The march of Democracy...

The Bush Administration stakes much of its credibility on democracy - spreading democracy, the growth of democracy, etc. But when democracy doesn't produce the results that they want...they are quick to dismiss it, and to dismiss the thoughts and will of so many peoples - and what those opinions say about America.

The United States says it supports democratic government, but when the people of Venezuela elected populist Hugo Chavez - who is not friendly to the US - we did not try to determine what that means about our involvement in South American affairs - no, we organize a coup to overthrow Chavez, a coup which lead to a popular uprising - bordering on civil war - to get Chavez back in power. Does that sound like the US advancing democracy?

The United States says it supports democratic government, but when the people of Haiti elected Jean-Bertrand Aristide - who was not a great pro-US leader to say the least - we did not try to determine what that means about our involvement in the Carribbean - no, we organized a coup to overthrow Aristide, a coup which has lead to essentially permanent violence and fighting in Haiti. Does that sound like the US advancing democracy?

The United State says it supports democratic government, but now, the people of Palestine have overwhelmingly elected Hamas - a violent terrorist organization - as their majority representation in their legislature. Does that make Bush try to determine what this means about our mid-east policy, and how it is affecting the people of Israel and Palestine? Of course not. Instead, we simply reject this government and say that we will not negotiate with or acknowledge such a government.

Understand - I'm not saying that any of these three examples are governments that I "support" or I think were the right choices for these governments. What I'm trying to argue is if we are indeed a nation which espouses democracy, we need to also be a nation who is willing to question and analyze what the results of these elections mean to us, and what we are doing in the world. I am of the opinion that the United States' position in the world - our moral authority - is integral to both our national security, and promoting liberty around the globe. This administration has taken the directly opposite view - that if we are "mightiest" we will secure our position.

If we are going to spread democracy - we have to be willing to look critically at what democracy is telling us.

1836

Houston 1836.

That's the name of Houston's new MLS soccer club. I think that the name and colors are a very bold statement - not catering to the "market-research-focus-group" trends, but classy, classic, and ... well ... bold. It took some courage to go with a name reflecting the history and foundation of the city of Houston, and to go with orange - neither are instantly popular nor easily accepted. But, I think, both will grow on folks and build a very distinctive soccer brand in Houston and the U.S.

It is very exciting that this is all actually about to happen - camp opens on Feb. 1, and the season kicks off on Apr. 1. We almost there - It's About Time!

The Tragedy of the Commons

The tragedy of the commons develops in this way. Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.

As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, "What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?" This utility has one negative and one positive component.

1) The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly +1.

2) The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision-making herdsman is only a fraction of -1.

Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another; and another. . . . But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit--in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.

Garrett Hardin, The Tragedy of the Commons, 162 Science no. 3859, pp. 1243 - 1248, Dec. 13, 1968.

MLS Houston

Now that we have an MLS team here in town - although we've got no name just yet - I thought I would go over a very brief history of the franchise, and spend a little time looking at the team we've got coming to town.

First off, the new Houston soccer club is the relocation of the old San Jose Earthquakes franchise. San Jose were an original member of MLS back in 1996, joining the league as the San Jose Clash. They spent the first few seasons as one of the worst franchises in the league (the positions below are total in league, not finishing playoff positions):

1996: 7th (of 10)
1997: 10th (of 10)
1998: 10th (of 12)
1999: 7th (of 12 - but missed playoffs due to 5th in West)
2000: 12th (of 12) - this is also the season that he franchise was re-branded as the Earthquakes

But then things got turned around...much due to a young 19 year-old kid by the name of Landon Donovan. In 2001, the Quakes finished 3d in the league overall (out of 10), and won the playoffs to raise their first MLS Cup, defeating their arch-rival LA Galaxy 2-1 in the Cup final.

The next season, 2002, the team stayed hot, finishing the regular season second in the league (out of 10), but were bounced out of the first round of the MLS playoffs.

In 2003, San Jose again finished the regular season second in the league (out of 10), but were able to crush the Supporter's Shield winner Chicago Fire in the MLS Cup final 4-2 to lift their second Cup in two years.

2004 turned into a down year for the defending champs, finishing 7th (of 10) losing once again in the first round of the MLS playoffs.

Coming off a down year, many expected the Quakes to really struggle in 2005. They had lost F/M Donovan - first to Germany, then heartbreakingly, to the LA Galaxy when Donovan came back to MLS. In addition, SJ had traded or lost many of the veteran leaders on the team for the past several years (including Richard Mulrooney, Jeff Agoos, Ronnie Ekelund, etc.). But manager Dominic Kinnear was able to keep the young team together, finishing 1st (of 12), winning the Supporter's Shield (regular season champion), and Kinnear himself took home coach-of-the-year honors. The season didn't end quite as well - losing in the first round of the playoffs to the rival Galaxy. But still, a very successful season overall.

But where is the team at today as it moves to Houston? Well, first, some general notes. The team is still quite young - with only 4 of the24 members of the roster over 30 years old.

How about roster changes to date? One of the few veterans just retired last week. Mark Chung - 10 year veteran of MLS and former US Nat - called it quits on his career. He was still very effective last year - picking up 6 goals and 7 assists - and not one of the worse left sided midfielders in the league. Another off-season loss has been Danny Califf, an MLS veteran central defender. 2005 was Califf's first year with the Quakes, after having spent the previous five years of his career with the Galaxy. Califf is an occasional US nat, but he only played in 20 games (career low) last year due to injury. Califf has signed to play for a club team in Europe (I believe in Denmark) and provided excellent depth, but should not be a devastating loss for this side.

So let's take a look at the roster going into the 2006 SuperDraft at the end of this month.

GK - The starter, Pat Onstad, has been one of the better GK's in the league for the past four or five years. The Canadian national team member finished 2005 with the best goals-against average in MLS, and garnered the MLS Keeper of the Year award. So, the Houston club is pretty set in the nets. The one concern is that Onstad is getting older, he will be 38 years-old this season. Houston does not have a lot of depth at GK, with Robby Fulton - who has absolutely zero MLS experience - the only other keeper on the roster. Depth at GK is one area that will need to be addressed going into 2006.

D - The defense was one of the clear strengths of this side in 2005. The back line starts with probably the best left back in MLS, Wade Barrett. Barrett came back to MLS in 2005 after a few seasons playing in Denmark. On the right is young Kelly Gray, who came over from Chicago to kick-start his career and claimed the right-back position as his own. In the center, as noted above, the team has lost Califf, but returns solid defender Eddie Robinson, who after a couple of injury plauged seasons finally claimed a starting spot in the defense. Replacing Califf in the middle will likely be Ryan Cochrane, a rookie last year who played in 14 games (starting 6), Cochrance will have to prove that he is up to the high standard of this defense. The other defenders on the roster are primarily quite young, including: the one vet, Craig Waibel, who has been in the legaue since 2000; third year pro Chris Aloisi; second year Kevin Goldthwaite; second year Brett Rodriguez; and second year James Twellman. The unproven youth of the defense is a concern, and will need to be addressed either by acquisition, or drafting of a top-flight, can't miss defender in the draft.

M - The new Houston club will have one of the most exciting and up-and-coming central midfield pairing in MLS. Kinnear made a decision last year to move forward Dwayne DeRosario back into an attacking midfield role, and it turned out to be a perfect move. DeRosario is a Canadian international who brings excitement and big-time GOOOOOAAAALLLLLAAAAZZZZOOOOO!!!!!!!!'s to the pitch game in and game out...and he has won the MLS goal of the year honors two years in a row - including a absolutely incredible free kick strike last year that bent three different times before hitting the top corner of the net. Pairing with DeRosario in the middle is young two-way holding midfielder Ricardo Clark. Clark never really found his place in NY with the Metrostars, where he was restricted to a rightback, or exclusively defensive midfield role. But giving the freedom of playing both ways in central midfield brought about the emergence of his career, and callups to US national camps. Out on the wings, the Houston club is very strong as well. Left midfielder Brad Davis started the season as one of the hottest players in MLS after coming to San Jose from Dallas (SJ being his third team in four seasons). He even earned a call up the the national team before suffering an injury that ended the rest of his season...and also saw the acquisition of Chung who was very good for the Quakes on the left. With Chung's retirement, Davis becomes the starter once again. On the right is M/F Brian Mullan, who has speed and fitness to burn, and blazes up and down the wing. Second year defensive midfielder Danny O'Rourke, first round pick in last year's SuperDraft, provides solid depth in the middle. Ian Russell is a long time veteran providing depth on the right wing. The rest of the midfield is again, very very young with very little experience, including second year Tighe Dombrowski; second year Aaron Lanes, and second year Chris Wondolowski.

F - The big man up front for the Houston club is occasional US international Brian Ching - maybe the best target forward in MLS. Unfortunately, Ching has struggled with injury problems, missing large portions of 2003 and 2005. But when he is healthy, he is one of the most prolific goal scorers in MLS. His partner up front is generally Venzuelan Alejandro Moreno who claimed the starting spot after coming over from the LA Galaxy where he had spent the last few seasons as a super-sub. Off the bench, the team will have longtime veteran forward Ronald Cerritos, and second year Julian Nash. Foward is another area that although strong (especially when DeRosario and Mullen are considered forwards), the depth could be addressed in the offseason.

My feeling is that depth is the biggest concern for this squad - depth at keeper, defender, and forward. But, going into 2006, Houston looks to have a solid squad with which to attack its first season in MLS.

Hearings, V.2...

One more quick hit thought on the confirmation hearings of Judge Samuel Alito:

I get the distinct impression from J. Alito's answers to these questions, that he has no deep rooted respect for - or belief in - stare decises, the theory that the Supreme Court will follow it's earlier decisions as settled law. He is only willing to say that something is precedent - no matter how uncontroversial or settled for decades - he is unwilling to say any issue is settled law, or no longer at issue due to stare decises.

That is good news for some, and bad news for others...but it is odd. And this is what makes me compare him with J. Thomas on this court - because J. Thomas gives stare decises no weight.

We shall see.

Doonesbury from Last Sunday...

Confirmation Report...

Good piece from Dahlia Lithwick on the confirmation hearings from yesterday. Here's the link, and a few excerpts:

Sam Alito has chosen to simply bore his way through, and as a consequence, two days into the hearings, the Democrats on the judiciary committee have hardly laid a glove on him. I count only three occasions today on which he refuses to answer a question; that's not going to be his way. His way is to drill down and answer in lengthy doctrinal detail; to justify his past decisions with technical legal analysis; to expound upon three-part tests and legal factors to be balanced. He never tells you the answer to the question, but he's always expansive on how he might get there.

Alito is crushing the Democrats with unrelenting tedium and a demonstrable love for material they don't really understand.

Anyone can manage to be boring on boring subjects; Alito has seemingly perfected the art of being boring on controversial ones. Executive power in wartime? Boring. His deeply felt passion for Robert Bork? Boring. His incendiary job application from 1985? So boring that he's actually forgotten it. His resistance to the constitutional principle of one man, one vote? It was based on some stuff his dad told him. He doesn't fight to defend these ideas, he just slumps even lower in his chair and looks more earnest.

The almost laughable Republican position throughout the hearings is that Alito can't possibly be anti-women/minority/criminal defendant/little guy because here are 3/4/7/whatever single-digit-number-of cases among almost 5,000 in which he sided with them. It's a twist on the "Some of my best friends are ... " line. And here I thought that line stopped working in the '60s. Right about the time when colleges let in women and started going downhill.

Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., an alleged ally, has begun to offer rambling speeches peppered with unanswerable queries on the issue of enemy combatants and executive authority in wartime. I would love to ask the nominee if eight consecutive hours of threats, coercion, good-cop/bad-cop, bad cafeteria food, and more threats constitutes torture under domestic or international law. But I suspect he could make even that answer boring.

Good stuff.

Alito Hearings

I have been able to listen to/watch a good portion of the Senate Judiciary committee hearings on the nomination of Judge Sam Alito to the Supreme Court. Here are a few of my quick hit thoughts/impressions:

1. These two days are pretty much a feast of law and politics for those of us interested in those things. One thing that strikes me is how much some of the questions/answers tracks a really basic Con Law class. I think that I was able to see in Alito occassionaly the fleeting thought - I'm so much smarter than you that this is a joke - while listening to a particular question of a Senator trying to sound smart. But being able to listen to a distinguished appeallate judge answer some of these questions is really exciting. In addition, I was able to see the Charlie Rose show last night where he had Charles Fried - solicitor general under Reagan and current Harvard professor, John Yoo - former executive branch attorney and now professor of law at Berkely, and Noah Feldman - professor of law at NYU discussing the hearings. For someone like me, it was an absolute field day. Boatloads of fun. Yes, I'm a geek. I'm fine with that. I love this stuff.

2. Even saying that, the hearings themselves could be much more interesting. First off, the "questions" coming from the Republican memebers of the panel are nothing more than a well organized defense of Judge Alito. Other than potentially Sen. Spector - and even then totally in defense - there is no probing of the judicial philosophy from the Republicans, it is simply tactical defenses to some of the more flashpoint issues facing Alito...which is essentially igorning vast areas of law which I think it would be interesting to go into. In addition, on both sides of the aisle, the "questions" sound much more like campaign speeches with an almost afterthought - "would you agree?" - stuck on the end. In particular, I was terribly frustrated by Sen. Lindsay Graham who simply would not let Judge Alito speak to answer his questions before jumping back in and answering his own question for himself, and diving into his next talking point. It was ridiculous. In addition, the long winding, politically slanted quesions allow Alito time to structure in his mind, carefully crafted answers which completely step away from the heart of the question being asked. Instead of direct questions calling for direct answers, they are winding questions so it becomes very easy to take one of the off-shoot bends off and spin it into an answer.

3. This "ethical issue" surrounding the Vanguard case is indeed a joke. The fact that the Democrats continue to press the issue demonstrates that for some of these senators, this is more about politics than the Supreme Court - and that makes me sad. The Dems have attempted to say its serious, and not a joke, and an issue that must be clarified...but in all reality it's a smoke screen - in many ways it really reminds me of President George Bush - there is no there, there.

4. And my final initial impression - movement conservatives have hit a home run. This guy is going to be an uber-activist-conservative Justice much more in the mold of Clarence Thomas than the Roberts/Rehnquist/O'Connor mold. ---Understand, a lot of legal scholars are saying the exact oppposite of what I'm saying, so take it with a grain of salt--- But what I'm hearing from this guy indicates that he will uphold essentially any executive action, will be oftentimes hostile to actions taken by the elected legislatures (what he's saying about the commerce clause this morning is highly worrisome to me), and will have ZERO qualms overturning precedent - along the lines of Thomas. He's much more (or less - depending on perspective) willing to resist making the basic vanilla, blanket statements, that Roberts was willing to make - to me this is his way of keeping the door open...not cracked but wide open.

My original impression was that Alito would be a very conservative justice, but more of a mainstream...what I'll refer to as a Roberts conservative (although I admit I don't know what that means just yet...it's more of an impression right now). After a day plus of hearings, I don't think so now. I think this guy will push Thomas for the right of the Court, and one day Scalia will shake his head at Alito's reasonings the way he does now with Thomas. This drags a very conservative court considerably further to the Radical Right.

It should come as no surprise that I would deeply disagree with that shifting of the Court. Having said that - Alito seems supremely qualified and seems to possess the requisite intellect and measure required of a Justice. By electing George Bush, the electorate should have known that this type of justice was a possibily - was what Bush promised.

Read also:
What the Alito Nomination Means for Constitutional Law...
Judicial restraint this nomination is not...
And Alito it is...
Rumors of the next nomination...

Better Late than Never...

I have not posted in a couple of weeks now. If I had any sort of a regular readership, I'd probably be worried about that...but the past weeks have been very busy with the combination of finals, gearing up for the holidays, a really tremendous legal opportunity, and the end of my employment and accounting career.

But, in the midst of all that, last week was ONE GREAT WEEK. I've resigned my job, and will no longer be working as an accountant - but will be going to school full-time, along with several school projects on the side, and an exciting opportunity to get some actual experience. I finished up with my finals for Fall 2005. And - probably most exciting:


HOUSTON HAS AN MLS TEAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wonderful. Here is the website:
MLS Houston

Exciting developments. The (as yet un-named) team will play at Robertson Stadium on the campus of the University of Houston...and it is not an expansion team. The former San Jose Earthquakes are re-locating - so this is a team stocked with talent, and that finished first in the Western Division standings last year, and won MLS Cup two of the past five.

Quite a Christmas present, huh? Yes, more 'important' things have been going on the past two weeks - but this was mighty exciting to me.

Politics of death...

This story is another example of why capital punishment in America is wholly unjust and arbitrary - and is simply unjustified.

The story of Tookie Williams is pretty well know these days. Founder of a notorious gang (the Crips) convicted of four murders, but now while on death row, he has become a leading anti-gang activist and is credited by many former gang members as being the reason for them getting out of the gang lifestyle.

Does that 'conversion' merit the clemency of his sentence of death? I don't know. Obviously I tend to think so - but I'm not convinced that capital punishment works to begin with. Regardless of if he "deserves" clemency, the reason why Williams' case is a textbook example of the arbitrariness and illegitimacy of the death penalty is this:

"Clemency has become part of the politics of criminal punishment and has been slowly evaporating," said Frank Zimring, a clemency expert at the University of California at Berkeley. "When it comes to crime and punishment, there's been a conspicuous toughening of the governor and the public."
....
Schwarzenegger is still smarting from the defeat of four ballot measures he backed during a November special election, and political analysts have said that granting clemency would not sit well with the conservative base the Republican needs if he hopes to win re-election next year.

An independent poll last year found that 68 percent of Californians support the death penalty -- 54 percent of Democrats and 87 percent of Republicans.

"If he granted clemency, I would say, it would be a very divisive opinion," pollster Mark DiCamillo said. "Large segments of the public would take him to task."

I do not know Tookie Williams. I do not know if he committed the heinous crimes he has been convicted of. I do not know if his anti-gang work while on death row is a result of true repentance and conversion, or simply an effort to save his own life.

But I do know that the life and death of a human being - a human being named Tookie Williams - is likely going to be determined more by polls and politics than justice. I do know that is shameful.

Other capital punishment posts:
The wise words of Harry Blackmun...
An incredibly sad textbook example...
Stevens: 'Serious flaws' in death penalty
Believe it or not...
Go buy this book...
Capital Punishment in Texas...
Will Texas lose the death penalty?
Lethal Injustice...
Software Models Capital Punishment Outcomes

The plan for Victory...

Harry Potter spoiler alert...

SPOILER ALERT


This week I finished reading the latest in the Harry Potter series of books - Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.

I was fortunate to be able to get this in over the Thanksgiving holiday - now that I'm in school I very rarely have much time for reading for pleasure. I borrowed Half-Blood Prince from a friend and was about 100 pages into it, a week or so ago, but I was totally lost. There were characters and story lines being referenced which I had absolutely no recognition of. So, then I decided that I needed to go back and read
Harry Potter and the Order of the Pheonix again, because I literally did not remember a thing about that book. That is kind of a scary proposition - the fact that you have read a book before and could not remember a single event, character or plot twist only a year or two later. I console myself thinking about how the thousands of pages of legal cases I've read since then has simply pushed these stories from my mind...but I'm really just worried I'm getting old.

Well, if you've read Half-Blood Prince, you know there are some - shall we say - twists and turns, or surprises in store. Well, I want to talk about some of those surprises a little bit in this post...

So, WARNING - PLOT SPOILERS AHEAD.

If you have not read Half-Blood Prince, but intend on doing so, please stop reading this now - because I am going to write about somethings that happen that you will not want to know before you read. If you do not want to spoil the plot of Half-Blood Prince stop reading now.

Also, WARNING - FUTURE PLOT CONJECTURE AHEAD.

The purpose of this post is I have some ideas kicking around in my head about something that may happen in the seventh and final installment of the Harry Potter books - and if I'm right, it may well not surprise you as much when you read that book. So, if you do not want to face the possibility of a surprise of Book 7 potentially being revealed here, stop reading now.

SPOILER ALERT










Okay, as I mentioned, after reading Half-Blood Prince, I got to thinking about the ending, and something came to me that might be an important part of the final book - and I want to record that here so that, in two years when the final book comes out, I can verify if I was correct or not. I do want to add here - I do not read Harry Potter websites - so if this is a very common theory of what is happening in the books, then I apologize for not citing those sources, but this comes simply from my thoughts about the books, not anything external I've read.

SPOILER ALERT

As you know if you have read Half-Blood Prince, Professor Dumbeldore (Hogwarts Headmaster, and mentor/protector of Harry Potter) dies toward the end of the book. That was a bit of a surprise - not completely, but to some extent. What was much more surprising to me was the source of his death - he was killed by the killing curse by none other than Hogwarts Professor Severus Snape. Snape is a former Death Eater, who had turned spy for the Order of the Pheonix (those whom fight the antagonist in the books - Lord Voldemort). But many in the Order - if not all other than Dumbledore - still did not trust Snape. They felt he was still too entwined in the Dark Arts, and was really still a follower of Voldemort. But Dumbledore steadfastly trusted Snape, and refused to listen to anyone's doubts of Snape's pure loyalty.

And yet it was Snape who administered the curse which killed Dumbledore.

What to make of this. Well, clearly, the idea from the book is that Harry and the other members of the Order were correct all along about Snape - that he was still evil, still following Voldemort, and that Dumbledore was wrong to trust him.

I do not think this is the case. I think Snape is still loyal to the Order, and that even now - having killed Dumbledore and on the run back to Voldemort - he will be acting as spy.

How can that be?

My conjecture is that Dumbledore had a reason to put his trust in Snape fully. What kind of a reason - an Unbreakable Vow. We learn in Half-Blood Prince about these Unbreakable Vows that bind the two oath takers together to the point that death will result if the Vow is broken. What if - and it is a big what if - Dumbledore had convinced Snape to take an Unbreakable Vow of loyalty to him, to the Order, and against Voldemort, but always as spy, never revealing his true loyalties - even if that meant he had to kill Dumbledore in front of other Death Eaters to remain with his access to Voldemort.

This is how I support such a conjecture:

1. Dumbledore never waivered in his support of Snape. In the books, has Dumbledore ever been proven wrong about such a massive point? No.

2. When Harry was chasing Snape and Malfoy from the Hogwarts grounds, Snape fought back only with defensive spells. If he was truly working for Voldemort, there is no reason not to kill Harry at that point - after all he had just killed Dumbledore.

3. My idea is that Dumbledore knew that in order to defeat Voldemort, Harry would need someone on the inside to do something, which will provide Harry the access to kill him. My gut feeling is that at this point, Dumbledore felt his life was less important than Snape's in defeating Voldemort - Snape has to be there in order to accomplish the Feat, the Something which will enable Harry to end the War. Harry doesn't know this. The Order doesn't know this. But Snape does, and he will accompolish the Feat just before he himself perishes - and is redeemed - in the final book.

Who knows. Maybe Snape is just evil. But I think that Dumbledore had a master plan, and he saw his sacrifice as simply a piece of that plan.

We shall see.

Keep the Promise...

Today is World Aids Day. The idea of the world-wide day of awareness is to encourage the international community to step up to the plate and fight the disease.

The theme of this World Aids Day is accountability. There will be international observances calling for nations of the world, and international organizations to keep their committmens in fighting AIDS.

Clearly, the AIDS pandemic is at its devastating worst in the poorest areas of the world. The expense of getting AIDS treatment drugs, combined with lack of proper medical facilities, labratory testing facilities, and proper basics such as nourishment and hygiene make fighting AIDS in developing portions of the world extremely difficult. But it is clearly not a lost cause.

A study to be published in the New England Journal of Medicine today reveals that a holistic approach - even in the poorest areas - can be successful. The study shows that low-cost treatment programs can dramatically increase survival rates in poor countries.

Typically only 30 percent of AIDS patients survive for one year in Haiti, the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere where the HIV infection rate is about 3 percent among adults.

But integrating drug care -- usually generic drugs -- with nutritional support, tuberculosis treatment, counseling and other public health programs brought the survival rate up to 87 percent for adults and 98 percent for children, said Fitzgerald of the Weill Medical College of Cornell University.

That is a rather staggering improvement - especially for the children. And - it's economically efficient:

Fitzgerald and his colleagues said the annual cost of giving a three-drug combination to fight the AIDS virus was about $500 for generic medicines and $750 for brand-name drugs. "We estimated the overall cost per patient per
year (including medicine) as about $1,600," they said.

If you are able to spend a paltry $1,600 and re-gain a functioning memeber of the community, who is able to go back to work...or if a child, is able to grow up and contribute to the community - that is a bargain.

But of course, the poorest regions of Africa, central America, and Asia are not the only places where there is suffering from this disease. Even here, in one of the wealthiest nations of the world, people struggle with AIDS - and at all levels, the poor, middle class, and even the wealthy. AIDS is no respecter of income. And even though many here in America are able to take advantage of drugs and treatment which enables them to live strong, vibrant lives - there still is no cure...which I was reminded of all to closely this year. Much has been done, but there is so much left to do.

A few more links:
UNAIDS
US Dept. of State
Kaiser Family Foundation

Stop AIDS. Keep the promise.

There's just no 'there' there...

From what I've been able to read of Bush's "major policy speech" today, it seemed to be a more detailed speech than Bush has given in the past - but he still completely failed to describe exactly what the strategy was, or exactly what victory means (looks like). From the speech:

The terrorists have made it clear that Iraq is the central front in their war against humanity. And so we must recognize Iraq as the central front in the war on terror.

Iraq was not the central front of the war on terror until our invasion and occupation. This is a straw-man that Bush and his admin constantly leans on - but it is merely a problem of their own creation.

Against this adversary there is only one effective response: We will never back down, we will never give in, and we will never accept anything less than complete victory.

What is complete victory against terrorism? Does anyone have any clue? Bush obviously doesn't. This is a tired line which is nothing more than an excuse for an unending war.

Most Americans want two things in Iraq: They want to see our troops win and they want to see our troops come home as soon as possible. And those are my goals as well. I will settle for nothing less than complete victory.

But he refuses to say what victory is - what is it that signals that we can get out?

Victory will come when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq's democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can provide for the safety of their own citizens, and when Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to plot new attacks on our nation.

What does that mean? The terrorists weren't there until Bush invited them in by invading Iraq, knocking out a stable (although evil) government. This (as noted above) is a red-herring argument specifically designed to make sure that we don't have to leave - there is no plan for how to leave.

In addition today, the White House put out a booklet called "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq." This was to be the detail - the meat - behind Bush's speech today. It sets out eight "strategic pillars."

1. Defeat the terrorists and neutralize the insurgency.

Absolute straw man and shockingly arrogant that they would put this as a first "pillar" for their strategy in Iraq - there were no terrorists nor insurgency until we invaded.

2. Help Iraq’s security forces become self-reliant.

A valid point. Of course, this clearly was not part of the original strategy, because the Admin though that Iraq would welcome us as occupiers with "parades and roses." But still Bush does not outline a plan - specifically a timeline - of how to actually DO this.

3. Help Iraqis forge a national compact for democratic government.

What does this mean? How long does this take? They have a constitution now, does that mean this prong is complete - or not?

4. Help Iraq build government capacity and provide essential services.

Again, what does this mean? How long does it take? Does this mean that we run their welfare systems - utilities - postal services - military? How much "government capacity" = victory?

5. Help Iraq strengthen its economy.

The last four "pillars" have all started with "Help..." - how does that define a victory? What is the definition of a strong economy? Who decides? How long does this take? Does this mean that they have a roaring stock market and suburban housing bubble - or simply that the lights get to stay on 24 hours?

6. Help Iraq strengthen the rule of law and promote civil rights.

More help. So, we are somehow going to define our "victory" by the promotion of civil rights...anyone think this was an original part of the US strategy for Iraq? I'm betting not. Again - this is a totally undefined, hazy, illigitimate excuse to stay in Iraq as long as you want to, have to, etc.

7. Increase international support for Iraq.

This is a great idea. I've been harping on international involvement for years - going back to pre-invasion. Of course, again, this clearly was never a true part of the strategy for invasion and occupation - it's just a toss in now to sound nice. In addition - how in the world do we use this as a guage of "victory?" How much "international support" = victory? Totally undefined.

8. Strengthen public understanding of U.S.-led coalition efforts and public isolation of the insurgents.

Because I guess the whole parades and roses strategy didn't work out so well.

The Bush Admin is simply demonstrating their lack of a plan - lack of a plan for how to manage after the initial invasion; lack of a plan for the long-term occupation; and a lack of a plan for how to actually get out. Bush refuses to acknowledge that he has made collosal mistakes of judgment - and to cover up those mistakes, he's stubbornly "staying the course" although he and his administration have no idea what that course is.

Another photo op...

This morning, President Bush goes back before another military audience to detail his "strategy" for the occupation of Iraq, detail the progress that is being made, and detail what victory in Iraq is supposed to look like.

It seems as if he's done this 5+ times in the past six months, but there has never actually seemed to be a "strategy"; progress gets mixed reviews at best; and no one - absolutely no one - has ever been able to define what "winning" this occupation means.

And now:
~ we're mired in an occupation that we had no moral authority to initiate - and will lose what little moral authority we have if we leave and let the nation collapse into civil war and turmoil
~ of course, that point is almost moot because the Bush administration clings to the support and use of torture, which (a) undermines any moral authority the United States may once have had; and (b) puts American soldiers and citizens in much greater peril
~ Iraq has been turned into the largest terrorist recruiting grounds in the world
~ oh, and Baghdad doesn't even have electricity 24 hours a day yet...all those no bid contracts have really been a bargain
~ in order to cover up the misinformation campaign that led to the war, the White House leaked the name of an undercover CIA agent
~ and worst of all, another 110 US soldiers died in Iraq in about the past month, bringing the total casualties to 2110

Yet, the more I think about this horrific situation in Iraq, the less I'm convinced that pulling out the US military now is the right way to go. Having said that, I think that this makes some sense:
~ set a timeline to start redeployment
~ get the UN, NATO, and other world organizations involved
~ get American companies with no bid contracts out (and the US "security" contractors) to get rid of the American Empire feel of this occupation
~ set clear deadlines for the training of Iraqi security forces

These aren't crazy suggestions (and obviously its not original to me) - its just an actual plan. I hope that Pres. Bush's speech will address these issues, because if it doesn't, it's just more evidence that he never had a strategy for occupation; his administration does not have a plan for progress; and they have no clue what victory will look like.

Parents gone wild...

Interesting article in yesterday's NY Times - Kids Gone Wild. It is a glipse of the problem of bad behavior among today's kids. As a parent, I am obviously interested in this topic. I often stuggle with how to raise my son to be polite, quiet, well-behaved, and respectful - when those traits seem to have flown out the window for this generation.

I think that this article overall makes an excellent point:

But what seems to have changed recently, according to childrearing experts, is parental behavior - particularly among the most status-conscious and ambitious - along with the kinds of behavior parents expect from their kids. The pressure to do well is up. The demand to do good is down, way down, particularly if it's the kind of do-gooding that doesn't show up on a college application.

It's scary - from my perspective - but undoubtably true that much of the behavior problems of children these days stems from parental behavior. Although it's not as fun to have to blame yourself for a problem instead of blaming the kids.

Most parents ... would like their children to be polite, considerate and well behaved. But they're too tired, worn down by work and personally needy to take up the task of teaching them proper behavior at home.

I like the way that is phrased - "task of teaching." The fact of the matter is it's work to teach proper behavior to a two-year-old. And so often, I find myself after a long day of work, and then night classes not wanting to "work" anymore at home - so it's easier just to be permissive...but what is easy is not always (or even often) what is best.

The article concludes:

If stress and strain, self-centeredness and competition are the pathogens underlying the rash of rudeness perceived to be endemic among children in America today, then the cure, some experts said, has to be systemic and not topical. Stop blaming the children, they said. Stop focusing on the surface level of behavior and start curing instead the social, educational and parental ills that feed it.

This may mean less "quality" time with children and more time getting them to do things they don't want to do, like sitting for meals, making polite conversation and ... picking their clothes up off the floor.

I think this is true. In order to raise disciplined kids, you yourself have to have the discipline as a parent to accept the task - the work - and see it out. :Sigh: Nothing comes easy, does it?

Misunderestimation...

Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen in his Op-Ed Iraq and the 'L' Word:

The restraint of responsible war critics has been remarkable. Despite a recent headline on the Wall Street Journal's editorial page -- "What If People Start Believing That 'Bush Lied'?" -- the "L" word has been prudently withheld by elected Democrats. But you would think that Bush himself would wonder about how he's gotten to this place where he looks like such a fool: wrong on the biggest issue of his presidency. He went out there and told the American people things that were not true. Does that mean he lied? Maybe not. Maybe he was just repeating the lies of others.

Wrong on the biggest issue of his Presidency. The problem, of course, is that the American people should have known this from before March 2003 and not allowed it to happen...and once it did, we should have rejected this administration in total...but we re-elected them.

The Houston Chronicle carried this tragic story from the war today about an officer who was demonized by the dishonor he saw in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The article includes these quotes:

In e-mail to his family, Westhusing seemed especially upset by one conclusion he had reached: that traditional military values such as duty, honor and country had been replaced by profit motives in Iraq, where the U.S. has come to rely heavily on contractors for jobs once done by the military.

A psychologist reviewed Westhusing's e-mail and interviewed colleagues. She said that Westhusing had placed too much pressure on himself to succeed and that he was unusually rigid in his thinking. Westhusing struggled with the idea that monetary values could outweigh moral ones in war.

So, these days, struggling with the idea that monetary values outweigh moral ones in an invasion and occupation is unusually rigid thinking? A sad commentary.

First Digital Camera Pics...

We finally got a digital camera over the weekend, so here are a few of our first photos...

What an interesting thought...

What an interesting thoughts from Scott Horton at Balkinization: Nuremberg at Sixty: Is Jackson's Poisoned Chalice Now at Bush's Lips?

The post is short, but I'm not going to post it all...but here is a taste:

For the last twenty years, it’s been common practice among law professors to view modern human rights law, and in a sense the entire international law system, as something that started with the gavel that convened the first of the Nuremberg criminal tribunals. That gavel fell sixty years ago today. These tribunals gave force to the concept that international law was not just about relations between nations. International law also created obligations for individuals, who could be subject to trial and severe sanction. America was the most aggressive proponent of this course, and the American prosecutor, Justice Robert Jackson, was extremely conscious of what this meant for his country. “We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our lips as well.”

Read the rest.

What remains of federalism?

This post by Professor Randy Barnett over at Volokh Conspiracy led me to his interesting (and short) paper entitled Limiting Raich a foreword to the coming Lewis and Clark Law Review symposium issue on Federalism After Gonzales v. Raich.

Prof. Barnett, of course, has an interesting perspective on Raich, since he is the lead attorney and argued the case before the Supreme Court last term. In the paper, he argues for a way that a future - more pro-federalism - Court could limit the holding. Here is the abstract to the paper:

In Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court rejected a constitutional challenge to the Controlled Substance Act, as applied to the cultivation, possession and use of cannabis for medical purposes as recommended by a physician and authorized by state law. The challenge relied on the precedents of United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison in which the Court had found that the statutes involved had exceeded the powers of Congress under the Commerce Clause. As explained by the articles in the symposium in which this Foreword will appear, the Court in Raich has now cast the applicability of these previous decisions into doubt. In this brief essay, I offer a route by which a future majority of the Supreme Court can limit the scope of its decision in Gonzales v. Raich should it desire to put its commitment to federalism above a commitment to national power. Viewed in this light, the decision in Raich is not quite as sweeping as it first appears.

It is a relatively interesting and quick read.

I rather disagree with Prof. Barnett's contentions - both in Raich, and in his support of Lopez and Morrison. In fact, I am in the midst of writing a paper to submit to Legal Affairs writing competitions which is based on some of my commerce clause ramblings on this blog. I think that Lopez and Morrision were abberations in the Court's history of Commerce Clause jurisprudence, and a form of strict federalism has no place in this day and time. Having said that, it is ALWAYS illuminating to be able to get nuggets liket this straight from the horse's mouth - in this case the attorney arguing the case before the Supreme Court.

You can read more of my posts related to Raich here:
Medical Marijuana or State's Rights?
Raich handed down...
More on Raich...

And more general comments on the Commerce Clause and federalism here:
What is commerce?