Establishment Pundit Acknowledges The Seer--All Hail Kevin Drum

David Broder today notes an article the Washington Monthly ran back in 2004 containing predictions by various experts on what the second Bush term would be like:

"The one commentator who got it exactly right was Kevin Drum, who runs the magazine's blog. 'What do we have to look forward to if George W. Bush is elected to a second term?' he asked. 'One word: scandal.'"

A Liberal's Dilemma--Kevin Drum

Kevin Drum comments on Mr. Beinart's recent book:

"So what is it that Beinart really wants from antiwar liberals? The obvious answer is found less in policy than in rhetoric: we need to engage more energetically with the war on terror and criticize illiberal regimes more harshly.

Maybe so. But this is something that's nagged at me for some time. On the one hand, I think Beinart is exactly right. For example, should I be more vocal in denouncing Iran? Sure. It's a repressive, misogynistic, theocratic, terrorist-sponsoring state that stands for everything I stand against. Of course I should speak out against them.

And yet, I know perfectly well that criticism of Iran is not just criticism of Iran. Whether I want it to or not, it also provides support for the Bush administration's determined and deliberate effort to whip up enthusiasm for a military strike. Only a naif would view criticism of Iran in a vacuum, without also seeing the way it will be used by an administration that has demonstrated time and again that it can't be trusted to act wisely.

So what to do? For the most part, I end up saying very little. And Beinart is right: there's a sense in which that betrays my own liberal ideals. But he's also wrong, because like it or not, my words — and those of other liberals — would end up being used to advance George Bush's distinctly illiberal ends. And I'm simply not willing to be a pawn in the Bush administration's latest marketing campaign.

I don't have a very good answer" [He asks for comments, most of which prove a bit disappointing to me.]

Seems to me there's several answers:

1. Be faithful to the facts as you see them. Facts can compel one to speak out (see Martin Luther) regardless of who is helped or hurt.
   
2. Realize that the emotions of debate are good and useful. For example, to my mind Kevin overstates the villainy of the Bush administration out of emotion. That motivates him to probe the situation for facts that counter the Bush policy. Even though he mostly agrees with Bush on the nature of the Iranian regime, he's likely to come up with different facts and have different blind spots than Mr. Cheney.
   
3. Maximize your impact. Where 1 and 2 would argue for a liberal to speak out on Iran, this could be seen as cover for cowardice. For example, the cases of both Iran and North Korea are very difficult. So liberals can take potshots at Bush policies that appear mistaken, but there's really no obvious alternative, so why should liberals struggle to find one? It's not written in the heavens that a liberal should have a solid policy alternative to every issue. (For one thing, the lack of a policy is a policy--kick the can down the road and hope that events change the situation. Death, after all, is certain, even for our foes.)

One Nation, One Language?

What does history teach about the need for a nation to have a common/national/official language?

As always with history's lessons, the message is mixed. One could argue, I suppose, that the worst war in U.S. history was not caused by language--that the South and North didn't speak different languages. And if we look north to Canada while we've seen signs over the years of strains caused by two official languages, they've survived pretty well with much less bloodshed than we. And if we look south to Mexico and beyond, we're reminded that multiple (native) languages can cause problems, but don't necessarily mean division.

Personally I'd look to economics. Whenever two people with no language in common get together, they try to trade, either goods or sex. (Simply follow GI's in foreign countries.) To oversimplify, as long as our immigrant population is part of the U.S. economy, they'll become "Americans", regardless of whether they become citizens or not.

Are Economists Exceptionally Christian?

Alex Tabarrok has an article claiming that economists mostly support immigration and outlining reasons why hereTCS Daily - Why Ruin the World's Best Anti-Poverty Program?: His points include:

"Economists are probably also more open to immigration than the typical member of the public because of their ethics -- while economists may be known for assuming self-interested behavior wherever they look, economists in their work tend not to distinguish between us and them. We look instead for policies that at least in principle make everyone better off. Policies that make us better off at the price of making them even worse off are for politicians, not economists."

Somehow this seems "christian" to me, in the old golden rule sense.

Flash--Pope Foresees the Future

Today's News from MSNBC - MSNBC.com: "Pope begins pilgrimage to successor's homeland"

Competition at the Bloodmobile

Eugene Volokh says

"You Know You're Too Competitive When This Happens:

A few months ago, I was donating blood here at UCLA; a law student was one cot over from me; and both of us simultaneously noticed that my blood was flowing out faster than hers."

I well remember the feeling.

Be Nice to Conservatives/Libertarians

I think Virginia Postrel falls in the conservative/libertarian camp, but not aggressively so. Whatever her politics, she deserves praise for this:

Texas Monthly June 2006: Here’s Looking at You, Kidney:

"Most important, it turned out, I had the right personality. Donating a kidney isn’t, in fact, a matter of just showing up. You have to be pushy. Unless you’re absolutely determined, you’ll give up, and nobody will blame you—except, of course, the person who needs a kidney. When I went to see my Dallas doctor for preliminary tests, the first thing she said was “You know, you can change your mind."

Problems with Patrick Henry College

Patrick Henry College started a few years back as a college for home-schooled students and religious conservatism. It grew and thrived, but today's Post indicates there may be problems:
5 Professors Quit Religious School:

"Nearly a third of the faculty members at Patrick Henry College in Loudoun County are leaving the school because of what they described as limitations on their academic freedom, causing unusual introspection at the politically connected Christian liberal arts college."

It may be simply a conflict between an opinionated founder and some faculty. But it may also be just another instance of a college starting with a clear and narrow vision which the dominant culture forces to fuzz and spread. Or, like a flashlight beam, the beam is sharpest closest to the bulb.

Misunderstanding Reality on the Right

John at Power Line blogs on English as the official language closing with this line:

"My Congressman, Col. John Kline, is a long-time advocate of legislation establishing English as the country's official language. The principle is sound, but the question is, will the legislation make any difference? To the extent that we still hear, 'Press 1 for English,' the answer may be No."

It's amazing that a conservative, presumably strongly in favor of free market principles, would make such an elementary mistake. The use of multiple languages in company operations is a direct response to competition among companies for customers. No company is going to try to exclude potential customers, whether they're Hispanic, French-speaking, gays or evangelicals. At the margins making another sale is pure profit and that's what companies do.

The same principle applies to government bureaucracies--while we aren't profit driven the more people we serve the more power we get on the Hill.

And the same works for colleges. Most colleges [Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc.] in the country started with an affiliation to a church. As time passed and they competed for students they found themselves leaving the affiliation behind.

Conservatives laugh at the French, who try vainly to preserve their language against the onslaughts of English. They need to look in the mirror.

Farewell to Tax Evader Richard Hatch

In the end to a story that I blogged about early on, Richard Hatch was sentenced to 51 months in prison for tax evasion. See ABC News: 'Survivor' Tips for Richard Hatch in Prison for details:

"'Survivor' winner Richard Hatch might want to rethink his affinity for recreational nudity as he heads off for more than four years in federal prison.

Several legal experts gave practical advice to Hatch, the reality show's first million-dollar prize winner, after he was sentenced to 51 months in federal prison for failing to pay taxes on the $327,000 he earned as co-host of a Boston radio show and $28,000 in rent on property he owned."

As far as I'm concerned, it's an end that should be shared by many white collar criminals. (Feeling particularly Calvinistic today.)