No, You're Not Lost... ...if you're seeing this message, it's just because I'm experimenting importing files from Blogger to WordPress. This isn't my long promised blog redesign. Please check here for now if you're looking for Decision '08...Thanks!...  ¶ 7:28 AM

  Another Story Of What Might Have Been AJStrata has the scoop on yet another story that illustrates how close we had been to preventing 9/11 if red tape could have been replaced with better cooperation. It is certainly borderline infuriating (hell, infuriating, period) how much information we knew about the hijackers prior to 9/11, including monitoring by government agencies that knew they were national security risks. I still think many people, including the main culprit of AJ's story, got off way too easy for what seem to be colossal, incredibly costly blunders...  ¶ 9:36 PM

  Resolution 1559 vs. Taif Accord A question: there seems to be a broad consensus in Lebanon for Syrian troops to leave. There is no such consensus on UN Resolution 1559, which calls for disarming Hizbullah. If Hizbullah wants to take part in the political future of Lebanon, why doesn't it disband its military arm? Isn't part of national sovereignty the ability to protect the government internally and externally? Would the United States, whose principle of seperation of church and state is so admired by my friend Hasan, allow an armed militia to exist within its borders, unaccountable to civilian government control?

I find it hard to avoid the conclusion that Hizbullah is more interested in pursuing Syria's interests than Lebanon's...  ¶ 8:23 PM

  On Israel, Zionism, The Middle East, and 'Reality' I find it interesting that Hasan accuses President Bush of being divorced from reality in the same post in which he talks about a 'small' Lebanese opposition. Hasan claims that the opposition was 'embarrassed' by the staged, Syrian-organized Hizbullah demonstration, but conveniently ignores the far larger, much more spontaneous, and undeniably anti-Syrian rallies going on at this very moment. Oh, but don't take my word for it, listen to the liberal New York Times.

Even a cursory reading of the Hebrew Bible reveals an Israel that is bound by its faith to the land of Canaan (see Martin Buber, among others). Hasan may argue against Israel, but he cannot credibly claim that Zionism and the Jewish state are not entwined. This does not amount to a blanket endoresement of current Israeli policies; nor does it mean I am 'against' the Palestinians. I am the first to admit that abuses have occurred on both sides, but a dislike of Israeli policies and a caricatured portrait of President Bush cannot hide the fact that freedom is on the march, and that Bush has been a driving force behind it. I refer you to the words of his Second Inaugural Address:

We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.

Which part of that does Hasan disagree with, other than the speaker of the words?

I am disappointed to find my friends of the Left still, at this late date, reflexively taking the anti-U.S. position, as long as it offers a chance to take shots at the current occupant of the White House. George W. Bush has loudly proclaimed his support for a Palestinian state. He is the first President to do so as a matter of official policy. In fact, in August 2004, he was the first President to use the term Palestine to refer to a politically sovereign entity. Facts are funny things; they often get in the way, but they can't be ignored.  ¶ 7:04 AM

  Liberty, Death, Patrick Henry and 9/11 When I say the foremost right is the right to live, I mean the right not to get murdered just because you work in a skyscraper. I agree with Hasan that the words of Patrick Henry are a stirring call to sacrifice...but Henry was giving his life for a reason, and a damn good one; it wasn't a pointless death in the searing heat of jet fuel.

By the same token, Hasan asks if our current president has read the constitution. I've never quite understood why the Bush administration has taken so much heat from civil libertarians...it is the job of the judiciary to determine constitutionality. Every president has had to send his Justice Department attorneys to the Supreme Court to defend his policies...some you win, some you lose. If the current climate strikes some as too constrictive, lay it at the feet of the Supreme Court, not the Executive Branch.

To accuse this president of fascist tendencies, as some on the left have done, while he stands time and time again in word and deed for the cause of freedom, and while we see real, substantive change happening in areas where it was previously thought impossible, seems very disingenuous to me.  ¶ 8:10 PM

  On Labeling and Other Matters My good friend Hasan defines a patriotic American as more than a citizen by birth (or immigration), but as an upholder and defender of core American values. I couldn't agree more. I suspect that there are many on the left who are tired of hearing their patriotism questioned because they aren't unequivably in favor of our current policies, and that's a fair objection.

I plead guilty to using labels in my earlier post, - 'progressive', 'Truman Democrat' - that some may see as stereotyping; my intent was to provoke discussion on whether there is a schism between the 'progressive' (i.e., quite radical) wing and the more moderate, traditional Democratic wing. I am of the opinion that there is, and that the Left will have to address it one way or another. The most plausible long-term outcome is the spinning off of the progressive faction into a European-style Green Party, as I mentioned.

Perhaps I should explain why I consider myself a conservative, and what that means to me. I, too, believe firmly in the Bill of Rights, and I can understand why some of our post-9/11 actions are viewed as an infringement upon civil liberties. It is essential that we carry out that debate. In my view, the most fundamental human right is life. The second is freedom. You can't enjoy liberty and the pursuit of happiness if you're not safe from those who wish you harm. This is the rationale, whether right or wrong, of many of the actions in the War on Terror.

My core belief is in the primacy of the individual. To me, the right to private property and to minimal government is sacrosanct. I don't endorse the libertarian extremes of an emasculated government that basically builds highways and fights wars. I believe the state has a proper role in most issues, but our politicians must always be guided by the threefold aim of the founders to ensure 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'.

Of course, there's much more to it than that, and we'll have all the time in the world to get into these things further. I appreciate Hasan's hesitancy to embrace the label of liberal - it can be used as a bludgeon, just as the appellation 'right-winger' can. In case you're wondering, the title of this blog is a tongue-in-cheek poke at this high degree of partisanship. I hope we'll avoid that trap most of the time; I'm sure we'll fall into it occasionally, as well.  ¶ 8:14 PM

  A Conservative's Confession One of the knocks on conservatives is that we consider ourselves self-righteous or holier-than-thou - not me; in fact, the Dante's Inferno test says I belong on the second level of Hell (apparently I'm quite lustful). Take it yourself, it's fun!

The Dante's Inferno Test has banished you to the Second Level of Hell!
Here is how you matched up against all the levels:

Level	Score
Purgatory (Repenting Believers)	Moderate
Level 1 - Limbo (Virtuous Non-Believers)	Low
Level 2 (Lustful)	Very High
Level 3 (Gluttonous)	High
Level 4 (Prodigal and Avaricious)	Low
Level 5 (Wrathful and Gloomy)	Moderate
Level 6 - The City of Dis (Heretics)	Very Low
Level 7 (Violent)	High
Level 8- the Malebolge (Fraudulent, Malicious, Panderers)	High
Level 9 - Cocytus (Treacherous)	Low

Take the Dante Inferno Hell Test  ¶ 10:55 AM

  Consider: Is the Current Democratic Party Viable? The ascension of Howard Dean to chairman of the DNC has thrown a spotlight on what I see as a fundamental split in the Democratic Party. I cannot see how a party of young, idealistic, yes, but headstrong and somewhat foolhardy activists can coexist with the party of Harry Truman. In other words, can MoveOn.org and the Democratic Leadership Council get along? Or is a breakup what the doctor ordered?

No one can doubt the Democratic Party's recent success in increasing donations and activism through the Internet, but where are the results? I have heard many argue that the Democrats haven't been 'tough enough', but I can tell you that from my side of the aisle, the 'progressive' crowd seems like, for the most part, a group of shrill anarchists. I would argue (and yes, I realize the left may not welcome advice from the right, no matter how sincere) that the Democrats need to move toward the center if they are to regain the White House. Bill Clinton is now seen by many on the right, no matter how we feel about his personal conduct, as the model of a successful Democratic politician, and he was pretty centrist, for the most part.

The problem is the Dean thing, for want of a better term. The progressives have given Dean a base and the chairmanship through their financial clout; they will scream bloody murder over any move to the center. The Democrats will never win the presidency, however, with a progressive candidate - just look at the reaction of the ordinary Iowans when the Deaniacs rolled into town.

How to solve the impasse? I can only see one way out. Sooner or later (and I'm betting on later), the progressives and the traditional Dems are going to have to part ways. There simply is not enough common ground to unite them anymore. The progressives are really nothing more or less than a European-style Green Party (by that, I mean the prominence of socialist themes alongside the environmental, give-peace-a-chance, flower-child faction). I cannot for the life of me imagine Harry Truman at a Howard Dean rally...can you?

The question remains - can the American political system make room for a serious third (or fourth) major party, or is the two-party system destined to dominate for the duration? We'll find out soon enough...

(cross-posted at Decision '08)  ¶ 7:27 AM