« February 2006 | Main | April 2006 »
When I was living in California, I used to watch Dr. Who on PBS. Tom Baker was the perfect scifi hero, galavanting about time and space from one crisis to another. No matter what planet he was on or when, he always knew exactly what to do about it.
The Sci Fi Channel has resurrected the Doctor, and the new series is marvelous. The writing has gotten better with each of the first three shows. Check it out on Friday Nights.
Long time readers of this blog will well remember the fisticuffs between us and the Northern Valley Beacon. The quarrel began when we noticed that the Beacon had said "Republicans need a Fuhrer." As I recall, I responded by asking whether the Beacon was saying that we were Nazis for disagreeing with them, and they responded by vehemently denying the charge. Now I find this on the Beacon:
You will notice the Republican logo replacing the swastika on the armband. I infer from this one of two things: either they aren't honest about what they think, or they don't know what they think. Because they obviously do think we are Nazis.
I have never imagined that my leftist counterparts at the Beacon or CCK or anywhere else are really Stalinists or totalitarians of any stripe. That is one of the differences between ourselves and the Beacon.
Let's talk about some actual violations of human rights:
Three years after the harshest crackdown on dissent in decades, human-rights conditions in Cuba have deteriorated as authorities intensify a campaign to disrupt and intimidate the island's small opposition movement, according to dissidents, diplomats and political analysts.
...The attacks intensified after a speech by Castro last July in which he denounced opposition activists as U.S. government lackeys and praised supporters who two weeks earlier disrupted a dissident protest in Havana.
"The people, angrier than before over such shameless acts of treason, intervened with patriotic fervor and didn't allow a single mercenary to move," Castro said. "This is what will happen however many times as necessary when traitors and mercenaries go a millimeter beyond the point that our revolutionary people ... are prepared to permit."
But Sanchez and other activists say Cuban state security agents direct the pro-government attacks, which often occur in front of the homes or meeting places of dissidents, and participants include police dressed in civilian clothes.
Sanchez said the aim of the attacks is to "increase the political repression" without significantly increasing the number of political prisoners. "Why don't they want to increase the number of political prisoners?" he asked. "Because outside, in other countries, there has been a lot of criticism."
Surprisingly, there's little press coverage on this. If there's criticism to be made of "violations" at Guantanamo, why not this too? There seems to be a romantic fascination with Cuba's leaders for some reason. One doesn't have to look hard to note the popularity of Che Guevara; his likeness adornes mugs, hoodies, lighters, key chains, wallets, baseball caps, toques, bandannas, tank tops, club shirts, couture bags, denim jeans, herbal tea, and, of course, T-shirts with the photograph taken by Alberto Korda of the socialist in his beret during the early years of the revolution (dubbed "the most famous photograph in the world and a symbol of the 20th century" [1]). Yet many would reject Guevara if they knew his actual past.
Guevara was entranced with other people's deaths: "hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective, and cold-blooded killing machine." This hatred and ideological violence was a corner stone for Guevara following the revolution. While merciless during the revolution, the "cold-blooded killing machine" would show the full extent of his rigor after the collapse of the Batista regime when Castro put Guevara in charge of La Cabaña prison. In what was eerily reminiscint of Lavrenty Beria, Guevara would oversee the darkest days of the revolution. It is unknown how many people were killed at La Cabaña. Some figures range from 200, to 400, to over 500. At Guevara's capture, he was confronted by a CIA agent about "the two thousand or so" executions he had been a part of during his lifetime.[2]
In the closing decades of the nineteenth century, Argentina had the second-highest growth rate in the world. By the 1890s, the real income of Argentine workers was more than that of Swiss, German, and French workers. By 1928, that country was ranked twelfth of nations with the highest per-capita GDP. This achievement would be ruined by later generations, but all took place in part because of Juan Bautista Alberdi. Like Guevara, he liked to travel, opposed a tyrant, got the chance to influence a revolutionary leader in power (Justo José de Urquiza), and represented the new government on world tours and died abroad. However, Alberdi never killed a fly. His book became the foundation of the Constitution of 1853 that limited government, opened trade, encouraged immigration, and secured property rights. He didn't involve himself in the affairs of other nations and opposed Argentina's war against Paraguay. His likeness doesn't adorn Mike Tyson's abdomen. [3]
Che Guevara, who did so much (or so little?) to destroy capitalism is now a capitalist brand (see Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter's Nation of Rebels). It often seems that followers of a cult tend to not know the historical truth of the one they follow. Many of the post-communist admirers of Guevara don't know the past but cling to a myth, except some young Argentines who have come up with the best expression: "Tengo una remera del Che y no sé por qué," or "I have a Che T-shirt and I don't know why."
What does all this talk of Che have to do with the story noted above? The point is that people overlook things, sometimes for a political reason. If one is going to ridicule America for supposed abuses then one must also denounce Castro for violations that are much more serious. The political implications of not doing so would be disasterous. Christina Aguilera may be bad to listen to, but not a single person has died at the hands of our soldiers at Guantanamo Bay. The same cannot be said of the Castro regime.
[1] Maryland Institute of Art, referenced at BBC News,"Che Guevara photographer dies", 26 May 2001.
[2] Alvaro Vargas Llosa, "The Killing Machine," in The New Republic, July 11 & 18 2005, pp. 25-30.
[3] Alvaro Vargas Llosa, "The Killing Machine," in The New Republic, July 11 & 18 2005, pp. 25-30.
I generally have libertarian sentiments when it comes to economics, so I have mostly been in favor of open immigration. We are, it is frequently observed, a nation of immigrants. My name is French. I think it means "whitey." My mother's maiden name was Daugherty, a good Irish Catholic line. We even have a family crest that looks disturbingly like a deer-crossing sign. On one side of the family there are Shooks, and on the other side Martins, both German names. How can I be opposed to immigration?
Robert Samuelson has led me to rethink my position, though I dare say I am not ready to switch sides yet. But he is one of my favorite economists because his arguments are usually disturbing, yet always well-reasoned and hard to get around. In his Real Clear Politics piece, Samuelson takes issue with the "guest worker" proposal.
Guest workers would mainly legalize today's vast inflows of illegal immigrants, with the same consequence: we'd be importing poverty. This isn't because these immigrants aren't hardworking; many are. Nor is it because they don't assimilate; many do. But they generally don't go home, assimilation is slow and the ranks of the poor are constantly replenished. Since 1980, the number of Hispanics with incomes below the government's poverty line (about $19,300 in 2004 for a family of four) has risen 162 percent. Over the same period, the number of non-Hispanic whites in poverty rose 3 percent and the number of blacks, 9.5 percent.
What we have now -- and would with guest workers -- is a conscious policy of creating poverty in the United States while relieving it in Mexico. By and large, this is a bad bargain for the United States. It puts stresses on local schools, hospitals and housing; it feeds social tensions (witness the Minutemen).
I have to say that I find that evidence hard to ignore. One caveat is that I am pretty sure that Mexican immigrants escape from poverty gradually, and if the original generation does no, their children probably do. But Samuelson's point is that we are relentlessly replacing those who make it out with new poor. That's not a recipe for victory over poverty.
What would be the result of really enforcing immigration laws? Samuelson has a story:
Economist Philip Martin of the University of California likes to tell a story about the state's tomato industry. In the early 1960s, growers relied on seasonal Mexican laborers, brought in under the government's ``bracero'' program. The Mexicans picked the tomatoes that were then processed into ketchup and other products. In 1964, Congress killed the program despite growers' warnings that its abolition would doom their industry. What happened? Well, plant scientists developed oblong tomatoes that could be harvested by machine. Since then, California's tomato output has risen five times.
Now that looks like success to me. Some of my best friends are libertarians, but they are reflexively hostile to any legal restraints on trade. It looks to me, though, as if some restraints are merely market conditions to which American enterprise is more than capable of adapting.
In the long run, oblong tomatoes are the solution to all our economic woes. Technological increases in productivity make it possible to raise the incomes of all workers. And that is surely what would occur if we really enforced our immigration laws.
Hardly anyone thinks that most existing illegal immigrants will leave. But what would happen if, magically, new illegal immigration stopped and wasn't replaced by guest workers? Well, some employers would raise wages to attract U.S. workers. Facing greater labor costs, some industries would -- like the tomato growers in the 1960s -- find ways to minimize those costs. As to the rest, what's wrong with higher wages for the poorest workers? From 1994 to 2004, the wages of high-school dropouts rose only 2.3 percent (after inflation) compared to 11.9 percent for college graduates.
Of course, real immigration enforcement faces two daunting obstacles: Democrats and Republicans. The former side with Mexican-American activist groups who, naturally, want to continue the swelling of their constituency. Republicans side with businesses that would rather rely on cheap labor than learn how to grow oblong tomatoes.
Professor Schaff below notes Todd Epp's very good commentary on the advantages of regional blogs over the traditional political journalist like Dave Kranz. I think it deserves more attention, in fact, it is worth stealing.
Kranz now gets scooped on a regular basis by me (S.D. Watch). By Chad Schuldt at Clean Cut Kid. By PP at S.D. War College. By others. Love or hate our politics, we're right just about all the time (ok, a good chunk of the time). Our batting averages are pretty darn good.
In fact, I'd argue we are right more often than Dave is. And here's why: we actually work in or are heavily involved in politics. Our sources are are friends or the friends of friends. We can usually trust our sources because we'll give them hell the next time we see them if they mislead us. And other people contact us. Our readers contact us. They even break news in our comment sections. And we can get the information out almost immediately. You know our biases and agendas up front, so you can take it all with a grain of salt.
But you also know the quality of our information. Tell me that any newspaper column has done a better job of keeping track of candidates for S.D. office and ballot issues than SDWC? You can't.
And if I want thoughtful and intelligent political analysis? I don't have to wait for Kranz's column. I can get it on a daily basis (and frankly, get a more intellectual and knowledgeable discussion) from David Newquist (former journalism professor) at The Northern Valley Beacon, Tim Gebhart (attorney) at A Progressive on the Prairie, the NSU Hardy Boy and Company (political science professors) at S.D. Politics, Joel Rosenthal (former GOP chairman) at S.D. Straight Talk, (Democrat operative) S.D. Progressive, and hell, even (right to bear arms expert) Sibby sometimes. That's quite a diverse collection of experience and brain power. No journalist can compete with that array of expertise.
I think Todd has put his finger right on the spot. Its not that any one of our blogs is better than a Kranz column. Like Todd, I like Dave Kranz. After all, he has interviewed me, which in my opinion shows his good judgment. He surely has resources that this blog cannot match. But collectively the blogosphere wields a range of resources and expertise that no political journalist can match.
As a footnote, I rather like the comparison of Professor Schaff and myself to the Hardy Boys. Its not quite Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but hey, we did get a TV show.
Political scientists have known for a long time that the relative size and behavior of demographic subgroups, like African Americans or evangelical Christians, has a lot more to do with who wins elections than candidates and campaign strategies. Peter Brown of the
Republicans have won seven of the past 10 presidential elections. They have held control of Congress for most of the past decade.
Every four years, it seems, the Democratic establishment finds another way to explain why they have lost without conceding the obvious. They are unable to win enough votes from the largest demographic group -- white, mostly middle-class, voters to get over the top. John Kerry won about 41 percent of white votes in 2004, broke even among voters with family incomes of $30,000-$50,000 and got just 44 percent of those with incomes of $50,000-$100,000.
This is a 40-year pattern, which has led Democrats to seek a way around, rather than to confront, their problem with Middle America. In the 1970's, the Democrats courted the counter-culture. In the 1980s the push was among African-Americans. Jesse Jackson's two runs for the White House, Democrats hoped, would spur an outpouring of black voters. In the 1990s, the gender gap was the rage, and in fact Bill Clinton's presidencies were fueled disproportionately by women voters.
In 2004, their focus was on young voters who would be so put off by the Iraq war they would turn out in droves to throw W out of office. It didn't happen. Bush was re-elected, even though more young people voted. But the Democratic turnout effort created a climate in which the Republicans energized even more of their troops.
Now, Democratic strategists have settled on unmarried voters for 2006 and 2008.
I think he is being a bit unfair to the Democrats. It is almost always easy to increase turnout among voters already inclined to vote for you, than to swing previously hostile groups to your side. To be sure, groups do sometimes change sides, as African Americans went from being loyal Republicans to become the most thoroughly Democratic group in America. But that results from deep structural changes in society, and is not easily accessible to campaign strategies.
Nonetheless, it is a good idea for Republicans to wonder how they can attract more Black voters. Even a small increase in Republican support among African Americans would make a big difference in elections, all the way down to dog catcher. Likewise, Democrats should wonder how they can get more votes from "married, with children."
Women's Voices has produced an 80-plus page report being embraced throughout the party that correctly notes that unmarried people are less likely to vote than their married counterparts. In 2004, Bush carried the 63 percent of voters who were married by a 57-42 percent margin. He lost among the 37 percent who were single by 58-40 percent. . . .
No Democratic presidential candidate since Lyndon Johnson has won a majority of white voters. Yet even in an increasingly diverse America, and despite increasing voting participation by minorities, whites were still 77 percent of 2004 voters.
Jim Lindgren nicely chronicles the foibles at South Park over Isaac Hayes's sudden departure.
Hayes, who voices the character "Chef," has left the show because he is a Scientologist and a recent episode mocks that belief system. Matt Parker, one of the South Park creators, responds:
This has nothing to do with intolerance and bigotry and everything to do with the fact that Isaac Hayes is a Scientologist and that we recently featured Scientology in an episode of 'South Park.' In ten years and over 150 episodes of 'South Park,' Isaac never had a problem with the show making fun of Christians, Muslims, Mormons and Jews. He got a sudden case of religious sensitivity when it was his religion featured on the show.
This goes to the heart of the "South Park" problem. I have something of a love/hate relationship with South Park. It is undeniably funny, and it appeals to my third-grade sense of humor. It also is one of the few entertainment industry products that is not afraid to skewer liberal sacred cows along with the conservative holy bovines. Finally, I found out last summer at a family reunion (in Lemmon, SD of all places) that I have a distant cousin who is an animator on the show. Talk about a brush with greatness!
But the problem with South Park is exactly what Parker and other of the show's defenders say is its strength. Whenever I question South Park's vulgarity to students, they defend South Park by saying that South Park is insulting to everyone, as if that makes it better. This is essentially Parker's defense against the charge of religious insensitivity. Hey, we make-fun of all religions. But this is the problem. I like irreverent humor as much as the next guy, maybe even more. But when you are irreverent toward everything you are reverent toward nothing. And some things deserve our reverence. A society full of Matt Parkers and Trey Stones (the other South Park creator) ultimately believes in nothing. We call that nihilism, and that's bad. But it is sometimes really funny.
Recent Comments