« December 2007 | Main | February 2008 »
January 30, 2008
Hillary Clinton wasn't misled about the Iraq war vote
Earlier this month, Hillary Clinton made headlines when she implied that her vote for the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" was a vote for inspections, not war. Though she has never publicly apologized for her vote, she has claimed several times that she was misled by the Bush administration, either about intelligence or their intentions.
Why did Hillary really vote for the war? Did she support it at the time? Was she misled? Did she, with an eye on a future bid for the White House, consider it to be a politically savvy move?
If she was misled, why didn't she speak out against the war once she knew the administration's intentions and that there were no WMDs? Remarks she made to the Council on Foreign Relations in December 2003 suggest she did in fact know what she was doing when she voted for authorization of force. And at the time, just after Saddam was captured and the war looked winnable in the near future, she stood by her vote.
From the speech:
I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote. I have had many disputes and disagreements with the administration over how that authority has been used, but I stand by the vote to provide the authority because I think it was a necessary step in order to maximize the outcome that did occur in the Security Council with the unanimous vote to send in inspectors. And I also knew that our military forces would be successful. But what we did not appreciate fully and what the administration was unprepared for was what would happen the day after.
Though this election is about the future, we shouldn't forget the past. Though this election is about change, it should also be about accountability. John Kerry got a free pass on his support for the war in large part because of an "anybody but Bush" mindset in the Democratic party. But support for the war does not equate to electability this time around.
The video of Clinton's speech is below.
Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 8:57 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
January 24, 2008
Divide and conquer
The Democratic primary race has taken a very bitter, divisive tone recently, and many in the party are blaming the Clintons. Dick Harpootlian, a former chairman of the Democratic Party in South Carolina, accused the Clintons of using the "politics of deception." Other prominent national party members, including Ted Kennedy, Rahm Emanuel, and Tom Daschle, have called on them to cease fire.
Bill Clinton, who seems to be the more aggressive of the two, acts as if he's campaigning for a third term, and some believe he may be permanently damaging his legacy and reputation by attacking Obama so aggressively. Worse, the Clintons risk alienating Obama supporters to the extent that, come November, they either stay home or vote third-party.
What are they thinking? The strategy could backfire if voters are turned off by the Clintonian viciousness. But the Clintons seem to think this divide and conquer strategy is the way to victory. Hillary began as the front runner and still leads nationally, so if by injecting negative politics into the race she drags both candidates down, she'll still be ahead. As long as she damages both campaigns equally, she wins in the short term.
This strategy may be fully revealed after the South Carolina primary. Obama should win comfortably, thanks in large part to growing support from African Americans. I expect surrogates to portray him as the "black candidate," undermining his credibility as a general election contender and grouping him with politicians like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
Obama's in a tough spot. If he responds too aggressively, he risks playing right into the Clintons' strategy. He can still win the nomination, but he's going to have to find a way to address these attacks, especially in the debates where his performance has been underwhelming. A little help from Edwards would go a long way as well.
Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 12:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 23, 2008
Afghan journalist sentenced to death
From the AP:
An Afghan court on Tuesday sentenced a 23-year-old journalism student to death for distributing a paper he printed off the Internet that three judges said violated the tenets of Islam, an official said.Kambaksh discussed the paper with his teacher and classmates at Balkh University and several students complained to the government, Wahab said. Kambaksh's brother, Yacoubi Brahimi, described Tuesday's proceeding as a "secret trial," saying the family did not know it had been scheduled. Some have accused Kambaksh of writing the paper in question, but Brahimi said that his brother printed it off the Internet.
Wahab said that Kambaksh told the court that he could defend himself and did not need a lawyer. But Kambaksh's brother said his brother should have had an attorney.
Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 11:05 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 21, 2008
Martin Luther King: More than a dream
Some historians are worried that Martin Luther King's legacy is being whittled down and simplified, leaving younger generations knowing little more than a snapshot of King's life—that he was a civil rights advocate who had a dream. Specifically, his anti-poverty and anti-war work that often made him unpopular while he was alive are overlooked by many today.
But social justice and nonviolence moved to the forefront of King's activism in his later years. In 1968, the year he was assassinated, he organized the Poor People's Campaign to address issues of economic injustice, and he was visiting Memphis to support a strike by sanitation workers when he was gunned down.
By taking on issues outside segregation, he had lost the support of many newspapers and magazines, and his relationship with the White House had suffered, said Harvard Sitkoff, a professor of history at the University of New Hampshire who has written a recently published book on King."He was considered by many to be a pariah," Sitkoff said. But he took on issues of poverty and militarism because he considered them vital "to make equality something real and not just racial brotherhood but equality in fact," Sitkoff said.
In 1967 King gave a speech titled "Beyond Vietnam," which Time Magazine denounced as "demagogic slander that sounded like a script for Radio Hanoi." The Washington Post said "King has diminished his usefulness to his cause, his country, his people."
I've included snippets of that speech below (click here to read or listen to the entire speech):
Now, it should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war. If America's soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read: Vietnam. It can never be saved so long as it destroys the deepest hopes of men the world over. So it is that those of us who are yet determined that America will be are led down the path of protest and dissent, working for the health of our land.......Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor of America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home, and death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as one who loves America, to the leaders of our own nation: The great initiative in this war is ours; the initiative to stop it must be ours...
... The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality...and if we ignore this sobering reality, we will find ourselves organizing "clergy and laymen concerned" committees for the next generation. They will be concerned about Guatemala and Peru. They will be concerned about Thailand and Cambodia. They will be concerned about Mozambique and South Africa. We will be marching for these and a dozen other names and attending rallies without end, unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy...
...We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence or violent coannihilation. We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace in Vietnam and justice throughout the developing world, a world that borders on our doors. If we do not act, we shall surely be dragged down the long, dark, and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.
As we're mired in a very similar unpopular quagmire today, it's worth pondering what King would have said about the war in Iraq were he alive in 2003 and how his likely opposition to it would have been handled by the public and the press. Odds are, he would have been marginalized and slandered by many of the same people who will invoke his name today.
But King had always sought justice and peace, not popularity, and that's why we're remembering him.
Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 11:04 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
January 20, 2008
One year from today...
...someone other than George W. Bush will be president of the United States of America.
Let the countdown begin.
Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 2:46 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Obama won Nevada?
Though Hillary Clinton pulled in about 6% more votes than Obama, he may actually be the winner in Saturday's Nevada caucus. Because he did well in rural Nevada and Clinton's strength was the Las Vegas area, Obama actually won one more delegate, 13-12, under the Nevada Democratic Party's rules.
MSNBC explains:
The more populous Clark County, which Clinton won, awarded a even number of delegates, and Clinton and Obama split those down the middle. Meanwhile, the more rural areas, which Obama won, awarded an odd number of delegates, which gave Obama the edge.
If you look at delegates won, Clinton and Obama actually tied in New Hamphsire, as well. This isn't just spin coming from the Obama campaign. Delegate counts determine the nominee, and those delegates are rewarded proportionally—not in a winner-take-all manner—based on the popular vote from each state.
Then why so much focus on who "wins" a state? Maybe the media is just accustomed to general elections where the winner of a state takes all of that state's electoral college votes. Reporters and pundits seem to prefer that method, because it's a little more exciting than a long, drawn-out accumulation of delegates.
They enjoy racing each other to be the first to declare a victor, often after less than 10% of the vote has been counted. They've spent months painting the race as an epic fight, a gloves-off battle, and reporting delegate ties wouldn't fit very well into that narrative. It just wouldn't be as good for ratings.
Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 2:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 18, 2008
Et tu, Congress? House joins Bush in ignoring the NIE
On Wednesday Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (H R 4986), which among other things, effectively declared Iran an (eventual) nuclear threat to the United States. This, after the National Intelligence Estimate from last November concluded that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003 and it had remained halted as of mid-2007.
The text from Section 229 of the Act:
Congress finds that Iran maintains a nuclear program in continued defiance of the international community while developing ballistic missiles of increasing sophistication and range that:
(1) pose a threat to--
(A) the forward-deployed forces of the United States;
(B) North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies in Europe; and
(C) other allies and friendly foreign countries in the region; and
(2) eventually could pose a threat to the United States homeland.
The Act goes on to call for the U.S. to "develop, test, and deploy, as soon as technologically feasible, in conjunction with allies and friendly foreign countries whenever possible, an effective defense against the threat from Iran." Is this a call for a missile-defense system or something more aggressive?
Bush has ignored the NIE findings from day one and has continued to beat the drums of war. That was no surprise; I just assumed that when the intelligence community contradicted his WMD fear-mongering this time around, he would simply be ignored.
But when legislators aren't held accountable for their votes, why would they worry about accurate intelligence or the consequences of their decisions? How many of Senators who voted for war five years ago, when Bush was makings similar false WMD claims about Iraq, have lost their reelection bids? Hell, two of the three top contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination voted to go to war in 2003. We have only ourselves and our short memories to blame. We can hold politicians accountable, yet we let them deflect blame and spin their votes for war as votes for peace, and we forgive them with our votes and our partisan support.
The bill will now go to the Senate, and I'm interested to see how Senators Obama and Clinton handle this issue.
Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 8:51 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
January 17, 2008
Quote of the day: How the French see Obama
"Disgraced today throughout the four corners of the globe, America would in a single leap resume its lost grace, its capacity to inspire the imagination, that combination of myth and reality that makes it the country of all possibilities – the democracy par excellence that has such power of seduction and likeability, despite all of its gaping flaws."
- From an op-ed in France's Liberation about what an Obama presidency would mean to America's standing in the world.
Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 1:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 15, 2008
Microsoft working on remotely monitoring productivity
I wouldn't describe myself as a Luddite just yet, but color me skeptical about the rate at which we're developing new technology. We just haven't collectively had time to properly assess how many of these recent developments will, and should, intersect with other aspects of daily life.
The latest eerie news: Microsoft is working on software capable of remotely monitoring a worker's productivity, wellbeing, and competence via wireless sensors.
The Times has seen a patent application filed by the company for a computer system that links workers to their computers via wireless sensors that measure their metabolism. The system would allow managers to monitor employees’ performance by measuring their heart rate, body temperature, movement, facial expression and blood pressure. Unions said they fear that employees could be dismissed on the basis of a computer’s assessment of their physiological state.Technology allowing constant monitoring of workers was previously limited to pilots, firefighters and Nasa astronauts. This is believed to be the first time a company has proposed developing such software for mainstream workplaces.
Microsoft submitted a patent application in the US for a “unique monitoring system” that could link workers to their computers. Wireless sensors could read “heart rate, galvanic skin response, EMG, brain signals, respiration rate, body temperature, movement facial movements, facial expressions and blood pressure”, the application states.
Sounds like something Mike McConnell would like to get his hands on.
Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 6:42 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
January 14, 2008
The end of privacy
National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell is drawing up plans for monitoring all e-mails, file transfers, and web searches, and will set up a battle that McConnel says would make the current debate on warrantless wiretaps look like a "walk in the park."
From Raw Story:"Ed Giorgio, who is working with McConnell on the plan, said that would mean giving the government the authority to examine the content of any e-mail, file transfer or Web search," author Lawrence Wright pens.
“Google has records that could help in a cyber-investigation, he said," Wright adds. "Giorgio warned me, 'We have a saying in this business: ‘Privacy and security are a zero-sum game.'"
A zero-sum game is one in which gains by one side come at the expense of the other. In other words -- McConnell's aide believes greater security can only come at privacy's expense.
This is why some are concerned when companies like Facebook or Google track every web search and collect detailed personal information. It's not just about being bombarded by marketing. It's what that information may be used for down the road that is alarming.
Every presidential candidate—Democrat or Republican—should be asked about their position on this invasion of privacy. No one who supports McConnell's plan deserves to hold the office.
Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 10:49 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
January 10, 2008
What happened in New Hampshire?
Virtually every major poll leading up to the NH primary had Obama ahead, some by as much as 13%, leaving many pollsters and voters wondering about the disparity. Mark Blumenthal has an excellent round up of possible explanations here.
He covers all possibilities, from the Bradley effect to voters changing their minds at the last minute to error on the part of pollsters. And yes, he also considers the fraud argument that has been floating around based on Hillary's significant lead in areas with Diebold voting machines compared to paper ballots.
Personally, I think The Cry changed a lot of voters' minds, particularly older women who turned out for Hillary. The polls were basically right about Obama--he received close to the 38% they predicted--they just underestimated Hillary's support.
Combine Hillary's last minute successful campaigning with a favorable ballot placement, and I think the shift starts to make sense. In the past, candidates' names were rotated on ballots from precinct to precinct, but this year the ballots were the same throughout the state. Based a random drawing, Hillary was the first major candidate near the top of the ballot. Studies estimate that favorable placement can lead to a 3% increase in votes, which is roughly the margin of her victory.
Regardless, she won, and I recommend reading Blumenthal's analysis before jumping to any conclusions. Let's just hope polls leading up to the remaining primaries and caucuses are more accurate.
Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 12:00 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The $2,500 car
Indian car maker Tata has developed the world's cheapest car. At $2,500--or the "equivalent of a DVD player in a Lexus--the 10-ft long prototype is known as "The People's Car."
The aluminium car contains a rear-loaded 33 horse-power two-cylinder petrol engine and weighs about half a tonne. It is 3.1m long, 1.5m wide and 1.6m high and has four wheels pushed out to the corners to improve its manoeuvring.The standard version – which will cost 120,000 rupees on the road after tax and delivery – comes complete with most features in any ordinary car: four doors, a four-gear manual transmission, seatbelts, locking and a steering wheel. A small boot allows enough room for a duffle bag.
The deluxe version, costing slightly more, will have air conditioning and central locking, while features such as radios and sun visors can be added at extra cost.
I doubt we'll see any of these in the United States anytime soon, but it's good news for the developing world. The car will be sold first in India but is expected to be made available in other emerging markets in Latin America, south-east Asia ,and Africa within four years.
Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 11:13 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 8, 2008
Obama's already handling foreign policy
In the midst of a very time-consuming campaign, Obama has been helping the Bush administration reach out to Kenyans in an attempt to quell the violence that erupted over controversial election results. From Time:
One of the more extraordinary stories of the Obama campaign has been playing out behind the scenes over the past week as the candidate has been working on a daily basis to try to calm things down in his father's homeland and his grandmother's home, Kenya, where a contested election has led to riots.On January 1, two days before the Iowa caucuses, Obama left a message for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. According to Robert Gibbs, Obama's Communications Director, Rice called back "as we were driving from Sioux City to Council Bluffs on January 1. They talked about the situation and Rice asked Obama to tape a Voice of America message calling for calm."
On January 3, the day of the caucuses, he had a conversation with Bishop Desmond Tutu, who had flown to Nairobi to see if he could begin negotiations with the factions. In the days since his Iowa victory, Obama has had near-daily conversations with the U.S. Ambassador in Kenya or with opposition leader Raila Odinga. As of late this afternoon, before his rally in Rochester, N.H., Obama was trying to reach Kenyan President Kibaki.
Not ready? Too inexperienced? Doesn't sound like it.
Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 8:55 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 7, 2008
Swapping refugees
Over the past few decades, millions of Afghans fled to escape violence in the country and oppression from the Taliban, with many going to neighboring Pakistan. Now, the tables are turning and Afghanistan is returning the favor. From the BBC:
Thousands of Pakistanis have fled into Afghanistan with the security situation deteriorating in Pakistan's tribal regions over the past week.Hundreds of families, comprising some 6,000 mainly women and children, have been crossing the border.
The UN refugee agency says clashes between Pakistan's Shia and Sunni groups have forced people to flee.
It is the first time so many people have crossed this way as for years it was Afghans fleeing fighting.
Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 8:50 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 3, 2008
"They said this day would never come."
Obama has officially won the Iowa caucus, beating both John Edwards and Hillary Clinton by more than seven percentage points. This doesn't guarantee him the nomination, but it's a step in the right direction, and Hillary's third place finish may send her campaign into a tailspin.
The good news for Obama as he moves onto New Hampshire is that he won in almost every statistical category, at least according to CNN exit poll data. The most significant: He was favored by female voters over Hillary 35% to 30% (though she did win the married female demographic).
He was favored by Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. It also didn't matter whether voters' top issue was the economy, the war, or health care. I expected Hillary to at least win that last category.
He drew support from liberals and moderates. Edwards won the conservatives (42%), but I think that's further proof that he won't have as much success in states with closed primaries.
Hillary's hope going forward seems to be with the older crowds. She got 45% of the vote from people 65 and older, whereas Obama dominated 45 and younger demographic, including 57% of 17-29 year olds. If young voters continue to turnout, something they aren't exactly known for, he should be in good shape.
There's still time before the nominee is decided for things to change, and even longer until next November's election, but after seven years of Karl Rove politics and Bush incompetence, it's nice to hope again.
Update: Here's his victory speech.
Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 10:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack