Frist's stem-cell flip-flop

Hard to believe, but Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a physician himself, has abandoned Bush and embraced a bill to expand federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research. He was way off on Schiavo, and he's spent much of his recent political career cozying up to the relgious right, but, finally, he's right on this one. It is imperative that there be more federal support for stem-cell research to support and complement efforts in the private sector, and Bush now finds himself alienated from both the overwhelming majority of Americans and his own party's majority leader in the Senate. (Bush may still end up vetoing the bill. It would be his first.)

Frist may yet be setting himself up for a presidential run in 2008, and this may or may not hurt his chances (conventional wisdom says it will, given how his allies on the religious right will respond, but I think it actually broadens his appeal), but he's shown some welcome independence here.

See Joe Gandelman's excellent post -- including an impressive round-up of responses in the blogosphere -- here.

Santorum's one thing. Do I now respect Frist, too?

The Iraqi nightmare: What to do, when to get out

Two must-reads:

At Slate (see here), Fred Kaplan offers a plan to get out of Iraq by 2007:

The withdrawal clock can't -- and shouldn't -- start ticking until after this December's election, when the Iraqis vote for a new government. (They voted in January for an interim government, which would draft a constitution. The constitution is supposed to be completed in August and ratified in October. This is another reason for Rumsfeld's agitation: Fundamental differences among Iraq's religious factions are threatening to push back the deadline, which would push back the next elections, which would delay—for who knows how long—the U.S. withdrawal.)

At that point, it may take another 18 months for the Iraqi security forces to be equipped and trained -- assuming that, this time, the new government cooperates. So, under this scenario, the United States can start pulling out of Iraq, as Gen. Casey projected, by the spring or summer of 2006 -- and be out entirely by mid-2007.

This schedule would fit well with Republican election plans -- and it's unlikely the Democrats would strenuously oppose the plan. (Do they want to bill themselves as the party in favor of prolonging the war?) It also has the virtue of being a good idea. If the Iraqi assembly hammers out a constitution, if the elections take place, if Sunnis take part and win a proportionate share of seats, then enough citizens may be sufficiently satisfied with the arrangement to undermine the insurgents' base of support and legitimacy -- which is the key to all successful insurgencies.

And if none of these things happen, it will be time to ask whether the American troops in Iraq are serving any purpose, whether it makes any difference if they're back here or over there -- and, if it makes no difference, to ask why they can't just come home.

In the Post (see here), David Ignatius argues that Iraq will survive, though there are signs that the country has already descended into civil war:

A useful rule about Iraq is that things are never as good as they seem in the up times, nor as bad as they seem in the down times. That said, things do look pretty darn bad right now, and U.S. officials need to ponder whether their strategy for stabilizing the country is really working.

Pessimists increasingly argue that Iraq may be going the way of Lebanon in the 1970s. I hope that isn't so, and that Iraq avoids civil war. But people should realize that even Lebanonization wouldn't be the end of the story. The Lebanese turned to sectarian militias when their army and police couldn't provide security. But through more than 15 years of civil war, Lebanon continued to have a president, a prime minister, a parliament and an army. The country was on ice, in effect, while the sectarian battles raged. The national identity survived, and it came roaring back this spring in the Cedar Revolution that drove out Syrian troops.

What happens in Iraq will depend on Iraqi decisions. One of those is whether the Iraqi people continue to want U.S. help in rebuilding their country. For now, America's job is to keep training an Iraqi army and keep supporting an Iraqi government -- even when those institutions sometimes seem to be illusions. Iraq is in torment, but the Lebanon example suggests that with patient help, its institutions can survive this nightmare.

I would only repeat what I have said here before: The U.S. must finish the job it started and must push forward with a more effective plan to build the new Iraq. However, I suspect that domestic political considerations leading up to 2006 will prompt Bush to withdraw a significant number of American troops (and to lessen America's presence substantially) before that job is done.

Northern Ireland: Peace in our time?

"It's the same old theme since 1916..." (The Cranberries, "Zombie")

Well, that might be changing...

Last night, I wrote a post over at The Moderate Voice on the I.R.A.'s decision to lay down its arms and to pursue a political settlement in Northern Ireland. Since that long post quotes extensively from articles in the Times and the Post, I'll just provide the link here. Go check it out. (And then come back and read some more! Actually, no, since I write at both The Reaction and TMV, I encourage you to read both blogs regularly.)

But let me at least offer some of my commentary:

As a Brit myself (dual citizenship with Canada), I've long wrestled with what to do about Northern Ireland, and, honestly, I've never reached anything resembling a conclusion. Part of me wants Britain to stay and fight for the Protestants who want to remain in the U.K. (and the Protestants are the majority), part of me wants Britain to pull out and give up on Northern Ireland entirely (why insist on holding on to such a mess?), and part of me -- thankfully, the largest part -- wants to see some kind of peaceful, democratic resolution to the decades of violence.

I hope that Blair's right and that "[t]his may be the day on which, finally, after all these false dawns and dashed hopes, peace replaced war, politics replaces terror on the island of Ireland," but the question still comes down to sovereignty. The violence may end, but what will happen to Northern Ireland? What kind of peaceful, democratic resolution will there be? After all, either Northern Ireland remains within the U.K. or it doesn't. Or, perhaps, it's split in two, just like Ireland is now. But then what?

For now, I think it's important to adopt a wait-and-see attitude. I have friends and family who have lived and worked in Northern Ireland, and I know British soldiers who served there at the height of the "Troubles". Aside, perhaps, for the extremists (who will never be satisfied by any compromise), everyone wants peace. Everyone wants to believe that there could be a non-violent resolution to the question of Northern Ireland's future.

Hope abounds, and rightly so, but we'll have to see just how effectively peace and politics replace war and terror. For if a widely satisfactory political solution doesn't emerge in the near future -- and there simply may not be one that appeals to the extremists and reins them in -- violence could return with a vengeance, sinking Northern Ireland back into bloodshed and hatred.

The will may be there to end the violence, at least for now, but it's not at all clear that this new effort will solve the problem of Northern Ireland.

A bomb scare in Toronto

This one hits close to home. There was a bomb scare in Toronto's subway system yesterday morning. The Globe and Mail reports here:

A false bomb scare sent police and bomb-sniffing dogs into subway stations across Toronto on Thursday, exactly one week after failed bombings in London's underground train network.

Police found nothing suspicious after shutting down parts of two subway lines for about an hour just after 10 a.m., sending about 60,000 commuters onto the streets and crowded shuttle buses.

In the end, it turned out to be a false alarm, but authorities suspect it was a copycat threat in the wake of the London bombings. They also say that there will likely be more such threats in future. This one may have been a false alarm, but terrorism has us all on edge. Who knows if and when an alarm will be real? Toronto is, after all, one of North America's largest and most important cities. Why wouldn't it be a target?

I live in downtown Toronto. I take the subway to work every morning. Guess what'll be on my mind later this morning?

Reaction to science: Dinosaur embryos and electrical currents

I already do "Reaction to the news" and "Reaction to the blogs," so why not "Reaction to science"? Two fascinating stories caught my eye today:

1. See here: "Scientists have uncovered the oldest dinosaur embryos ever found, dating to the beginning of the Jurassic age 190 million years ago. The find, which has taken years to decipher, is helping them understand the development of a long-necked, plant-eating giant called Massospondylus carinatus." (The research was partly funded by the University of Toronto.)
2. See here: "Scientists at the Nevada Test Site said they generated a current Wednesday equal to roughly four times all the electrical power on Earth. The experiment was conducted at the test site's Atlas Pulsed Power Facility by scientists from Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, along with staff from the test site and contractor Bechtel Nevada. During the few millionths of a second that it operated, the 590-tonne Atlas pulsed-power generator discharged nearly 19 million amps of current through an aluminum cylindrical shell about the size of a tuna can, the National Nuclear Security Administration said."

Check out the two articles, both from The Globe and Mail. Fascinating stuff.

Alright, now back to politics...

The rise and fall and rise of "the bran muffin of fish"

We don't always have to talk politics, do we? Here's a great article on salmon -- yes, salmon -- by Bryan Curtis at Slate. Sure, there's certainly "salmon fatigue" out there (I experience it myself from time to time), but very few things in the culinary world beat salmon sushi and sashimi. Trends aside, that's good eats.

Alright, back to politics...

Mission accomplished? The end of "the global war on terror"

That's the name, not the "war" itself.

Forget "the global war on terror," it's now "a global struggle against violent extremism".

Honestly, does the Bush Administration think we're not paying any attention to this nonsense? Do they think that they can just change their rhetoric without anyone noticing? Look, Joe's right, the problem is more than just a military one, and it may very well be that "struggle" captures the essence of the conflict better than "war". But what exactly does "violent extremism" mean? I've long criticized the use of the phrase "war on terror," often prefacing it with "the so-called". And I do acknowledge that a "war" on "terror" doesn't make much sense: "Terror" is an intangible quality, like fear, and how exactly do you wage war on something intangible? But isn't it nonetheless true that the enemy, such as there is a definable enemy, is terrorism? Or, rather, terrorists -- those who engage in terrorism, those who use terror as a weapon? Why blur that truth by switching from "war" to "struggle" and from "terror" to "violent extremism"?

Could it be that the "war on terror" wasn't going so well? Ah, there's a thought.

Just like the rationale for going into Iraq -- WMDs, then Saddam's brutality, then the spread of democracy -- the name of this war (or whatever you want to call it) is changed according to political necessity (i.e., when things go bad, the Bush Administration changes the terms -- like when Iraq's WMDs became WMD-related program activities). But you know what? I don't think Osama or his followers care what we call it, and they're going to keep doing what they're doing regardless of how we define them.

Revamped rhetoric pumped out for domestic consumption to prop up a failing presidency simply won't get the job done. And this from a president who campaigned on the war on terror and who has repeatedly touted his war leadership? Yeah, right.

41% of Americans...

...approve of Bush's job performance. Steve Soto asks the all-important question: "[E]xactly how much political capital does a 41% president have to demand anything?"* (Note also the poll results on Roberts and abortion. Looks like I'm with the majority here.)

* Answer: not much at all.

A prehistoric dildo?

Apparently. Gingersnapp has the BBC story here:

A sculpted and polished phallus found in a German cave is among the earliest representations of male sexuality ever uncovered, researchers say.

The 20cm-long, 3cm-wide stone object, which is dated to be about 28,000 years old, was buried in the famous Hohle Fels Cave near Ulm in the Swabian Jura.

The prehistoric "tool" was reassembled from 14 fragments of siltstone.

Its life size suggests it may well have been used as a sex aid by its Ice Age makers, scientists report.

It's nice to know that our distant ancestors were so sexual, but a prehistoric vibrator would be an even more impressive find.

Reaction to the blogs: The Plame Game continues

A round-up of what some of my favourite blogs are saying:

War and Piece (see here): Laura Rozen has the latest on Plamegate/Rovegate, with some good links to the Post and the Globe. It seems that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is looking into more than just the outing of a CIA agent, as he's turned to the possible (although quite likely) manipulation of pre-war intelligence by the Bush Administration. It's about time. At Hullabaloo (see here), Digby addresses the same story, but he's not getting his hopes up. At Talking Points Memo (see here), Josh Marshall sums it up nicely: "And all of this, of course, [is] meant to cover up the big lie -- the administration's knowing use of bogus WMD reports to convince the country to go to war."

Political Animal (see here): Kevin Drum addresses the Republican/conservative response to Plamegate/Rovegate: "Until Patrick Fitzgerald finishes his investigation, we won't know everything that really happened here. In fact, we still might not know even then. But we've learned one thing already: when presented with even a hint of evidence that someone on their team has treated national security with cavalier disdain, conservative concern with national security gets thrown overboard without a second thought. Dealing with Plamegate as a factual matter — did someone in the White House expose Valerie Plame's identity to reporters? — is no longer acceptable, because, after all, when facts are involved, there's a chance they can turn against you. Instead, for most conservatives, Plamegate has now turned into the public relations task of convincing the public that even if Rove did out Plame, outing a covert CIA agent is a perfectly acceptable thing for a White House aide to do. Welcome to the modern Republican Party." Truly disgusting. (And for those of you who think I'm being excessively partisan, let me just say that I'd be similarly disgusted if Democrats/liberals were doing this.)

The Carpetbagger Report (see here, here, and here): Steve Benen is all over Plamegate/Rovegate with three recent posts -- 1) The national media are finally paying attention, but there haven't been many critical editorials in the mainstream newspapers; 2) Wilson was right; and 3) After the Roberts nomination diversion, the White House press corps is asking questions again. Good news, sort of.

The Blue State (see here): Todd Haskins reports on a CNN/USA Today poll that has Rove with a "favorable" rating of just 25%. Of course, 25% also say they've "never heard of" him.

Science vs. politics: The Bush Administration's twisting of the truth

Thought Mechanics has an excellent post on the Bush Administration's activities at the intersection of science and politics, arguing that policy decisions on such issues as stem-cell research and climate change have been based largely on "flawed, ideologically-driven, and intellectually-dishonest science". Or, to put it in a different (and perhaps more familiar) way, the science has been fixed around the politics. Result: climate change is overstated, just as Iraq has WMDs. But there's more. As T.M. points out, this fixing has also contributed to "the destruction of the public trust surrounding scientific inquiry itself".

Once upon a time, in the not-so-distant past, it was at least assumed that truth, however nebulous in any ultimate sense, could be discovered through scientific inquiry. There may yet be other truths, but science was a good start at trying to figure out the truths of the physical world. That's still true, of course, but the Bush Administration has done its utmost, it seems, to cast doubt on science as it pursues its own faith-based understanding of reality.

(Thanks to CommonSenseDesk for the link.)

GERD revisited: The state of R&D in Canada

In a recent post, I argued, by way of Paul Wells of Macleans, that Canada is falling behind both its G8 partners (G7, substracting Russia) and up-and-coming, still-developing economic powers like China, India, and Brazil in terms of investment in R&D. The quantitative basis for this assessment is a statistic known as GERD, or Gross Expenditure on Research and Development (measured as a fraction of GDP) -- hence GERD/GDP. Wells notes that Canada's GERD has been declining over the past few years and suggests that this is a serious problem. In my post, I concur.

A reader, whose comments can be read if you link to the post in question (above), argues in response that "[t]his is a misleading analysis". More, this reader calls it "dishonest". He or she notes that "[t]he only thing the GERD is saying is that R&D growth didn't keep pace with Canada's GDP growth". Indeed, Canada's GERD "was actually higher than the EU's in a straight comparison of R&D without taking it as a percent of GDP".

Fair enough. Like all statistics, GERD/GDP isn't perfect, and he or she makes some valuable points, especially in his or her follow-up comment. But let me respond:

To begin, I'm not so sure that comparing Canada to the E.U., a notoriously laborious economy, makes much sense. So we're doing better than Europe. Good for us. If Europe was truly the benchmark it once was, then fine. But it's not. The rest of the world -- which, as Thomas Friedman likes to point out, is becoming ever more flat -- is leaping ahead, and it's to these newer, more dynamic economies that we should be looking. (I'm pro-European, on the whole, but even I must acknowledge that its economy, taken aggregatively, is clunky.)

Before I go on, let's look at some actual GERD numbers:

• Israel (2001): 4.48%
• Sweden (1999): 3.78%
• Finland (2000): 3.37%
• Japan (2000): 2.98%
• United States (2000): 2.70%
• South Korea (2000): 2.68%
• Germany (2001): 2.52%
• France (2000): 2.15%
• Taiwan (2000): 2.05%
• Netherlands (1999): 2.02%
• Canada (2001): 1.93%
• United Kingdom (2000): 1.86%
• Australia (2000): 1.53%
• Ireland (1999): 1.21%
• New Zealand (1997): 1.11%
• Russia (2000): 1.09%
• Italy (1999): 1.04%
• China (2000): 1.00%
• Spain (2001): 0.96%
• Hungary (2000): 0.81%
• Poland (1999): 0.70%
• Greece (1999): 0.67%
• Turkey (1999): 0.63%
• Mexico (1999): 0.40%

Now, if nothing else, this ranking more or less matches common sense. At the top of the list are dynamic, vibrant, forward-looking, post-industrial countries/economies. Israel, for example, has invested heavily in the high-tech and defence industries, and Sweden, Finland, Japan, the U.S., and South Korea tend to be at the forefront of technological progress. At the bottom of the list are traditionally backwards countries/economies that are either making the transition from communism to capitalism (Russia, China, Hungary, Poland) or that are still quite agrarian or industrial (Spain, Greece, Turkey, Mexico). On this basis alone, GERD/GDP tells us something.

In addition, as I wrote in my reply to this reader, GERD means little if taken in absolute terms. What would it mean, for example, if a country's GERD doubled over the course of a few years if, in the same period, its GDP quadrupled? Shouldn't investment in R&D (GERD) at least keep up with GDP? Should we not expect a country with a dynamic, forward-looking economy to invest in R&D at a rate that exceeds GDP growth? Should we not expect, at the very least, GERD consistency? Canada's GDP may be going up -- and I agree that our economy has been quite good recently -- but a declining GERD/GDP means that our investment in R&D is going down relative to our overall economic performance.

Look at it this way, if I may try my hand at a layman's analogy: Let's say that my income for June was $1,000 and that during that month I spent $50 on books (consider it forward-looking intellectual development, which is why I'm not including my DVD expenditures). That would be a GERD/GDP, so to speak, of 5.00%. Now, suppose that my income for July jumps to $2,000 while my book expenditures rise to $75. In absolute terms, the GERD would show an increase of 50% ($50 to $75). Not too shabby. But my GERD/GDP would be 3.00%. One number looks good, the other not so good. One shows an increase, the other a decrease. Which one is more important? I'd say the latter -- i.e., GERD/GDP. Given the increase in my income, my book expenditures should have risen accordingly (to $100). But they didn't, which means that I'm not keeping up with past performance. Now, that $25 might have been well spent elsewhere. Perhaps I used it to pay down my debt or to buy armor to protect myself or to go to the dentist. Sure, paying down the national debt, national defence, and health-care are important issues, and they need to be addressed. But there's a trade-off. If I (or a country) spend more on, say, health care, I (or that country) will have less for intellectual development (or R&D).

Reading through the some of the literature, it's clear that GERD/GDP matters. Some Australians, for example, are deeply concerned about their country's low R&D expenditures relative to GDP -- see here. And here: "The Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee’s Key statistics on higher education (2001) reports that Australia’s gross expenditure on research and development of 1.49% of gross domestic product is still seriously below the OECD simple average of 1.71% and the OECD average weighted by GDP size of 2.18% of GDP... An additional investment of $US 1,017 m or an increase of 15% would be needed to bring Australia’s gross expenditure on research and development up to the OECD simple mean, and an additional $US 3,154 m or an increase of 47% would be needed to bring Australia up to the OECD mean weighted by size."

The same is true in Canada. According to Michael Volker, director of Simon Fraser's University/Industry Liaison Office, "[n]o matter which study or report you read which compares Canada’s research and development expenditures to those of other countries, the findings are usually disappointing". Referring to "the oft-cited GERD/GDP ratio," he argues that in British Columbia and Alberta "the growth in R&D expenditures and the magnitude thereof pale in relation to other jurisdictions". (See here for Volker's piece.) This assessment of poor GERD/GDP in western Canada is backed up by government research (see here). Elsewhere, the government has itself acknowledged (see here) "Canada’s backwardness with respect to the G7 countries".

Trust me, I don't like this at all. But, in the government's own words, "[t]he percentage of GDP devoted to research and development (R&D) [i.e., GERD/GDP] remains one of the most commonly used indicators to measure support for innovation". Canada may no longer be "[bringing] up the rear among industrialized countries," but we could be doing much better than we are. And we don't really need a statistic to tell us that.

Given our relatively healthy economy, as measured by GDP growth, it seems to me that we owe it to ourselves -- and, more importantly, to future generations of Canadians -- to devote a greater percentage of our GDP to R&D.

Roberts, Roe, and the American judiciary

The Anonymous Liberal, with whom I now cross-link, has an excellent piece on abortion, liberalism, and judicial philosophy in anticipation of the upcoming confirmation hearings for John Roberts -- see here. I encourage you to read his entire post, but I want to quote it extensively here:

[A] nominee's opinion as to whether Roe was correctly decided is virtually meaningless. It's certainly no indicator of how "liberal" the nominee is. Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been quoted as saying that she thought Roe was a questionable decision. Simply put, what a nominee thinks about Roe says virtually nothing about how that person will rule on any other issue.

Liberals, therefore, should not let the Supreme Court nomination process focus on Roe. We should instead focus on what a nominee thinks about the importance of legal precedent. Is the nominee the kind of person who respects precedent and understands the real world consequences of overturning well-established law? Or is he the kind of person who allows ideology to blind him to such consequences.

Liberals should also focus on highlighting the inconsistency and consequences-be-damned recklessness of originalist thinking. For instance, even the most devout originalists, such as Justice Thomas, often fail to follow their own philosophy. Affirmative action is a good example of this inconsistency. There is a veritable mountain of historical evidence that the drafters of the 14th amendment did not intend to outlaw affirmative action. Indeed, the very people who drafted the amendment simultaneously created the Freedmen's Bureau, a massive government agency devoted solely to large scale affirmative action initiatives. Thomas nevertheless insists that affirmative action violates the 14th amendment. Similarly, both Scalia and Thomas have decided cases based solely on unwritten "principles of federalism" that are somehow implied by the structure of the Constitution. These principles, however, are just as illusive as the infamous "right to privacy" that originalists are so quick to condemn.

Pointing out hypocrisy only gets you so far, though. Liberals must also point out the extent to which originalism is incompatible with our modern laws and institutions. For instance, people must be told that under Thomas's originalist interpretation of the Establishment Clause, the separation of church and state that we take for granted would only apply to the Federal government. States would be free to found churches or build monuments to Jesus in the public square. On a more fundamental level, originalist thinking puts much of our modern administrative state in jeopardy, including virtually all important regulations governing the environment, public safety, working conditions, etc.

With so many important things to talk about, it's a pity we always focus on the one that's the least illuminating.

I tend to agree with A.L. here, but, admittedly, there is much more that could be said for and against "originalist thinking" and its application, as well as for and against the "hypocrisy" of Scalia and Thomas.

But it is certainly true, I think, that abortion's hold on the American political (if not judicial) mind -- and, more specifically, on the minds of those of us who are paying attention to the Roberts nomination -- is disproportionately high. There is a knee-jerk tendency to think about Supreme Court justices and those either nominated for the Court or considered to be candidates for such nomination in terms of where they stand on abortion -- and, more specifically, of where they stand on Roe, as if one's judicial philosophy and political ideology can be determined by whether one thinks Roe should be upheld or overturned. It's an unfortunate black-and-whiteness that oversimplifies a complex issue (who except the radical fringes doesn't think abortion is a complex issue?) and pushes aside other and in some cases more significant areas of constitutional law, such as commerce, crime and punishment, civil rights, the environment, and the separation of church and state.

This is not to say that abortion isn't an important issue, nor that Roberts's (or any other candidate's or nominee's) views on abortion shouldn't be considered. But the centrality of abortion in American political life does need to be reconsidered, especially when we're talking about the Supreme Court. It's simply not the most illuminating issue.

Eunuchs in Alabama

Fellow TMV co-blogger David Schraub looks at castration-as-punishment here. Yikes. Who knew there was precedent for this? Who knew that the Supreme Court had already waded into the castration quagmire, back in 1927 and 1942? You know, I have a lot of relatives down in 'Bama, but their state is certainly one of America's most insane.

The return of the DLC

Over at Booker Rising, a black moderate/conservative blog that kindly links to The Reaction, Shay posts on the Democratic Leadership Council's meeting in Columbus, a meeting headlined by the moderate likes of New York Senator Hillary Clinton (is she a moderate?), Indiana Senator Evan Bayh, Virginia Governor Mark Warner, and Iowa Governor (and new DLC Chair) Tom Vilsack -- all of them eyeing 2008, of course. Shay: "The DLC is headed in the right direction. Democrats were stupid to discard the strategy that enabled them to elect and re-elect a Democrat for the first time in decades. Instead, the unsuccessful leftist wing has hijacked the party." (I see that Amba comments here.)

I'll have more to say about the state of the Democratic Party in the days ahead, when I look at why Republicans are winning and Democrats are losing.

For now, given how late it is, suffice it to say that I agree with Shay... to a point. Although I tend to side with the DLCers against, say, the Deaniacs, I worry that the Democrats, as per usual, are engaging in vicious internecine strife at the expense of party unity. The two major American parties, after all, are big-tent parties, and electoral success often means harnessing the strengths of internal diversity and translating them into a coherent platform with broad appeal to a diverse electorate. (If you want ideologically rigid parties, go to Europe and seek out PR electoral systems.) Internal debates may be useful in a stimulating sort of way, and I certainly prefer parties that allow for dissent over ones that enforce conformity, but narrow ideological squabbling tends to be counter-productive by diverting attention away from the ultimate goal of electing candidates.

Why can't the DLCers and the Deaniacs and all the other sub-groups of Democrats just get along? Can't they see that they have a common opponent? Don't they realize that they won't succeed without each other? Or would they all rather be ideologically pure than politically successful? Time will tell. 2006 is right around the corner.

What the deuce?

Did I just admit that I respect Rick Santorum? Uh, yes. Was I out in the sun too long today? Am I delirious? No, and I don't take it back. But this now means I'll have to find a new least favourite senator. Candidates: Byrd (D-WV), Coburn (R-OK), DeMint (R-SC), Frist (R-TN), Inhofe (R-OK), Lott (R-MS), McConnell (R-KY). (I'm leaning towards McConnell, but Coburn and DeMint are close.) Okay, that's 6-1 for the Republicans. (Yes, I tend to support the Democrats.) But gimme a break, I just admitted that I respect Rick Santorum. That's all the "fair and balanced" outreach to the GOP I can muster for the time being.

(And you, dear readers, who are your least favourite senators?)

Yes, Rick Santorum is insane... maybe...

I first asked the question here, but now I find out that he's on The Daily Show tonight. I'm watching it an hour late on CTV (that's a major Canadian network, my American friends), and he should be on any minute. Let's see how our favourite late-night host handles him. With respect and a healthy sense of humour, I suspect...

Yes, Jon's being nice. He and Rick agree that ice cream is a tasty treat.

Rick refers to the breakdown of social capital. Who is he, Robert Putnam? Next thing you know he'll complain about bowlers who do it alone.

The family, "the basic unit of society". Okay, fine. "Marriage has been under siege." By whom? By all those straight people getting divorces? By all those loving gay and lesbian couples who want to unite for life? Shouldn't defenders of marriage admire those who want to enter and uphold the institution they so cherish? Jon: "Virtue is unrelated to sexuality [and] unrelated to religion." Well, sometimes. But what is the basis of such secular virtue? Rick: "What government should be for is what's best." This from a guy who supports Bush?

How amazing is this? A liberal and a conservative bridging the chasm of bipolar politics and having an intelligent discussion about virtue! Disagreeing yet doing so respectfully. Rick makes a passionate defence of traditional, heterosexual marriage. And? Why is the "best case" a union of one man and one woman? And how exactly will changing the laws to sanction same-sex marriage "harm children"? Rick: "In my mind, we've lost virtue." Maybe Bill Bennett and his gambling problem would help. Rick: "I'm more worried about Victoria's Secret ads." Well, I'm worried about them, too, where children are involved. Oh, Rick just mentioned Bennett's book (The Book of Virtues). And Jon makes a gambling reference. Nice.

Rick seems to be having fun. Good sense of humour.

And that's it. Good interview. Good conversation.

Okay, Rick Santorum doesn't look insane, he doesn't sound insane, and, for all I know, he doesn't smell insane. And you know what? He's more intelligent than many of Jon's political guests, whether liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, and at least, at the very least, he has the courage to go on The Daily Show to share his views with a fairly hostile audience. Too many of Jon's right-leaning guests have no idea what to make of him and end up looking confused. Not so Rick Santorum.

But here's the problem: He's said so many insane things. And now, from what I can tell, he's written some pretty insane things, too. Check out what Echidne has to say here.

So is he insane? Ah, I don't know. He's an easy target for the left, he seems to be a fairly narrow-minded ideologue somewhere out on the fringes of the Republican Party, and, overall, I've never much cared for him, but I suppose I -- gulp! -- respect him. I still hope he loses to Bob Casey next year, but, in the meantime, let's hope he a) does as little harm as possible; b) provides ample ammunition to Democrats; and c) continues to amuse us with his outrageous rhetoric.

I suppose insanity is a matter of perspective.

The Reaction 10,000

Late yesterday evening, The Reaction passed 10,000 hits since its inception at the end of March. Obviously, success is relative, and I certainly have dreams of the heights to which this blog could go, but I must admit that I'm doing better than I ever could have predicted back when I ventured out into the blogosphere without much of a clue.

I would like to thank the many friends, acquaintances, and supporters I've met out here, especially those who have linked to me, included me in their blogrolls, and generally welcomed me into the community with open arms. Just check out my own blogroll over on the right sidebar and you'll find some truly wonderful blogs run by some truly wonderful people.

I'd like to thank Vivek Krishnamurthy and Ari Baum for helping me out with the technical side of blogging. The Reaction wouldn't look nearly as good had they not been there for me.

I'd like to thank my friends and family for being so supportive. A lot of hard work goes into blogging, and it's all come to seem like a full-time commitment, but I wouldn't be where I am today without that support.

And, of course, I'd like to thank all of my readers for checking me out, coming back, and, hopefully, enjoying what The Reaction has become. Some of you have been here since the beginning, others have become loyal readers along the way, and, of course, many of you are new. And I continue to welcome you all. Needless to say, there's more to come.

Is 10,000 a lot? I don't know. It certainly is to me. Every single new hit makes me happy, and I hope that everyone who stops by finds something of interest. Of course, the biggest political blogs get hundreds of thousands a day, and Skippy the Bush Kangaroo, which just passed the million mark after a few years in existence, now has its sights set on two million.

Sure, I want more hits -- who doesn't? -- but to me blogging is more about the writing -- about engaging myself and my readers, about addressing the world in an intelligent way, about encouraging thoughtful discussion of a wide range of issues and stories, about doing my bit to raise the level of public discourse -- than it is about popularity. Now, I'm a glutton for popularity, don't get me wrong, but I hope that whatever popularity (whatever success generally) I achieve out here (and thus far it's quite modest, let's be honest) comes as a result of these efforts.

Thanks again. On with The Reaction!

Eyes (still) wide shut, part II: Cheney defends torture

Well, more or less. Amba has the story here, quoting extensively from an article in today's Times. Here's some of it, and I think it speaks for itself:

Vice President Dick Cheney is leading a White House lobbying effort to block legislation offered by Republican senators that would regulate the detention, treatment and trials of detainees held by the American military.

In an unusual, 30-minute private meeting on Capitol Hill on Thursday night, Mr. Cheney warned three senior Republicans on the Armed Services Committee that their legislation would interfere with the president's authority and his ability to protect Americans against terrorist attacks.

The legislation, which is still being drafted, includes provisions to bar the military from hiding prisoners from the Red Cross; prohibit cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees; and use only interrogation techniques authorized in a new Army field manual.

The three Republicans are John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John W. Warner of Virginia, the committee chairman. They have complained that the Pentagon has failed to hold senior officials and military officers responsible for the abuses that took place at the Abu Ghraib prison outside of Baghdad, and at other detention centers in Cuba, Iraq and Afghanistan.

McCain, Graham, and Warner. Hardly a triumvirate of bleeding-heart liberals. Would anyone care to defend Cheney on this one? I'm just not sure how mandating the humanitarian treatment of detainees is such a bad thing.

(For part I, see here.)

The meaning of moderation: Beware the siren call of extremism

It may now be somewhat self-serving of me to link to The Moderate Voice, but here I simply must. Joe has written a passionate and thoughtful defence of being a moderate (and of political moderation generally). Please give it a look here. Joe's analyses of politics and culture are always balanced and nuanced -- which is why I'm excited to be a part of TMV -- but he knows as well as anyone that moderates tend to be squeezed out of the left-right bipolarism that characterizes so much of today's political discourse, especially in the preaching-to-the-converted echo chambers of the blogosphere.

In Book VI of Plato's Republic (Bloom translation), Socrates and Glaucon address moderation, one of the four cardinal virtues:

Socrates: Now is it possible that the same nature be both a lover of wisdom and a lover of falsehood?

Glaucon: In no way.

Socrates: Therefore the man who is really a lover of learning must from youth on strive as intensely as possible for every kind of truth.

Glaucon: Entirely so.

Socrates: But, further, we surely know that when someone's desires incline strongly to some one thing, they are therefore weaker with respect to the rest, like a stream that has been channeled off in that other direction.

Glaucon: Of course.

The problem nowadays is that there is no longer such a vital distinction between "wisdom" and "falsehood". Nor is there much of a striving after "every kind of truth". And, indeed, what we find on both ends of the political spectrum, among liberals and conservatives alike, are narrow and sometimes extremist advocates whose "desires incline strongly to some one thing" to the exclusion of "the rest". Plato is discussing the difference between philosophers and non-philosophers (and false philosophers), but, as always, the lessons of the Republic are universally applicable.

However I label myself, or however others label me, I would like to think of myself in political terms as a partisan of moderation. History is replete with examples of what's wrong with extremism, and of what can go wrong when extremism takes over, whereas moderation is, as Leo Strauss understood, both one of the central virtues of citizenship and one of the key elements of classical political philosophy: "For moderation is not a virtue of thought: Plato likens philosophy to madness, the very opposite of sobriety or moderation; thought must not be moderate, but fearless, not to say shameless. But moderation is a virtue controlling the philosopher's speech."

Politically speaking, today's moderates -- liberal, conservative, centrist -- must be fearless as they attempt to navigate between the Scylla and Charybdis of extremism.

Reader: How can you call yourself a moderate?
TMV: Like this: I'm a moderate.

"We're going to keep reading ALL ideas and positions and present to readers on this site MANY IDEAS from MANY people -- and our own." Exactly, Joe. That's the way to do it.

Moderates, beware the siren call of extremism. It will lead you to your destruction.

Clinton and Rwanda

Former President Bill Clinton has apologized for not doing enough to stop the genocide in Rwanda. Back in 1994, about 800,000 Rwandans -- mostly Tutsis and moderate Hutus -- were killed by Hutu militias. It's still not clear what was known, and when, but I think Canadian General Romeo Dallaire, head of the U.N. peacekeeping force in Rwanda at the time, was right to lay the blame broadly on the international community for failing to act. Clinton's apology is sincere, no doubt, and he is working valiantly to deal with the AIDS epidemic in Africa, but we all need to learn from that international failure and to intervene, where necessary, to prevent history from repeating itself -- yes, that means Darfur, but also Rwanda's neighbours, such as the Congo (see here for the latest).

Last year's Hotel Rwanda (****) did much to raise awareness of the Rwandan genocide. Let's hope we don't need a Hotel Darfur or a Hotel Bukavu a decade from now to show us what went wrong this time.

How Canada is falling behind in R&D

I love my country, but I don't love everything about it. And, right now, I'm somewhat ambivalent about the state of our political leadership. Same-sex marriage aside, we've got some problems, and one of them is that we're clearly falling behind both our G8 partners and up-and-coming powers like China, India, and Brazil in terms of R&D. Macleans blogger Paul Wells, who recently made his first appearance here at The Reaction, weighs in on a troubling (and under-reported, because nationally embarrassing) story here.

A country's commitment to R&D may be determined by calculating its GERD (Gross Expenditure on Research and Development, measured as a fraction of GDP). Currently, the U.S.'s GERD stands at 2.6%, Japan's at 3.2%. Both China and the E.U. are expected to be at 2.2% by 2010, but there was much hand-wringing going on in Europe when E.U. research commissioner Janez Potocnik announced recently that Europe's GERD had only increased by 0.2% from 2002-2003.

So what's the problem north of the 49th? Well, our GERD actually declined from 2002-2003, and, according to Wells, it has continued to do so. Paul Martin's Liberal government speaks proudly of our public-sector investment in R&D, but Canada's problem is relatively low private-sector investment in R&D. Now, this is hardly a problem that government is capable of addressing in any significant way (without further regulation of the private sector), and I'm not sure how Wells would solve it, but he may be right in his prediction that in this century "Canada will become more of a place where the new giants buy their steel and crude oil so the high-margin products of the future -- cities and machines and software and business processes -- get built elsewhere".

In other words, we're in trouble. We're falling behind because we're not investing adequately in the future -- and because our political leaders (both Martin and his opponents) simply aren't willing to address (and likely aren't even capable of addressing) the problem in any real way. For all the talk recently of Canada's paltry commitment to foreign aid, there won't be much room for foreign aid if our economy doesn't continue to expand. And that's not going to happen without a more serious commitment to R&D, both public and private.

Eco-porn in the rainforests: What's up with them crazy Norwegians?

If I may reference The Beatles, this story should give a whole new meaning to "Norwegian Wood":

No, it's not a Sign of the Apocalypse, but it's a sign of some serious stupidity/immaturity (even if the cause, I suppose, is a good one). As reported in Der Spiegel, a young Norwegian couple... oh, hell, there's no way I can describe what they're up to. Just read the article here. Otherwise, let's just say it's about environmental porn, or porn for the rainforests (the good cause), and the story includes:

• a website called Fuck for Forest (which apparently I've just promoted, if not necessarily endorsed, with a link from The Reaction: go see for yourself, if you're over 18, as "the [website] -- liberally interspersed... with scenes of woodland carnal abandon -- features informed discussions about our world's imperilled rainforests and information on the dangers they face");
• public fornication (specifically, sex on stage during a performance by a band called, uh, The Cumshots -- in front of 50,000 people, believe it or not);
• a trial at the Kristiansand City Court in southern Norway (where the young Norwegian couple was found guilty of "[c]onducting an improper act in a public place" and fined $1,400 each, a penalty which the couple -- which promptly absconded to "a slightly more liberal environment: Berlin" -- refused to pay);
• a movement, if I may put it so officially, with (thus far) 1,000 members and $120,000 raised;
• efforts to attract new volunteers and contributions from pros and amateurs alike (porn, that is); and
• opposition from advocacy groups like the World Wildlife Federation (which, living in the real world, recognize that hyper-Catholic Brazil, home to much of the world's rainforest, wouldn't be too comfortable with eco-porn).

From the FFF website (I'm a creative guy, but I couldn't make this stuff up):

Each year, huge areas of rainforest are systematically being cut down. Invaluable animal and plant life is being decimated to make way for commercial interests.. . For too many humans, development has become more important than the balance of nature. Is humanitys cynical behave more powerful than idealism..?

FFF are concerned youngsters, using the freedom of open-minded sexuality to save nature. We believe it is possible to use people’s need for sexuality as a way to raise money for nature. And at the same time create awareness about what is happening to mother earth. It is time to pay respect, and give something back. Try to force peoples minds open, using free sexuality!

Lars von Trier should make a movie about these people. Oh, right, he did. It's called The Idiots (an offensive, jarring masterpiece that I gave ****).

Yes, this bird has flown... I hope you're all enjoying the weekend.

The conservatism of Judge John G. Roberts

As I suggested in a recent post, I think it would be a good idea for all of us to adopt a wait-and-see attitude towards the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court. Which is to say, let's try to figure out what he's all about before we judge him. Yes, he's a conservative -- surprise, surprise -- but two recent articles in the Times offer those of us who generally oppose such conservatism some hope that he'll be more of an old-fashioned conservative than a right-wing radical:

1. A one-year effort to market Roberts to social conservatives (see here):

For at least a year before the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts to the Supreme Court, the White House was working behind the scenes to shore up support for him among its social conservative allies, quietly reassuring them that he was a good bet for their side in cases about abortion, same-sex marriage and public support for religion.

When the White House began testing the name of Judge Roberts on a short list of potential nominees, many social conservatives were skeptical. In hearings for confirmation to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, he had called the original abortion rights precedent "the settled law of the land" and said "there is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

2. A philosophy of judicial restraint (see here):

A look at the 49 published opinions of Judge John G. Roberts, President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court, reveals a distinct judicial philosophy, one that favors a strong executive, a cautious and self-effacing judiciary, limited federal power, and individual responsibility.

That aligns him in many ways with the conservative wing of the current court. But his insistence, in the two years he has sat on the federal appeals court in Washington, that judges must engage in considerable self-restraint could add a distinctive voice to a court that has not been shy in recent years in asserting its own dominance.

In a decision last year, Judge Roberts referred to "the cardinal principle of judicial restraint - if it is not necessary to decide more, it is necessary not to decide more."

For two excellent takes on the Roberts nomination, one from the left and one from the right, see Dionne in the Post (here) and Brooks in the Times (here):

• Dionne: "Judge John G. Roberts could turn out to be Antonin Scalia with a Washington Establishment smile."
• Brooks: "John G. Roberts is the face of today's governing conservatism."

Needless to say, I'm more with Dionne on this one. See also the pieces by Ryan Lizza (here), Jeffrey Rosen (here), and Cass Sunstein (here) at TNR.

Update: The same-sex marriage fallout

1. Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, standing in for Governor General Adrienne Clarkson, has given royal assent to Bill C-38. It's now the law of the land.

2. Despite the futile objections of Premier Ralph Klein, Alberta, Canada's most conservative province, has issued its first marriage license to a gay couple.

3. Predictably, the Vatican has denounced the legalization of same-sex marriage in Canada. Not that it really matters. Canada has moved ahead on this vital human-rights issue, and there's no looking back.

Condi gets pushed around in Khartoum

Well, I've written both about Darfur (here and here) and Condi Rice (here) at The Reaction, and now the twain, finally, have met: "Security forces in the Sudanese capital manhandled U.S. officials and reporters traveling with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, marring her round of meetings with leaders of the new unified government. Rice demanded an apology, and got it." (They even pushed around NBC star reporter Andrea Mitchell, who felt "angry, embarrassed, humiliated" -- see here.)

I suppose worse things could happen to you in the Sudan, but at least this brings Darfur back into the news. It may be all talk and no action, but Condi continues to be one of democracy's great advocates, and she deserves a good deal of credit at least for saying the right things and for taking on some of the world's most atrocious regimes -- and, in this case, genocide. Not too long ago, it was Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Now it's the Sudan. Despite the manhandling, let's hope her trip leads to more than just empty talk and vague commitments.

(Mitchell: "It makes me even more determined when dictators and alleged war criminals are not held to account. If our government is going to establish a relationship and push for a new beginning as Sudan reforms itself, they have to live up to international standards. A free press is part of that process." Exactly.)

Is Rick Santorum insane?

No, seriously, is he?

Here's a review of Santorum's odd behaviour at The Carpetbagger Report, which has some good links to recent stories on perhaps The Reaction's least favourite senator (well, he's down near the bottom -- no pun intended). And for those of you with a subscription to TNR (a must, in my view), here's a review of Santorum's soon-to-be-released book, It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good.

By the way, do any of you know what "santorum" means? It won the Most Outrageous Word award at this year's annual convention of the American Dialect Society. See here. It's dirty, but hilarious.

Terror, opium, democracy: Afghanistan at the crossroads

For an update on what's going on in Afghanistan (remember that place?), see this article at The Independent. Elections are scheduled for September, but President Hamid Karzai is essentially the ruler of a divided country: "The US-backed President, who was democratically elected in November 2004 nearly three years after being appointed interim leader, rarely ventures outside Kabul. The country is virtually cut in two, with the northern provinces relatively quiet while conflict continues in the south, where the US-led coalition is on the trail of Osama bin Laden and the Taliban leader Mullah Omar." I suspect that we all need to be paying much more attention to this now-forgotten frontier in the war on terror. After all, that's where the action really is, and surely 7/7 reminds us that that's where the focus needs to be.

The Roberts nomination: A day later, with perspective

(I posted this at The Moderate Voice, where I'm now a co-blogger, last night, as well as at Centerfield, where I continue to be one of the group bloggers. The Reaction, however, remains my main blog, and, for the record, I thought I might as well post it here, in slightly revised form, this morning. I encourage you to keep checking in here for my complete work, but do give those other two excellent sites a look every now and then -- I'll mention here when I post elsewhere.)

**********

It's been over a day, now that it's very early Thursday morning, and with that time comes perspective. So what do we know about Roberts now?

Tuesday night, both here at The Reaction and over at The Moderate Voice (where I'm now a co-blogger), I argued that Roberts is something of a "right-wing radical". On issues like abortion, the separation of church and state, criminal law, and habeas corpus, he is certainly on the right, though of course how you label him is very much a matter of perception. (See Slate's review of his background here.)

In this sense, I must say that I'm still somewhat disappointed with Bush's nominee. I was hoping for Gonzales, or perhaps Luttig, and I might even have been willing to consider an intellectual heavyweight like McConnell or a sensible conservative like Clement. But it seems that Roberts was the most conservative pick Bush could have made without risking a serious confirmation battle. Bush thus played it safe while simultaneously pushing the envelope and satisfying his base (in that sense, in terms of Bush's balancing act, Roberts's nomination is something of a master-stroke).

Yes, I'm somewhat disappointed, but I was enough of a realist not to expect a moderate nominee and, to be honest, I'm certainly not terribly outraged. Indeed, Roberts may turn out to be an excellent justice (whether or not I agree with him on any number of issues). Note: This is somewhat like the recent papal election. Some liberals and moderates bemoaned Ratzinger's win, but, honestly, what did they expect? There was no chance the conclave was going to pick a liberal or moderate pope (to go by our labels), and, similarly, there was no chance Bush was going to select a liberal or moderate for the Supreme Court. The question always came down to whether a specific conservative candidate was generally acceptable or unacceptable to liberals and moderates given what they could expect. Does Roberts fall into the "acceptable" category? Maybe, maybe not. Hopefully the confirmation process will tell us what we need to know.

I suspect that he'll be confirmed, and rather easily. There are hardly any "extraordinary" circumstances here, and there likely won't be any surprises or Borkian personality disorders, and he's spent much of his career inside the Beltway. This makes him something of a known quantity, and he's obviously quite likeable (given what we saw of him last night and given what people are saying of him), but there are also a few problems that worry me: First, he's only been a federal judge for a couple of years, and hence there's hardly any paper trail. Second, most of his career has been spent as an advocate for conservative causes and political appointee/operative under Reagan and Bush I. As the Times put it yesterday (see here for its editorial), "he has a thin record on controversial subjects". The Post even called him "sphinx-like". And, third, his tenure on the D.C. Circuit Court, however brief, indicates that he may very well be something of an ideologue.

What's interesting is that liberals seem to be adopting a wait-and-see attitude (see, for example, the Post's quite favourable editorial; some left-wing groups like People for the American Way, as predicted, are already attacking the nomination) while conservatives are in, well, disharmony (indicating perhaps a deeper dislike for the pick). It probably doesn't matter much what Ann Coulter thinks (on anything, but especially this), but over at The Weekly Standard, where many of the more thoughtful conservatives hang out, there is some disagreement. Bill Kristol sees Roberts as a courageous (i.e., good) pick, while Fred Barnes sees him as a safe (i.e., bad) pick.

For an interesting critique of one element of Roberts's judicial record, see Emily Bazelon's piece at Slate, where she reveals that "[a]s a member of a three-judge panel on the D.C. federal court of appeals, Roberts signed on to a blank-check grant of power to the Bush administration to try suspected terrorists without basic due-process protections". In addition, see William Stuntz's piece at TNR, where he argues that Roberts is essentially a Rehnquistian, more about political bottom lines than Scalia-like judicial reasoning.

I realize that there's been a lot of (perhaps even an overkill of) SCOTUS-talk lately, but, as the Times put it so well:

President Bush did the country a service by making his nomination early enough for the Senate to have ample time to investigate the judge's record and hold hearings. The leaders in both parties should resist any pressures to move quickly. It would be irresponsible to take a position on the nomination of Judge Roberts until his background is carefully reviewed, and until senators have a chance to question him at length. The nomination of a new Supreme Court justice is a great moment for the nation, providing new vigor to a great American institution. The entire country has a stake in the outcome.

Amen.

Sign of the Apocalypse #12: Libraries without books

Poor Jonathan Swift. You can't have a battle of the books without, well, books.

And as far as I'm concerned, you can't have much of a civilization either. But the post-literary age is at hand, and we are all the more impoverished for it:

According to The Chronicle of Higher Education (see here), the University of Texas -- now home to one of my teachers, Thomas Pangle, who has always fought the good fight for the written word -- has taken the book out of the library:

When students at the University of Texas' flagship campus return in the fall, they will be greeted by a revamped undergraduate library with clusters of computers, a coffee shop, comfortable chairs, and 24-hour technical help. But one traditional resource will be in short supply: books.

Nearly all of the 90,000 volumes contained in the undergraduate library are being carted off this summer to other libraries on the campus to make room for an "information commons" -- a growing trend at colleges and universities around the country.

The goal is to provide students who are accustomed to downloading information in the comfort of their dormitory rooms with a one-stop center where they can collaborate with classmates on multimedia projects, consult with Internet-savvy librarians, and, in some cases, check out laptop computers or leave them to be repaired. About 1,000 books, most of them reference volumes, will remain in the building.

Hey, I like the internet as much as the next guy (or gal). Believe it or not, I'm sitting in front of my computer right now, and, yes, I'm logged onto the information superhighway. But I'm also surrounded by books, and, to me, a world without books is a world I want nothing to do with. No, the University of Texas isn't doing away with books, but this revamping is certainly a denigration of the written word.

Those undergraduate Longhorns may or may not accept the removal of books from their library, but their education will surely suffer and I suspect that in some important ways they'll all turn out to be lesser human beings for this.

Maybe they'll just have to download the Apocalypse when it comes.

Same-sex marriage in Canada: We're #4! We're #4!

Bill C-38 has passed. Late last night, the bill to legalize same-sex marriage passed the Senate, our upper house, just a few weeks after it passed the House of Commons. The Globe and Mail reports here:

One of the most raucous debates in Canadian history resulted in a vote that made Canada the fourth country to sanction same-sex marriage on Tuesday.

The Senate erupted in a loud cheer as it adopted the Liberal government's Bill C-38, which will give gay and lesbian couples the right to marry in courthouses and city halls across the country.

The 47-21 vote came after years of court battles and debate that divided families, religious groups and even political allies.

The votes have been quite close -- 158-133 in the House, 47-21 in the more heavily Liberal Senate -- and the issue has divided Canadians despite a clear majority in favour of the legislation and widespread support for same-sex rights across the country. Opposition (and Conservative) Leader Stephen Harper, who is trying to market himself as a viable alternative to Prime Minister Paul Martin and his party as a viable alternative to the Liberals even as he continues to pander to social conservatives on the far right, has threatened to reopen the legislation if he's ever elected, but a recent Strategic Counsel poll indicates that 55% of Canadians support the legislation while only 39% oppose it. Here's the background:

Over the past two years, the courts in British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, the Yukon, and Newfoundland and Labrador have ruled to permit legal same-sex marriages. In December 2004, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of allowing the federal government to go ahead with a proposal to legalize same-sex marriage. The country’s foremost tribunal said the constitution protects the rights of homosexual partners to formalize their bonds.

On Jun. 28, the House of Commons passed the bill that legalizes same-sex marriage in the entire country after a 158-133 vote. Most Liberal, Bloc Québécois and New Democratic Party (NDP) members supported the legislation. The bill is expected to be ratified in the Senate this month, where 64 of the 96 appointed members are Liberals.

On Jun. 29, Canadian prime minister Paul Martin explained his government’s rationale on same-sex marriage, saying, "In a country of minorities, it is crucial that the rights of the minorities be protected and that they not be subject of political whim."

All that remains for the bill to become law is royal assent (a formality in our parliamentary system). When it does, Canada will be the fourth country to sanction same-sex marriage after Belgium, the Netherlands, and, most recently, Spain.

I've said before that this makes me incredibly proud to be a Canadian. This is one day when our country truly shines.

(I've previously discussed same-sex marriage in Canada here and here.)

Obscenity at Hewlett-Packard: When greed is (NOT) good

From the Times, one of the true obscenities of the year:

Hewlett-Packard announced Tuesday that it will lay off 14,500 workers, or nearly 10 percent of its staff, over the next 18 months as part of a revamping plan that the company's executives hope will turn around the struggling fortunes of the giant computer and printer maker...

The company also announced that starting Jan. 1, it would no longer contribute to the pension plans of its employees in the United States...

While the company will offer a voluntary retirement program, [CEO Mark] Hurd said "the majority of the head count reductions will be achieved through involuntary actions."

The company expects to complete the layoffs by November 2006, which marks the start of its fiscal year 2007. By that point, the company estimates that it will save $1.6 billion annually on labor costs with an additional $300 million in annual savings from reduced pension costs.

(Um, "involuntary actions"?)

Look, I'm a capitalist. I like business. Unregulated, it's a monster, but, properly regulated, it's part of the foundation of any healthy liberal society.

But as guest blogger Michael Hiltzik argues at Political Animal, "this is another example of how the rank and file pays the price of management derelictions and blunders, while the guilty get off scot-free". How so? Well, 10 percent of HP's workforce will soon be subject to "involuntary actions". That is: Laid off. Let go. Terminated. Get it? Meanwhile, former CEO Carly Fiorina, who resigned in February, received a $21 million severance package, along with a $7 million bonus and another $23.5 million in pension and benefit payouts. That's $51.5 million!

14,500 HP employees will soon be paying the price for executive incompetence -- because, in today's corporate America, share price means more than loyalty. 3,000 employees have already been laid off this year, and another 17,900 were let go after HP's failed merger with Compaq in 2002. Do the math. Fiorina walks away with $51.5 million while 35,400 employees, many of whom no doubt face hardship or worse, are terminated.

That's obscene. Truly, utterly, and outrageously obscene.

The money post

Over at AmbivaBlog, Amba takes on... pornography (and quotes me in the process). See here. Once again, she shows that she's one of the most thoughtful contributors to the blogosphere. On this one, I suspect that I'm more of a cultural liberal than she is, and I do think there's more to pornography than she allows in her analysis, but, overall, she raises some excellent points.

If you're already tired of all the Roberts talk, her post is a good... release. (Sorry. That was lame.)

Terrorism and the Left

Marc Schneider -- whose name will be familiar to my regular readers, given his many great contributions here at The Reaction -- has written an excellent post at Centerfield, where he, like me, is one of the group bloggers. He writes here on the Left's response to terrorism, and specifically to 7/7:

I have no great love for the way that our politicians spew forth with purple rhetoric everytime there is an attack, especially invoking evil and the threat to western civilization. We don't need politicians moralizing about evil. It seems counterproductive to rational thinking. But at the same time, we don't need people relativizing murder and equating blowing up subways with political activity. IMO, as long as the left cannot distinguish between murder and legitimate political activity, it has no call to govern civilized nations. Whatever the west has done or not done, it does not justify bombing subways or flying planes into buildings and our leftist politicians need to learn that.

I would add that Marc is referring to the radical Left, not the left-wing of the American or British mainstream. This radical Left, which seems to espouse enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend anti-Americanism, has indeed apologized for terrorism by laying the blame for the world's ills squarely at the feet of the West. For example, terrorism is a justifiable response to U.S. policy towards Israel. That sort of nonsense. Yes, that Left has a lot to learn. Good stuff, Marc (by the way, I also recommend the excellent discussion in the comments section to his post).