last Friday, a top Pentagon spokesman told us that a review of the probe cited in our story showed that it was never meant to look into charges of Qur'an desecration. The spokesman also said the Pentagon had investigated other desecration charges by detainees and found them "not credible." Our original source later said he couldn't be certain about reading of the alleged Qur'an incident in the report we cited, and said it might have been in other investigative documents or drafts. Top administration officials have promised to continue looking into the charges, and so will we. But we regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst.

Andrew Sullivan (it's in his Quote Of The Day II) talks about what I think is the most important part of this story.

It is perfectly conceivable, given the torture policies promoted and permitted by this president, that desecration of the Koran has taken place in Guantanamo. Many other insane and inhumane interrogation tactics have turned out to be true. Remember smearing fake menstrual blood? We are in a critical war for world opinion. A critical part of our message is that this is not a war against Islam as such, but against Islamo-fascism and terror. And yet we see the religious right co-opting air force academies, and we hear of incidents like the alleged toilet-flush of the Koran. Since no one is ever held responsible for anything in the Bush administration, we can be sure this incident will be lied about, covered up or blamed on some poor military grunt who can be easily scapegoated. But at some point, we will have to confront the severe damage this administration has done to American prestige and credibility in a critical global battle of ideas because of its interrogation policies. These are self-inflicted wounds. Even if this incident turns out to be false, our previous policies have made it perfectly plausible. That is the shame - and the terrible gift from this administration to Osama bin Laden. [Emphasis added]

All of these problems were known or predicted during last summer's election season. Why was it only on blogs that I saw these issue being debated? There was a real question about whether or not American credibility was important or not, and that question was largely ignored. (There were lots of other important questions that were ignored, like when and under what circumstances should US military force should be deployed - in a place like Darfur? in Iran? Syria? North Korea? What are the differences between these countries and Iraq?)

The president has said that the way that the world views the US is important, so important that he appointed one of his closest advisors, Karen Hughes, to be in charge of public diplomacy. It is so important that she will not get started until the fall! The position of Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy has been vacant since last summer.

However, public diplomacy is not the crux of the matter. If "freedom is on the march" and US policy is to spread democracy, we must credibly deal with the widespread view that we support torturing people in our custody.

Top 10 Things the UN Does Well, and Some It Needs To Work On!

I've been reading Democracy Arsenal a lot lately. It is a group blog about "US foreign policy and global affairs." One of the writers is Suzanne Nossel, a Senior Fellow at the Security and Peace Institute. She served as Deputy to the Ambassador for UN Management and Reform at the US Mission to the United Nations from 1999 – 2001 under Ambassador Richard C. Holbrooke. The other folks who write there have equally impressive backgrounds.

Nossel wrote a post called Top 10 Things the UN Does Well. She is guest blogging at the another blog I regularly read, that of the conservative Daniel Drezner. (Drezner is a political science prof at the University of Chicago and previously served as an international economist in the Treasury Department.) At Drezner's blog, Nossel wrote What's Wrong With the UN, showing that support for the UN and support for reforming the UN are not mutually exclusive. Obviously I do not have anywhere near the experience she does, but the two lists make sense to me.

One item on her list of things that the UN does well is this:

4. Peacekeeping. The UN has 16 active peacekeeping missions right now, in places like Sierra Leone, Kosovo, Lebanon, Liberia and Burundi. Make no mistake: in most of those places if the UN weren't there, no one else but the marauders would be and the peace or relative peace being kept would have disintegrated long ago. The history of UN peacekeeping is checkered for at least 2 reasons: a) vague mandates and inadequate resources decreed by the countries on the UN Security Council and b) poor planning, management and capabilities. On the latter front (the only front which the UN qua UN can do anything about), the organization has made real progress based on a 2000 reform report. While holes still exist, a most-improved-player award is in order here.

This stood out to me because I have been reading a lot about Rwanda recently, where the UN was a complete failure. It is good to see that the UN is making improvements. The 2000 reform report can be found here.

Nossel also has written more thoughts about needed UN reforms.

Narnia Trailer

The Chronicles of Narnia trailer is here!

Questions for Both Sides

Christianity Today's website has an article that is subtitled Terri Schiavo prompted a national debate, but there's still much unresolved. I wonder if enough time has passed to actually dig in and discuss these kinds of questions. One of the online discussions that I participate in seems to still be too emotional, with everyone still arguing over the facts in Schiavo's situation instead of discussing what should happen in the future. I hope that there really is a national debate, but the media has moved on to the "latest" news.

This end-of-life debate has moved on to a debate about judges and the nuclear option, which seems to confirm the cynical interpretation that some conservatives were using Schiavo for political reasons. (The Republican memo that talked about opportunities in the Schiavo situation also confirms this interpretation!) I know that many politicians truly were concerned for Terri Schiavo and her parents, but so many Senators in the late night debate not being able to pronounce her name correctly makes me question their sincerity.

Newsweek on Narnia

The May 9 issue of Newsweek has some exclusive pictures from The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe.

Update: USA Today has a longer feature. The first trailer for LWW will be seen Saturday night during ABC's showing of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. A longer trailer will be shown before Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith. I can't wait!

Paul Marshall

It’s funny how easy it is to think you know an author after reading one of his or her books. Paul Marshall wrote a book over 20 years ago that had a big influence on my thinking about politics, Thine Is The Kingdom. It really affirmed my opinion that, in general, the Democrats are closer to having a Biblical approach to politics than the Republicans. (I really do mean in general. I read this book in the months prior to the 2000 elections, and partly as a result of the book, I ended up voting for Nader)

Today I spent some time trying to figure out what Marshall has been doing lately, and I was quite surprised. Based on some online searching, he seems to be working and writing in circles that are quite politically conservative (like the National Review and Claremont Institute). I don’t know if he has changed in the past twenty years, if I apply the ideas in his book differently than he does, or if these are the only places he could find who would support someone who grounds his approach to politics in the Bible.

A few years ago his writing focused on the worldwide persecution of Christians, an issue that evangelicals and liberal Democrats have found some common ground. Even more recently, he has written a lot about Islam and terrorism. I’m not sure that I agree with all of his analysis of Islam, but Thine Is The Kingdom does not really suggest anything one way or that other about how he might approach such as issue.

I guess the surprise comes from his association with groups who, it seems to me, disagree that the government has a role in ensuring that different spheres within creation (like economics, the family, or the church) do not infringe on each other. I have been meaning to blog about sphere sovereignty for a while now. For those who aren’t really sure what I’m talking about with all this “sphere” stuff, stay tuned…

Beer and theology

This is fun!

Lawyers v. Doctors

Just in case anyone was still wondering if I was a nerd or not, I'll just mention that last week I was watching a panel regarding medical malpractice on CSPAN. Mind you, I'm not a medical professional, involved in the insurance industry, or a lawyer. Just a nerd.

Anyway, the speakers on this panel were mostly law professors, and some of those asking questions were doctors. Once it again it struck me how similar those two professions are, and just how much distrust exists between them. (The best part of this conference was when one of the participants pointed out this series of articles in the journal Medical Economics.) Both doctors and lawyers:

1. Require advanced training in a rather technical field. This training serves as a gatekeeper to the profession.
2. Use jargon that defines who is "one of us" and who is "one of them."
3. Often serve people who are incredibly vulnerable. This is what motivates most people to get involved in their profession in the first place, the chance to "help those in need." Temptations also come from having the power over the vulnerable; arrogance being one of the most prominent.
4. Earn good money (According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 2003, the median salary for family and general practitioners was $137,670 and for lawyers it was $92,730) and have the potential to be very lucrative.
5. Each like to judge the other based on the worst examples. (Doctors who say lawyers are all ambulance chasers looking for a huge payout and lawyers who say doctors just want to avoid responsibility for malpractice)
6. Like most professions, they seem reluctant to discipline thier own. Lawyers suggestions for dealing with the malpractice crisis often involves doctors

Senator Cornyn recants

Looks like Cornyn realized the implications of his earlier statements.

Mr. President, the purpose for my rising is to follow up on some remarks that I made yesterday, Monday, on the floor of the Senate. A full transcript of those remarks, which has to do with judges and recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court, are available, of course in the Congressional Record, but are also available on my official website for anyone who would care to read them.

As a former judge myself for 13 years, who has a number of close personal friends who still serve on the bench today, I am outraged by recent acts of courthouse violence. I certainly hope that no one will construe my remarks on Monday otherwise. Considered in context, I don’t think a reasonable listener or reader could.

As I said on Monday, there's no possible justification for courthouse violence. Indeed, I met with a federal judge, a friend of mine, in Texas just this past week, to make sure that we’re doing everything we can to protect our judges and courthouse personnel against further acts of violence. And like my colleague from Illinois, I personally know judges and their families who have been victims of violence and have grieved with those families.

But I want to make one thing clear: I'm not aware of any evidence whatsoever linking recent acts of courthouse violence to the various controversial rulings that have captured the nation’s attention in recent years.

My point was, and is, simply this: We should all be concerned that the judiciary is losing the respect that it needs to serve the American people well. We should all want judges to interpret the law fairly – not impose their own personal views on the nation. We should all want to fix our broken judicial confirmation process. And we should all be disturbed by overheated rhetoric about the judiciary, from both sides of the aisle. I regret it that my remarks have been taken out of context to create a wrong impression about my position, and possibly be construed to contribute to the problem rather than to a solution.

Our judiciary must not be politicized. Rhetoric about the judiciary and about judicial nominees must be toned down. And our broken judicial confirmation process must be fixed, once and for all.

How to Create a Culture of Life

1. Fight Stalinists.

Stalin's last successor made an admission: "Everything that happened in Eastern Europe in these last few years," Mikhail Gorbachev said, "would have been impossible without this pope."

2. Speak for those who are ignored.

He spoke against capitalism and communism, spoke up for the poor, spoke up for life as he defined it from very beginning to very end. "I am the voice of the voiceless," he said in 1979 on his first overseas trip as pope.

3. Don't be captive to partisan politics.

Viewed through the lens of American politics, the pope was an enigma — "to the left of liberal Democrats on social issues and to the right of conservative Republicans on moral values," in the words of Thomas Reese, a Jesuit priest and church observer.

4. Work for debt relief for poor countries. (So far, 23 countries have been able to get out from under crushing debt)

The Pope said canceling the debt was essential to fight poverty: “I appeal to all persons involved, and in particular to the most powerful nations, to prevent the Millennium jubilee passing by without decisive steps toward a definitive solution to the debt problem.”

5. Speak truth to power concerning war.

In a meeting at the Vatican at the start of a three-day presidential trip to Italy and France, the pontiff, 84, praised Bush for his leadership against abortion in the United States and AIDS in Africa. But the pope, who was too weak to stand and barely audible as he read a statement, also had stern words for Bush, deploring the prisoner-abuse scandal in Iraq and violence in the region.

"Mr. President, your visit to Rome takes place at a moment of great concern for the continuing situation of grave unrest in the Middle East, both in Iraq and in the Holy Land," said John Paul, an ardent critic of the war in Iraq. "You are very familiar with the unequivocal position of the Holy See in this regard, expressed in numerous documents, through direct and indirect contacts, and in the many diplomatic efforts which have been made."

...Yet the pope did not shy away from criticizing U.S. policy. In a reference to the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, the pope said: "In the past few weeks, other deplorable events have come to light which have troubled the civic and religious conscience of all, and made more difficult a serene and resolute commitment to shared human values. In the absence of such a commitment, neither war nor terrorism will ever be overcome."

6. Promote just relationships between employers and employees.

The pontiff’s most powerful statement on workers came in 1981 in the encyclical Laborem Exercens—“On Human Work”—in which John Paul called for “ever new movements of solidarity of the workers and with the workers. This solidarity must be present whenever it is called for by the social degrading of the subject of work, by exploitation of the workers and by the growing areas of poverty and even hunger.”

The encyclical goes on to reaffirm the support of the Roman Catholic Church for a just wage, available and affordable health care, the right to a retirement pension and workers’ compensation for work-based injuries or illnesses.

7. Forgive those who persecute you.

Dec. 27, 1983
Turkish terrorist Mehmet Ali Agca, the pope's would-be assassin, kisses the pontiff's hand
He makes a visit to the Rebibbia prison, meeting with Alì Agca, the Turk who made an assassination attempt on him on May 13, 1981.

How NOT to Create a Culture of Life

1. Vaguely threaten judges.

SUGAR LAND, Texas, March 31 /U.S. Newswire/ -- House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) today released the following statement mourning the passing of Terri Schiavo:

"Mrs. Schiavo's death is a moral poverty and a legal tragedy. This loss happened because our legal system did not protect the people who need protection most, and that will change. The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today. Today we grieve, we pray, and we hope to God this fate never befalls another. Our thoughts and prayers are with the Schindlers and with Terri Schiavo's friends in this time of deep sorrow."

Surely Delay did not really mean violence, right? I'm sure that future comments will clarify his meaning.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said Thursday that "at a time when emotions are running high, Mr. DeLay needs to make clear that he is not advocating violence against anyone."

Dan Allen, DeLay's communications director, said that DeLay was "once again expressing his disappointment in how the courts clearly ignored the intent of the legislation that was passed."

Way to make it clear that you are not advocating violence. But isn't Kennedy jumping to conclusions? Why should Delay think that anyone might interpret "The time will some for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior" as a call for violence? Well, there is this.

A Buncombe County man was arrested for allegedly putting out a bounty on Michael Schiavo and on a judge who denied a request to reinsert Schiavo’s feeding tube.

Richard Alan Meywes of Fairview is accused of sending an e-mail putting a $250,000 bounty “on the head of Michael Schiavo” and another $50,000 to eliminate Pinellas County Circuit Court Judge George Greer.

“It is my understanding that whoever eliminates Michael Schiavo from the planet while inflicting as much pain and suffering that he can bear stands to be paid this reward in cash,” the e-mail said, according to a text of the message contained in an affidavit prepared by Tampa FBI agent A.J. Gilman.

And this.

The Woodside Hospice where she died, the circuit and federal courts that refused to order her feedingtube restored, the city of Pinellas Park and its police were inundated with angry phone calls and e-mails from people who felt they should have done something to stop her death. Police logged several bomb threats and over 900 phone calls.

"The majority of them have been very hostile, expressing their opposition to our involvement," said Pinellas Park Police Capt. Sanfield Forseth. "We still have a threat to the hospice."

In this statement, Vice President Cheney showed you can make Delay's argument about the judiciary while being clear that violence is unacceptable.

Vice President Cheney says he opposes revenge against judges for their refusal to prolong the life of the late Terri Schiavo, although he did not criticize House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) for declaring that they will "answer for their behavior."

Cheney was asked about the issue on Friday by the editorial board of the New York Post. He said twice that he had not seen DeLay's remarks, but the vice president said he would "have problems" with the idea of retribution against the courts. "I don't think that's appropriate," he said. "I may disagree with decisions made by judges in any one particular case. But I don't think there would be much support for the proposition that because a judge hands down a decision we don't like, that somehow we ought to go out -- there's a reason why judges get lifetime appointments."

2. Imply that opposing your policy goal will lead to murder.

"It causes a lot of people, including me, great distress to see judges use the authority that they have been given to make raw political or ideological decisions," he said. Sometimes, he said, "the Supreme Court has taken on this role as a policymaker rather than an enforcer of political decisions made by elected representatives of the people."

Cornyn continued: "I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection, but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. . . . And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters, on some occasions, where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in, engage in violence. Certainly without any justification, but a concern that I have."

Cornyn, who spoke in a nearly empty chamber, did not specify cases of violence against judges. Two fatal episodes made headlines this year, although authorities said the motives appeared to be personal, not political. In Chicago, a man fatally shot the husband and mother of a federal judge who had ruled against him in a medical malpractice suit. And in Atlanta last month, a man broke away from a deputy and fatally shot four people, including the judge presiding over his rape trial.

LarkNews.com

Sometimes you comes across something while browsing online that makes you laugh out loud. I just found LarkNews.com and disturbed my wife's studying several times while reading it. Here's a sample:

Woman upset by theater mix-up

LANCASTER, Pa. — Maria Holsapple thought she was attending performances at the local community theater, but after twelve weeks, she was angered to learn she had been attending Oak Grove Center, a 3,000-member church.
"I would never willingly go into an evangelical church," says Holsapple, a practicing Catholic.
She came after Oak Grove mailed her "tickets" to upcoming "drama presentations." She enjoyed the "mini-concert, the play and the motivational speech they threw in at the end," she says.
"It worked well as performance art," she says. "I was convinced it was a groundbreaking new theater company."
But when neighbors remarked that they had seen her at church, Holsapple called Oak Grove and discovered it was a house of worship.
"The pastor quoted Jesus, but he quoted Socrates, too, and Britney Spears," she says. "How was I to know?" •

Bush's Comments on Terri Schiavo

Here is what President Bush on the morning of Terri Schiavo's death, according to a transcript from the Transcript:>Washington Post.

BUSH: Thank you all. Please be seated.

Today, millions of Americans are saddened by the death of Terri Schiavo.

Laura and I extend our condolences to Terri Schiavo's families.

I appreciate the example of grace and dignity they have displayed at a difficult time. I urge all those who honor Terri Schiavo to continue to work to build a culture of life where all Americans are welcomed and valued and protected, especially those who live at the mercy of others.

The essence of civilization is that the strong have a duty to protect the weak.

In cases where there are serious doubts and questions, the presumption should be in the favor of life.

I, too, hope that we can build a culture of life where everyone (not just Americans) is welcomed, valued, and protected. I agree that the strong have a duty to protect the weak, and that we should err on the side of life. I think that these principles should apply to all sorts of policy questions, including abortion, immigration, health care, tort reform, the environment, foreign policy, capital punishment, bankruptcy, Social Security, Medicare, etc.

People of good faith can differ on exactly which policy proposals do the best job of promoting a culture of life. But I do think that it is reasonable to expect our politicans, particularly those who claim to be evangelical Christians, to explain how all their policy proposals fare when it comes to protecting the weak and valuing the vulnerable.

I think it goes without saying that I believe that most of President Bush's policies do exactly the opposite of encouraging the strong to fulfill their duty to protect the weak, in fact, most of them make it easier for the strong to exploit the weak. (If you want to make a prediction about his position on just about any domestic (or even many foreign) policies issues, ask yourself what would help big business. More often than not, that is Bush's position.)

Johann Christoph Arnold

Johann Christoph Arnold, a pastor who is part of the Bruderhof Community, has some good thoughts on the moral and theological issues brought up by the Terri Schiavo situation. This was written before her death, and with compassion for everyone involved.

That there is widespread public debate on a topic close to the hearts of everyone can never be a bad thing. It shows that democracy is alive and well, and that life is worth living. But where there are differences of opinion, and differences in religious belief and faith, there must also be respect for one another. And so we should use this opportunity not to push forward our own ideas and agendas, but to seek what is truly God's will. In the end the human race will only survive if we humble ourselves, and submit ourselves to God, who longs for each of us to find a true destiny, a fulfillment of life through service to others.

I wish that more of that respect and setting aside political agendas was evident. Arnold focuses on our culture's difficulty in dealing with death and pain. One of the attorney's involved asked a great question yesterday. How much of the focus on creating a culture of life has more to do with a fear of death? (Don't get me wrong, I think that there is much work to be done in our country to create a culture of life) Arnold also poses a question for those who think that Schiavo should have been left alive to leave space for a miracle.

This case goes far beyond Terri's physical condition, her medical outlook (whatever it is) and whether or not her feeding tube should be removed. It is really a case that should give pause and lead us to serious soul-searching. It should make us think about what God might do if we would for once give him a chance. In the end it is he alone who, as creator of life, should be the one to take life away when he feels it is the right moment for a person. Therefore re-inserting a feeding tube, or fighting to keep one in, is no less a form of human interference.

I believe that there are times today when God works "miracles" (that's a problematic term for me, but in general what I mean is a supernatural intervention) but that in the days between the removal of the feeding tube and her death yesterday, God had plenty of space to intervene.

I also don't know exactly what a natural death means anymore. Wouldn't a natural death would have occurred 15 years ago if there had not been any human intervention after oxygen was deprived from Schiavo's brain? Does a natural death just mean one that our medical technology is not able to prevent yet, like Christopher Reeve's death? I say that as one who believes our medical knowledge and abilities comes directly from God and that what we consider to be everyday medical care is a direct manifestation of God's work. These issues are much murkier than those who are talking about the "murder" of Terri Schiavo acknowledge.

A good overview of some of the legal issue can be found here.

Terri Schiavo

I think that there is a law somewhere stating that all bloggers must comment on Terri Schiavo, so here I go.

On the moral issue, I don't think we have enough accurate information. Can she respond? Did she talk to her brother? Is she in a PVS? A MCS? The answers to those questions comes down to her parent's word vs. her husband's. I do think that there can be times when allowing someone to die is the most obedient decision. Newsweek has an interview with a Jesuit bioethicist who states this case. Here is money quote:

Here's the question I ask of these right-to-lifers, including Vatican bishops: as we enter into Holy Week and we proclaim that death is not triumphant and that with the power of resurrection and the glory of Easter we have the triumph of Christ over death, what are they talking about by presenting death as an unmitigated evil? It doesn't fit Christian context...
But is anyone arguing that for Schiavo to die would be an "unmitigated evil"? They just don't want her death to happen unnecessarily.
It's not happening unnecessarily. It's happening because her heart attack has rendered her utterly incapable of any future human relationships.

I don't know if she is, in fact, incapable of any future human relationship, and I think there are reasons to question the way that both the husband and the parents answer this question.

There are certainly political questions raised here, and nobody should be surprised that I find the actions of the congressional Republicans to be unethical and hypocritical. As in Bush v Gore, the conservative are intervening in a situation strictly for political reasons AND they want to claim that their intervention should not set a precedent for future cases. If the intervention was the right thing to do, then why not set a precedent?

The hypocrisy abounds. You have Republicans judge shopping, looking for the federal government to overturn the decision that the state courts have consistently made, trying to intervene in the sanctity of marriage.

When I hear Republicans in Congress expressing their concern for creating a culture of life, I am amazed. These are the politicians who are advocating tort reform that protects insurance companies from the victims of medical malpractice, just last week pushed a budget resolution through the House that would cut funding for Medicaid by between $15 - $20 billion, and passed the bankruptcy bill authored by the credit card industry.

In the Republican version of a culture of life, the next Terri Schiavo would not have her malpractice award, leaving her more dependent on Medicaid for her care (at least what's left of Medicaid). If this future Terri Schiavo lived in Texas, the hospital will be legally permitted to withhold life-sustaining care over the family's objections thanks to a bill signed by Gov. Bush. Oh yeah, her family will also have a more difficult time getting back on their feet financially thanks to the bankruptcy bill.

That's a culture of life?

Narnia on Tour

Narnia on Tour sounds like a great way to get ready for movie version of The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, which is now scheduled to open Dec. 9. Here is a blurb from the site:

Welcome to Narnia on Tour. It is a tour that combines the literary prowess of artists and authors with the engaging insights of audiences around the world...

The primary goal of the tour is to foster informed conversation about Lewis, his faith, imagination, and writing.

As this site builds within the next months, it will become a resource not only in terms of the tour dates for next fall, but by offering new articles about Lewis, who was influenced by Lewis, and authors who write in a similar vein as he wrote.

The dates of the tour are between September 30 and November 19. I was excited to see this:

Portland, OR
Reason, Imagination, and Holiness: C.S. Lewis's Creative Vision of Faith
TERRY GLASPEY
Author of The Spiritual Legacy of C.S. Lewis

Looks like I'm going to be able to catch this! Look and see if there is an event near you!

Two movie previews

In case you haven't seen it yet, here is the trailer for Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith.

There is also a new video "featurette" called Behind the Magic of Narnia Chapter II: The Director.

Legal Affairs Debate Club - The Doctor's Court?

Legal Affairs bills itself as "The Magazine At The Intersection of Law And Life." Their website has a weekly debate on legal issues, giving two individuals the chance to make one comment a day on the topic. The topic this past week?

George W. Bush is pushing an aggressive agenda for reforming medical malpractice law, with a focus on capping the amount of damages patients can be awarded if their doctors harm them. But some advocates suggest a completely different reform: "health courts." These jury-less courts would deal only with medical claims and be administered by trained healthcare professionals. This, supporters argue, might improve healthcare by providing quicker resolution to malpractice suits and limiting frivolous claims.

Are health courts a good idea?

I think that they have the potential to be a good idea, and that it would be wonderful to try out some pilot projects. A good friend of mine, who is a Phd/MD and one of the smartest people I know, had this to say about the problems our current system faces.

Patients (and juries) cannot distinguish between a "bad outcome" which can occur even when everyone does everything right, an accidental mistake (which anyone can make), and willful disregard of the standard of care (malpractice). Furthermore, many mistakes which occur are a result of both a flawed systemic process and an individual mistake.
Most catastrophic events are rarely the result of a single flaw or mistake, but rather the chance multiplicity of several smaller mistakes, themselves non-fatal, which together cause a disaster.

Stephanie Mencimer, who writes for The Washington Monthly and argues against the health court, would say that it is elitist to claim that non-medical juries are incapable of making distinctions between bad outcomes, accidental mistakes, and malpractice. Even if it is elitist, it very likely is true. I think that I am a pretty smart guy, but I'm sure that there are many cases in which I would not have the ability to make those distinctions. Besides, in a health court, the defenant would actually be tried by a jury of his or her peers, unlike in our current system. She makes a few other ridiculous claims, like suspecting that defensive medicine is a myth and that unnecessary tests are usually ordered to make doctors lots of money. Many health care providers that I have talked to make decisions every day on the basis of lawsuit avoidance.

Mencimer does bring up a few valid concerns relating to tort reform, however none of them are reasons to oppose the creation of a health court. She says that lawsuits "are a symptom of secrecy" and "distrust within the health care system." I think she is wrong about the reasons for that secrecy (she says the"direct financial incentive to keep their errors under wraps...far exceeds the penalties they might suffer through lawsuits"), but agree that secrecy is a problem.

I have heard "experts" say that most lawsuits are filed in order to get good information about their outcome. (I don't know if there is any empirical evidence for this, but it makes intuitive sense and there is plenty of anecdotal evidence) If there is a bad outcome, "risk management" encourages doctors to tell their patients nothing because anything they say can come back to haunt them in a lawsuit. Then patients, who do not know if the bad outcome is a result of malpractice or not, feels forced to file a lawsuit in order to get that information. A health court might reduce some of the fears on the part of doctors and hospitals that giving information to patients could harm them in a lawsuit, encouraging them to be more transparent in the event of a bad outcome, and reducing the number of lawsuits filed.

The other valid point she makes is critiquing the inclusion of plans to cap attorney's fees and cap non-economic damages. If health courts do a good job of discriminating between bad outcomes, accidental mistakes, and malpractice, then there is no need for these proposals. As Mencimer argues, capping fees, "rather than sav[ing] clients money, ...prevent[s] people from getting representation at all." Since taking on a malpractice suit involves the attorney spending their own cash to prepare the case, capping their contingency fees would increase the risk that the attorney would lose money on the case. And in an effective health court, a cap on non-economic damages would only protect doctors (and their insurance companies) who commit malpractice.

On balance, I believe that the argument for trying out a health court out is a good one.

In a future post I will talk about my perspective that this debate over tort reform, as it is played out in the media, is as much about doctors' distrust for lawyers (and lawyers' distrust for doctors) as anything else. It is interesting that the two professions have so much in common, both when they are at their best and when they are at the worst.