Slate explains the notion “Comparable Worth” after we find that at one point Roberts found it highly objectionable. The notion of gender based job segregation still doesn’t sit right with me although it’s more acceptable then some of the not getting equal pay in the same job type issues. However I find that I agree with the notion that the government shouldn’t be figuring out which jobs are worth what.
Category: Political
Gideon Rose claims that the Bush Doctrine has colapsed
Mr. Rose of Foreign Affairs in a NyTimes Editorial “Get Real“ talks about the back and forth between idealists and realists, and claims that the pendilum has now swung back to the realist camp.
SEVEN months into George W. Bush’s second term, it is clear that whatever his expansive second Inaugural Address may have promised, American foreign policy has taken a decidedly pragmatic turn. In practice, the Bush administration has recently begun to pursue interests rather than ideals and conciliation rather than confrontation.
…
The real story is simpler: the Bush doctrine has collapsed, and the administration has consequently embraced realism, American foreign policy’s perennial hangover cure.
Republicans and Science, Part I
I can’t help but think that Republicans don’t like or respect science anymore. It might be a misunderstanding of what science is, or an attempt to appear more mainstream or the belief that many scientists are liars with an idelogical bent, but either way I think there is a pattern.
Today’s example is Rep Joe Barton’s (chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee) attack on the MSM ‘hockey stick’ papers that the IPCC cite. RealClimate has a good wrap up of what’s going on and Promethesus blog has some good background to where this dispute comes from.
Schneir Points Me To An A Hrefhttpwww
Schneir points me to an excellent interview at the American Conservative about suicide terrorist attacks with Robert Pape, professor at the University of Chicago.
TAC: So if Islamic fundamentalism is not necessarily a key variable behind these groups, what is?
RP: The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign—over 95 percent of all the incidents—has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw.
…TAC: So your assessment is that there are more suicide terrorists or potential suicide terrorists today than there were in March 2003?
RP: I have collected demographic data from around the world on the 462 suicide terrorists since 1980 who completed the mission, actually killed themselves. This information tells us that most are walk-in volunteers. Very few are criminals. Few are actually longtime members of a terrorist group. For most suicide terrorists, their first experience with violence is their very own suicide-terrorist attack.
There is no evidence there were any suicide-terrorist organizations lying in wait in Iraq before our invasion. What is happening is that the suicide terrorists have been produced by the invasion.
…TAC: There have been many kinds of non-Islamic suicide terrorists, but have there been Christian suicide terrorists?
RP: Not from Christian groups per se, but in Lebanon in the 1980s, of those suicide attackers, only eight were Islamic fundamentalists. Twenty-seven were Communists and Socialists. Three were Christians.
…TAC: Does al-Qaeda have the capacity to launch attacks on the United States, or are they too tied down in Iraq? Or have they made a strategic decision not to attack the United States, and if so, why?
RP: Al-Qaeda appears to have made a deliberate decision not to attack the United States in the short term. We know this not only from the pattern of their attacks but because we have an actual al-Qaeda planning document found by Norwegian intelligence. The document says that al-Qaeda should not try to attack the continent of the United States in the short term but instead should focus its energies on hitting America’s allies in order to try to split the coalition.
What the document then goes on to do is analyze whether they should hit Britain, Poland, or Spain. It concludes that they should hit Spain just before the March 2004 elections because, and I am quoting almost verbatim: Spain could not withstand two, maximum three, blows before withdrawing from the coalition, and then others would fall like dominoes.
That is exactly what happened. Six months after the document was produced, al-Qaeda attacked Spain in Madrid. That caused Spain to withdraw from the coalition. Others have followed. So al-Qaeda certainly has demonstrated the capacity to attack and in fact they have done over 15 suicide-terrorist attacks since 2002, more than all the years before 9/11 combined. Al-Qaeda is not weaker now. Al-Qaeda is stronger.
Listening to David Irons
David Irons a city council member is running for King County Executive and spoke at Microsoft today. Some random notes:
- $3.3 Billion budget for King County
- 12th largest county in the nation
- Goes for a very minimalistic approach
- Education Background
- Wants an elected auditor – Larson was too technical not enough management experience
- 4 year vrs 13 year homeless soln.
- Growth\Land Use
- Believes that land use has failed in King County, goal 15-30 ride for workers.
- Seattle fails it’s growth projections, eastside meets or exceeds
- Too much single family home in seattle
- raising height limits
- Norm Maleng has the jurisdiction to act and hasn’t on voter fraud.
- CAO, science wasn’t done well, and the suburban and urban parts aren’t addressed.
Party platforms
After feuding with my wife about what vacation we are going to do this year before the baby is born, I found myself reading a Left2Right blog entry about the Oklahoma Republican Party’s Platform. Since it seems way out wack, I got curious to see what the local Washington State Republican Party Platform looks like.
Things that I like:
· The defense of Israel statement has a coexisting Palestinian state piece.
Things that I like but don’t trust the Republican Party to actually do (or do right):
· Property owners implementing environmental practices that are supported by sound, peer-reviewed scientific method are a model of responsible natural resource stewardship
· Increasing competition among health care providers to promote accountability to patients
· All people are entitled to be treated equally by government.
Things that I don’t like:
· The protection of innocent human life born or pre-born through natural death.
· An amendment to the United States Constitution defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman.
· A policy that public schools not promote or identify homosexuality as a healthy, morally acceptable, or alternative lifestyle.
· Research of adult and placenta stem cells and oppose human cloning.
· Compensating property owners when government actions reduce the value of their land secures our right to own property.
Stuff I found cute:
· Support President Bush‘s Energy Bill to reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign crude oil. This is immediately followed by the ANWR drilling platform element, I guess foreign is the keyword there.
While there is a couple things that I find off for me, it sounds like the more tolerable form of the republican party. Let us see how the democrats do: (-1 to start with by making me open a pdf)
Things that I like:
· Oppose the “Corporations are people too“ Supreme court ruling
· reinstatement of I-728 that calls for reduction of class sizes;
· enforcement of sunshine laws and transparency in sessions that discuss and make policy
· the separation of church and state, and we oppose organized prayer in publicly funded schools
· the right for medically assisted death with dignity with suitable safeguards for terminally ill patients;
· a woman’s right to choose as protected by Roe vs. Wade and the Washington State Reproductive Freedom Act;
· the right to confidentiality of medical records and genetic information.
· that the state should not interfere with couples who choose to marry and share fully and equally in the rights, responsibilities, and commitment of civil marriage, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.
· property forfeiture should be permitted only after criminal conviction, not on arrest or by seizure
Things that I like but don’t trust the Democratic Party to actually do (or do right):
· Supporting diversity of ownership in broadcast media
· dedicating tobacco settlement monies only to tobacco-related health care programs and tobacco use prevention;
Things that I don’t like:
· Proclaim the executive and legislative branches of government shall abandon the doctrine of pre-emptive warfare and shall make nonviolence the primary organizing principle of foreign policy.
Stuff I found cute:
· Supporting Kyoto, but against marketplace pollution credits
Overall, the Republican Platform avoids specific actions and tries to go with general principals. The problem is that while it is easier to agree with the Republican principals, I know a number of the actions they actually have in mind behind some of the principals and I generally don’t agree with the actions. The more specific the Republican Platform is the more I have a tendency to disagree with it.
The Democratic Platform has a huge laundry list of ideas and like a rainstorm; you can’t avoid getting hit by a few drops. There is going to be some that I like, while also have a large number that I just don’t care about or in some case dislike. As a whole it looks impossibly expensive to do all of them.
A quick scan pretty much sizes me up as socially liberal on all the big conservative causes, and since that has always been such a defining aspect to that party I believe I’m pretty much lost to them. But aside from a couple pet causes the democrat one isn’t all that much better. I wonder if the Democrat Platform in a heavily republican state would be more appealing to me, but that’s for another blog entry.
Microsoft and the Anti Discrimination Bill in Washington
I have to admit disappointment in my employer in this mess. Not because of what position they took or stopped taking, but because of the apparent lack of following our company values. The one I have in mind is Integrity and Honesty. There are supplied examples of this behavior; Communicate in a direct and truthful manner, Do what they say they will do, speak the truth even when it’s not popular and do not withhold information that may be valuable to others, value the integrity of Microsoft over short term business or personal gain. No matter who I believe the company or the evangelical preacher some of these points seems to be violated when the company changed its position mid-bill. It had previously supported the bill and either changed under pressure or under planning. If it changed under pressure, then the company wasn’t doing what they say they will do and they aren’t valuing the integrity of Microsoft over short term business gain (or avoiding loss). If they changed under advanced planning, then it did not communicate in a direct and truthful manner to the bill’s sponsors and to the employees when the actual decision was made, instead, one guesses, hoping to avoid the ramifications of the decision by keeping it quiet. In both cases when the bill’s sponsor asked for a statement around the companies current policies in the area and we refused, we were withholding information that we knew may be valuable to others. The company was willing to speak publicly about our change in stance (which was valuable to opponents of the bill) but not about our current policy (which was valuable to supporters of the bill). This is not about trying to be balanced; it’s about not lying through omission.
Having said that, I am glad to see us attempt to work through this issue in an Open and Respectful manner (another of those company values). Allowing the internal Ballmer email to employees to be posted publicly and being up front about the request made on the company to fire the two employees who testified before the state congress. In that spirit I state my own personal opinion:
I feel strongly that Microsoft has a right and a duty to have a position on this issue as a large employer in Washington State. I am probably ignorant in the reality of public affairs for companies, but I agree that it does not have a duty to spend resources on getting the bill passed or defeated if it is not high in its priority list, but I do not see that as a blocker in having an opinion. Hence the explanation for changing its position on the bill doesn’t satisfy me. All that is left in the explanation is that some employees felt differently and that it was important to respect their views. If that is true, should I expect a change in the internal anti discrimination policies for the same reason? Our Integrity has rightfully taken a blow.
Random Web Links
- Npr has a story on Donald Knuth
- Nytimes’ Kristof laments about the state of environmentalism, he is looking for a less alarmist more responsible movement
- In spite of lower value of the dollar, the trade deficit hits it’s second highest figure ever
- Scheneier points out that the Unicode community is thinking more about security in this draft report
Thursday Fun
- Raymond Chen points out the ultimate X or not site, AMI BIOS or Not
- The New York Times points out that Google has launched Google Scholar.
- An op-ed in the NYTimes from Irshad Manji explores a difference in the european and american starting points when dealing with Islam.
- Another peice of fun reading: Marine Officers See Risks in Reducing U.S. Troops in Falluja
- Brad DeLong points to Bruce Moomaw analysis of what we are finding in Fallujah, and why the counts might be off.
- Slate chronicles where government secrecy is heading.
- NPR has a small series about detainee abuse from the Department of Home Security.
Wednesday Stuff
- Recursive has a nice link about common misconceptions about liberals and conservatives.
- The business story of the day the Sears and Kmart merger.
- Andrew Sullivan makes the right contrast and comparison between Abu Ghraib, the fatal shooting of a wounded man in Fallujah and what the insurgents where doing there.
- In my new theme of, “Values held in the minority disappear once you are the majority”, I give you an NPR story on how house republicans are considering a rule change to allow indicted members to remain as party leaders, in order to shield DeLay. The rule they are considering overturning was made as a “we are more ethical then you” reaction back when the democrats where in a similar situation.
- NASA set a new air speed record for air breathing engines, 10x the speed of sound.
- dbt and Andrew Sullivan points to a Washington Post article about a local community and church defending a local homosexual against Fred Phelps’s organization.
Doubt's Blog 