Odd...

The Boys Scouts just decided to allow gays to be Scouts.

I remember being told - when I was a Scout - that that was the whole purpose of Scouting: to create homosexuals.

V-T Day

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/obama-defends-drone-strikes-but-says-no-cure-all.php?ref=fpa

Obama is nothing if not deliberate.  He rarely makes a hasty move.  In fact, one wishes in retrospect he had been a bit more urgent in his first two years.

Today, he basically said that the GWOT is over.  Which is good, because the formulation of the GWOT was stupid.  How can you wage war on a tactic?  And which terrorists are we at war with? The New Provo Front of the IRA?  MEK?  The Tamil Tigers?

At several points in our history we have declared wars on things that are not states.  Drugs.  Illiteracy.  Teen pregnancy.

But wars exists only between states.  The "War in Iraq" lasted a few weeks.  What followed was not a "war" but a long drawn out counter-insurgency.  Much harder than a war.  Same goes for Afghanistan.

You cannot declare war on something that isn't a state, because that war will have no end.  We are still fighting (and losing) the "War on Drugs".  The idea behind declaring "war" on non-states is to sound tough, macho and butch.  It serves no practical policy purpose.

Which is not to say it serves no purpose whatsoever.

Wars serve the power of the state.  States are enlarged and aggrandized by war.  Most political scientists argue that the very institution of the state arose from Europe's endemic wars from the Middle Ages onward.

The Global War On Terror served the same function.  It served to enlarge the power of the state.  This served the GOP well when they controlled the White House, but they weren't too uncomfortable with it under Obama unless you count Rand Paul, and why the hell should you?

The idea of war also serves a political purpose.  And that purpose is fear.  Wars are existential threats.  They can destroy the state and the nation that supports that state.

Terrorism isn't really an existential threat.  Not to the state.  To individuals, it can be of course, but so can cigarettes and we don't declare war on them.

Let's let the POTUS take it from here:

So America is at a crossroads. We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us, mindful of James Madison’s warning that “No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” Neither I, nor any President, can promise the total defeat of terror. We will never erase the evil that lies in the hearts of some human beings, nor stamp out every danger to our open society. What we can do – what we must do – is dismantle networks that pose a direct danger, and make it less likely for new groups to gain a foothold, all while maintaining the freedoms and ideals that we defend. To define that strategy, we must make decisions based not on fear, but hard-earned wisdom. And that begins with understanding the threat we face.

And then a useful history lesson:

Lethal yet less capable al Qaeda affiliates. Threats to diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad. Homegrown extremists. This is the future of terrorism. We must take these threats seriously, and do all that we can to confront them. But as we shape our response, we have to recognize that the scale of this threat closely resembles the types of attacks we faced before 9/11. In the 1980s, we lost Americans to terrorism at our Embassy in Beirut; at our Marine Barracks in Lebanon; on a cruise ship at sea; at a disco in Berlin; and on Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie. In the 1990s, we lost Americans to terrorism at the World Trade Center; at our military facilities in Saudi Arabia; and at our Embassy in Kenya. These attacks were all deadly, and we learned that left unchecked, these threats can grow. But if dealt with smartly and proportionally, these threats need not rise to the level that we saw on the eve of 9/11.

So what's the plan?

First, we must finish the work of defeating al Qaeda and its associated forces.

OK, that sounds a little open-ended.

Beyond Afghanistan, we must define our effort not as a boundless ‘global war on terror’ – but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America. 

Targeted?  Sounds like drones to me.  And that's fine, to a point.  He then goes on to explain the use of drones in a way that makes eminent sense to me, but my guess is Glenn Greenwald is unimpressed.

So he goes further:

And yet as our fight enters a new phase, America’s legitimate claim of self-defense cannot be the end of the discussion. To say a military tactic is legal, or even effective, is not to say it is wise or moral in every instance. For the same human progress that gives us the technology to strike half a world away also demands the discipline to constrain that power – or risk abusing it. That’s why, over the last four years, my Administration has worked vigorously to establish a framework that governs our use of force against terrorists – insisting upon clear guidelines, oversight and accountability that is now codified in Presidential Policy Guidance that I signed yesterday.

He then addresses Greenwald and Rand Paul:

This week, I authorized the declassification of this action, and the deaths of three other Americans in drone strikes, to facilitate transparency and debate on this issue, and to dismiss some of the more outlandish claims. For the record, I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen – with a drone, or a shotgun – without due process. Nor should any President deploy armed drones over U.S. soil.

He addressed the need to provide a shield law for journalists and closing Gitmo.

But the basic point is that we have to end the idea of the GWOT, because perpetual war will consume us.

His benediction:

America, we have faced down dangers far greater than al Qaeda. By staying true to the values of our founding, and by using our constitutional compass, we have overcome slavery and Civil War; fascism and communism. In just these last few years as President, I have watched the American people bounce back from painful recession, mass shootings, and natural disasters like the recent tornados that devastated Oklahoma. These events were heartbreaking; they shook our communities to the core. But because of the resilience of the American people, these events could not come close to breaking us.

I think of Lauren Manning, the 9/11 survivor who had severe burns over 80 percent of her body, who said, “That’s my reality. I put a Band-Aid on it, literally, and I move on.”

I think of the New Yorkers who filled Times Square the day after an attempted car bomb as if nothing had happened.

I think of the proud Pakistani parents who, after their daughter was invited to the White House, wrote to us, “we have raised an American Muslim daughter to dream big and never give up because it does pay off.”

I think of the wounded warriors rebuilding their lives, and helping other vets to find jobs.

I think of the runner planning to do the 2014 Boston Marathon, who said, “Next year, you are going to have more people than ever. Determination is not something to be messed with.”

That’s who the American people are. Determined, and not to be messed with.

Now, we need a strategy – and a politics –that reflects this resilient spirit. Our victory against terrorism won’t be measured in a surrender ceremony on a battleship, or a statue being pulled to the ground. Victory will be measured in parents taking their kids to school; immigrants coming to our shores; fans taking in a ballgame; a veteran starting a business; a bustling city street. The quiet determination; that strength of character and bond of fellowship; that refutation of fear – that is both our sword and our shield. And long after the current messengers of hate have faded from the world’s memory, alongside the brutal despots, deranged madmen, and ruthless demagogues who litter history – the flag of the United States will still wave from small-town cemeteries, to national monuments, to distant outposts abroad. And that flag will still stand for freedom.

Needless to say the GOP hates it.

The Party Of Assholes

Tom Coburn has walked back a bit from his stance demanding offsets (austerity by another name) for disaster relief for his home state.  Peter King came out and said, "Screw offsets. Let's get these people help."

In their own ways, King and Coburn are playing out interesting trends in the GOP.

King represents the old saw, "What do you call a Republican who's been indicted?  A Democrat."  The old joke is about the Republican tendency to be "tough on crime" until they actually need the protections offered the accused.

King's district was destroyed by Sandy.  Then his cohorts started playing "Let's be tough on people in need, to show how tough we are."  In short, they were being assholes.  (As an aside, the Things over the past few weeks have demonstrated real compassion for those in "weaker" positions than they are.  I couldn't be prouder as a parent.)

Coburn is being "ideologically consistent", which would be somewhat noble, if his ideology wasn't "Screw other people".  But since the GOP basically sees its job as literally inflicting misery on people by cutting things like unemployment insurance, food assistance and education budgets, being consistent with that ideology doesn't really earn you many points in my book.

The DC press has been somewhat bumfuzzled over the lack of traction of Obama using the IRS to drone kill the Tea Party with the IRS in Benghazi with a subpoena.  But the reality is that no one really cares.  No one likes the Tea Party.  No one really gives a shit about Benghazi except the Tea Party and no one gives a shit about subpoenaing phone records.

The economy is getting better.  But the new austerity of the sequester is the primary drag on the economy right now.  And the GOP - by focusing on these pseudo-scandals and taking hardline ideological positions like Coburn's - is not serving the public interest.

For all the talk about the Obama coalition and Hispanic voters and aging white populations, the real problem the GOP has is that their party is not serving the public interest.  They are serving a narrow ideological goal of funneling wealth upwards by decimating social spending, trying to cut taxes and destroy ACA and ending regulations and worker's rights.

And that agenda only serves a very narrow band of Americans.

Which is why the GOP is about as popular as head lice.

Teachers To The Rescue

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/21/1210753/-Teachers-as-first-responders-as-protectors-and-as-heroes

Outsourcing

http://americablog.com/2013/05/oklahoma-senator-coburn-says-no-tornado-aid-unless-cost-is-offset.html

Busy today.  Read Aravois's post on how Tom Coburn is holding his constituents hostage in the face of unimaginable devastation.

Andrew Sullivan Is Racist

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/05/16/is-race-only-a-social-construct/

Sullivan makes the following argument:

But what I really want TNC to address is the data. Yes, “race” is a social construct when we define it as “white”, “black,” “Asian” or, even more ludicrously, “Hispanic.” But why then does the overwhelming data show IQ as varying in statistically significant amounts between these completely arbitrary racially constructed populations? Is the testing rigged? If the categories are arbitrary, then the IQs should be randomly distributed. But they aren’t, even controlling for education, income, etc.

That’s the core problem with debunking the Richwine thesis. The policy inferences are repellent to me. But the data are real. And they correspond to our socially constructed racial categories. There’s no correlation between intelligence and height, for example, or between intelligence and gender (except arguably at the extreme extremes). So why would our constructed and arbitrary racial categories yield such dramatic IQ differentials? Remember this holds true even when controlling for class, money and education. The answer is: we can only guess. Once they find a specific genetic pattern for intelligence, as they are looking for in China, we may find out.

Yes, the testing is rigged.  We know the testing is rigged.  Because IQ itself is a construct.  IQ stands for "intelligence quotient".  Basically you take the score and divide the age.

But what are the questions?  Most IQ tests test certain forms of logical thinking and critical skills.  Many test verbal knowledge.  But they use norms and terms found in the majority culture.  So there is a bias in the testing.

Secondly, the idea of a fixed IQ is bogus.  There is no such thing.  There are multiple forms of intelligence, multiple ways of thinking.  IQ tests capture very few of them.

Most educators don't put a ton of stock in IQ tests, because they don't tell you a whole hell of a lot.  The reason SATs are important, is because they allow a college admissions office a chance to say "no" without having to consider all 50,000 applications.  SATs don't predict success in school or in life.  IQ scores are also pretty meaningless.  Most of them test scholastic preparedness.

When people start putting a lot of stock in a flawed metric to justify odious ends, chances are they are looking for reasons to reach that odious ends.

Hillary '16

The Most Lovely, Beneficent and Now Newly Powerful Wife read to me Pond Scum Pete Santilli's take on Hillary Clinton.

Let's take a look:

I want to shoot her right in the vagina and I don't want her to die right away; I want her to feel the pain and I want to look her in the eyes and I want to say, on behalf of all Americans that you've killed, on behalf of the Navy SEALS, the families of Navy SEAL Team Six who were involved in the fake hunt down of this Obama, Obama bin Laden thing, that whole fake scenario, because these Navy SEALS know the truth, they killed them all. On behalf of all of those people, I'm supporting our troops by saying we need to try, convict, and shoot Hillary Clinton in the vagina.

I think that as vile as this is, someone on Daily Kos once compared Dubya to Hitler, so... both sides do it.

I was asked by a student today if I thought Hillary would run in 2016.  I said, I thought she would, and I think she'll win.

And this mouthbreather above is the reason why.

There is some evidence that Barack Obama is actually underperforming the demographic shift to the Democrats.  Because there are some voters who just won't pull the lever bubble in the circle for a black dude.  Whether they will do so for a woman, I guess is an open question.

But if, check that, when the GOP unleashes the ugly against Hillary (and this Benghazi nonsense is just the faintest of tastes) it will not take very long for it to sound like Mr. Santilli.

And while, hahaha, Obama is from Kenya, has a bone through his nose and likes watermelon will play with some people, over 50% of the population is female.

Hillary could win 60% of the female vote.

Deep Thought

North Korea continues to wage war on fish.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/north-korea-fires-three-missiles-off-its-east

I Got Nada

So I give you some art criticism:

Who Lives In A Pineapple Under The Sea?

Spent the day with Thing Two at the Mystic Aquarium.  Then took both Things to soccer practice. Then took Thing One to Iron Man 3.  I better get a damned Porsche for Father's Day.

Anyway, learned about the ocean critters.

Blade Runner

I was watching the first half of Blade Runner last night.  Perhaps you know of the Blade Runner Curse?  Almost all of the corporations seen advertising in the movie have gone out of business.  All except Coke.

Anyway, the movie is set in 2019, which is now suddenly right around the corner.  How good a job did Ridley Scott do at predicting the future?

Some of the technology is laughably antiquated: the computers, video screens, communications.  Others aren't on the immediate horizon: flying cars, cloning.

But I was struck by two things: One was the vision of Los Angeles as a cosmopolitan mega-city with a mishmash of English, Chinese and Spanish being spoken.  The specifics are wrong,  but the general idea looks accurate.

The other was there seems to be some sense of climate change present in the movie.  LA is not a rainy place, yet it never stops raining, you never see the sun.  If anything, it looks a little like the air in Beijing.

Oh, and that voice-over is GODAWFUL.

The Impact Of Scandal

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2013/05/14/does-your-conscience-bother-you/

(Enjoy the new site design at Balloon Juice.)

Doug J points out that Watergate, despite being the Ur Scandal, barely made a dent in the trajectory of American politics.  Nixon's crimes have only gotten more profound as time has let slip more tapes and more revelations.  And Nixon was largely carrying on some programs LBJ started, but Nixon made them personal (because it was always personal with Nixon).

But Doug's right.  Watergate may have given us Jimmy Carter, but the trajectory of American politics after the Watts' riots was towards the fragmentation of the New Deal Coalition and the rise of the Reagan Coalition.

Washington is currently obsessing of a troika of quasi-scandals and non-scandals and WHAT WILL THIS ALL MEAN??!!11>?

History shows it rarely means much.  Poppy Bush was nipples deep in Iran Contra, which was arguably "worse than Watergate".  Clinton retired popular, though you could make a case that no Monica means no Dubya, considering how close things were in Florida.  But the trend has been towards Democratic presidential majorities and that's no going to go away because of the Three Little Piglets scandals.

Benghazi: a tragedy, not a scandal.  A political circus intended to cripple Hillary's bid in 2016.  Admiral Mullen yesterday reiterated what Bob Gates said, there was no military response possible to Benghazi.  There is no scandal.  And the emails that ABC was breathlessly flacking were simply notes about emails provided them by GOP staffers.  Synergy!

The AP subpoenas aren't really a scandal in and of themselves.  Unlike the Bush Administration, the Obama Administration went to court and got a subpoena.  Bush's FBI just seized the phone records.  But this is the price of the "War on Terra!" that the press needs to realize.  Wars breed excess executive power.  And now it bit the AP.  Maybe the AP should have spent the last 11 years reporting on this increase in executive power.  The fact is the DOJ followed proper procedures.  The problem is the procedures.

The IRS scandal feels less like a scandal the more you dig into it, but it undoubtedly is the closest to a real scandal we have.  These low level guys dig something stupid and wrong and were told to stop.  I'm not sure where the scandal is there, but at least there was something stupid and wrong, which is more than you can say for the other two nontroversies.

Right now, the Courtier Press have their knives out for Obama, because he's "aloof" and doesn't invite them to swing on his tire swing and eat barbecue.  It's reached the point where they are bored with Obama and want a new story.

The nation didn't give much of a shit about Monica Lewinksy in the end.  It was a prurient tale and that set tongues a wagging.  But in the end, no one but the GOP thought he should be impeached.

Frankly, I hope the wingnut do try and impeach Obama over something stupid like this.  It worked out so well for them the last time.

UPDATE:  I think Booman is on to something here:

As a political writer, I was about ready to hang myself if I had to write one more article about sequestration and the budget. So, I get it. Now we all have something to write about again. I don't think the general public really understands how important it is that writing be fun. They know that writers are after page-views, but trust me when I say that writing for page-views isn't fun. What's fun is writing about stuff that you can get energized about, and that has a lot of carry-over to what people want to read. The damage being done by the sequester is the most important domestic story in the country right now, along with the cause of the sequester, which is the total radicalization of the Republican Party. But writing about the closing of health clinics and day care centers and access to cancer treatment and closed airports cannot compare to writing about a BIG SCANDAL.

Admiral Mike Mullen

I just got to listen to the former Chairman of the JCS speak to our school and then take questions in a smaller group setting.  It was fascinating to hear him speak of the importance of personal connections in managing a changing and dynamic world.  We get one pretty impressive military/foreign affairs speaker every year - in the past we've had Deputy Chairman of the JCS Cartwright and CINC of Centcom Abazaid - but I really impressed with Mullen's directness.

I asked him a question about drones - the same question I asked Cartwright, about the risk of military action being immediately cost-free and thus with potentially hidden costs we can't see or manage - and he actually answered the question.  He basically agreed and worried that our capabilities might outrun our values, and before you know it our values might change without our consciously making a decision to change them.  Very candid and thoughtful.

I'm not sure how he got so far in Washington with an attitude like that.

Mondays

Benghazi Vs. Mothra... Er... The IRS

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/05/theres_was_just_a_very.php?ref=fpblg

Benghazi is a witch hunt, in the worst sense of the word.  There is no scandal.  There is no cover-up.  There is, perhaps, some cover-you-ass on the parts of people at State, CIA and Defense in terms of turf wars and responsibility after the fact, but there is no scandal about Benghazi, except that the GOP has routinely cut security funding at State and now are trying to hang the President Hillary Clinton with it.

Cincinnati is also not a scandal.  But it smells like a scandal.  Josh Marshall points out that Obama is pissed about the Benghazi nontroversy, but is guarded about Cincinnati.  That's because he's in the reality-based community, not the wingnutosphere.