Citizen Cain

Rahm Bombs

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Cain) — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 13:03:00 +0000

Rep. Rahm Emmanuel was on Real Time with Bill Maher last night, promoting his new book, "The Plan." He said that there are five points that the Ds need to get across to the public, plus one other point. Already, this doesn't seem like great marketing. Five points plus one point? What the hell is that? How about six points? Anyway, here they are:

1. Balance the budget in five years.
2. Make college education as universal in the 21st century as high school education was in the 20th century.
3. Every who works gets health care.
4. Create a "hydrid-based economy" and cut America's dependence on oil in half in ten years.
5. Create an "institute for science and engineering" to do for new technology and new jobs what the NIH has done for healthcare.
Extra bonus point. Bring the country together for a common purpose and a common mission.

Are you feeling inspired? Me neither. Citizen Cain can do better. Here's my seven point plan:

1. Provide tax relief to average Americans, while making sure that corporations and wealthy people pay their fair share
2. Double federal support for education.
3. Everyone gets health care. Basic health care insurance is no longer tied to employment.
4. Cut America's dependence on oil in half in ten years and begin to address global warming through major incentives for energy efficiency and for alternative energy.
5. Make the country more secure through a serious commitment to homeland security, to rebuilding America's alliances, and through a focus on destroying al Qaeda.
6. Restore competence and integrity to government, with lobbying reform and a commitment to a government that works for all the citizens, not just the wealthy and politically connected.
7. Protect social security.

Assignment: discuss, in the comments section, the many reasons why Citizen Cain's plan is superior to Rep. Emmanuel's plan. No fair saying that seven points is better than five points plus one point-- I already said that.

In subsequent posts, Citizen Cain will grade your answers.

Iraq: Now the Bad News

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Cain) — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 01:27:00 +0000

In the last post, we looked at some good news from Iraq-- the increasing capability of the Iraqi security forces. Today, we look at the bad news. And, as with all good new/bad news jokes, the bad news (almost) completely negates the good news.

There's a lot of bad news. Here's just some of it:

Those increasingly capable Iraqi security forces are, in most cases, just ethnic, religious or tribal militias in uniform, with little loyalty to the central government. Anthony Cordesman, who was the source of most of our good news in the last post, confirms that this is the case.

The prospects for the government of national unity that Condoleeza Rice and Jack Straw want the Iraqis to put together look increasingly dim. It now seems likely either that a government just can't be formed, or that the new government will leave significant groups unhappy and ready for war. In addition to the Shia-Sunni-Kurd conflict, the chances are rising of intra-community battles.

Baghdad and several other parts of the country are in the throes of ethnic (or religious) cleansing. While much of the country is relatively calm, that calm has been secured largely by ethnic, religious or tribal militias. As ethnic cleansing heats up, it is increasingly likely that these militias will mobilize nationally in an attempt to secure territory. Think Yugoslavia after Tito. Think Lebanon in the 1970s. If that's the case, the improved "quality" of these militias will be poor consolation.

If conditions continue to deteriorate, the United States will face some hard choices. No choice is good, but it is clear that as the civil war intensifies, and as Shiite militias become increasingly capable of taking on Sunni extremists, the case for U.S. withdrawal is strengthened. It's one thing to help a government fight against an insurgency, another to participate in or try to stop a civil war.

Citizen Cain has always been leery of just pulling out of Iraq, because as bad as conditions are, they will get worse if the civil war moves from assassinations in the night and battles involving platoon-sized groups, and takes on the scale of battalion-sized military units engaging in artillery duels in the middle of cities. But there’s a limit. We can’t go to war on the side of the Madhi army, and we there’s a limit to the casualties that we should accept in the name of keeping the violence in Iraq down to a low simmer.

Maybe there’s a way to pull out partially or gradually that will limit the risks to our soldiers while giving the Iraqis some chance of stabilizing the situation. I’m dubious. But we have to face the significant possibility that we can’t win in Iraq at an acceptable cost, and prepare for it.

Iraq: First the Good News

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Cain) — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 22:22:00 +0000

The right wing talking point of the last fortnight seems to be that the MSM is failing to report all the good news from Iraq. Laura Ingraham, William Bennett, Michael Fumento, Howard Kaloogian, George Bush, and many others have all pushed this theme.

Stephen Kaus asks the right question. What, exactly, is the good news that the MSM is failing to report? For the most part, I agree with the Kaus's answer: there is no good news. In one area, however, I disagree. Unlike Kaus, I think that there is evidence that the Iraqi army is increasingly capable, and that one could make a case that this "good news" is underreported. However, I would argue that the good news about the improved ability of Iraq's military forces is overwhelmed by terrible news in the broader political situation, and that as a result, the overall picture in Iraq is terrible and getting worse.

Kaus is understandably skeptical of claims that the Iraqi military is improving:

Is it [the underreported good news] the Iraqis taking over the battle? We have heard that before and the statistics then went backwards. Laura Ingraham acknowledges that the previous iterations were false ("I think what we're doing now in Iraq is maybe finally the right thing. The Iraqi military is taking over more of the battle space."), but neither she nor the government seems to have anything specific. Saying that "more and more Iraqis are taking the fight," as President Bush did on Thursday is a little short in the evidence department.

Good point. Since Laura Ingraham and George Bush failed to tell us that the Iraqi military was in bad shape before, they're hardly credible when they tell us know that the situation has improved. However, we needn't rely on them. Anthony Cordesman of the Center on Strategic and International Studies is one of the leading American experts on Middle Eastern militaries and the author of Inexcusable Failure: Progress in Training the Iraqi Army and Security Forces as of Mid-July 2004. If the title doesn't convince you that Cordesman is willing to be critical of the administration, here are some details:

. . . failed dismally to execute their plans in the security sector . . .

and:

The CPA never standardized its public reporting on the status of Iraqi training, although the data always implied a much higher level of training than actually took place. The training data on the Iraqi security forces were also altered in ways that disguises the level of training in most services in the in CPA reporting issued from April 2004 onwards, by implying that training under the Ba’ath regime, or limited on the job training under the Transition Integration Program (TIP) was adequate.

and:

Most of the training was little more than at the token level . . .

and:

No single mission is more important than security, and no Iraqi popular desire is clearer than that this mission be done by Iraqis. The US has been guilty of a gross military, administrative, and moral failure. It seems to be finally taking steps to correct these mistakes, but its past history shows that detailed progress reporting is essential, and that the US military has been reluctant at best to come to grips with the need for an effective effort.

So if Cordesman thinks that the quality of the Iraqi military is improving, I think we should take notice. Here he is in a February 15 draft report:

In spite of the problems facing Iraqi forces, they have made major progress. Changes in the US led Coalition advisory effort have led to steadily higher selection and training standards and better equipment and facilities. Embedding US training teams in each new Iraqi unit, and pairing them with US combat units until they could operate on their own, has made a major qualitative difference in the field. More and more Iraqi units have come on-line.

and:

By early December, a total of 50 battalions were at Level 1-3 readiness and active in dealing with the insurgency. In March 2005, there were only three battalions manning their own areas—all in Baghdad. A total of 24 battalions were in charge of their own battle space in October and 33 in late December. In January 2006, the US army transferred an area of operation to an entire Iraqi army division for the first time in Qadissiya and Wassit provinces, an active combat area south of Baghdad. In early February 2006, 40 of the army’s 102 battalions had taken over security in the areas where they operated, and in contested areas, such as parts of Fallujah, Ramadi and Samarra.

and:

The Army was making real progress in developing effective personnel. NCO and specialist training improved, officers and NCOs now had considerable experience, and most training institutions were now functional. The Iraqi Military Academy at Al Rustamiyeh, modeled on the British academy at Sandhurst, graduated its first year-long course of 73 officer cadets on January 19, 2006.62 The NCO academy at Q-West Base Complex was also fully functional, and provided training to NCOs which had already demonstrated their capability by serving in Iraqi forces. A "master trainer program" to teach Iraqi NCOs how to train other Iraqi soldiers was underway and producing significant numbers of graduates by January 2006.

Is this enough progress? Does this progress excuse the administration's earlier failures? No. But it is progress nonetheless.

But how important are these changes? Does the fact that Iraqi security forces are improving mean that the overall situation in Iraq is improving? Are we making progress? Citizen Cain says no. Our next post will cover just a few of the reasons for pessimism.

(note: lightly edited for format and to add links on 4/2)

Citizen Cain: Prophet of the Israeli Election

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Cain) — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 01:39:00 +0000

After Ariel Sharon was incapacitated by stroke, conventional wisdom was that his newly-formed Kadima party would be in trouble and that Likud would be resurgent. Citizen Cain resisted the conventional wisdom put forth by lesser minds and prophecied the victory of the center-left and the exclusion of Likud from the new government. From January 5:

Citizen Cain's bold prediction-- a coalition that excludes Likud will win. Some combination of Kadima, Labor and smaller parties, who will continue the policy of selective unilateral disengagement from the Palestinians.

Events prove: never bet against Citizen Cain.

Even Worse

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Cain) — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 04:41:00 +0000

Zeyad reports that al-Iraqiya TV has been highly critical the U.S. attack on Madhi army militiamen, described by the U.S. as a terror cell. Al Iraqiya is referring to them as "martyrs."

How bad is that? Al-Iraqiya is the U.S.-funded network that is supposed to be the pro-American alternative to al Jazeera. Apparently, we can't even buy a friend in Iraq any more.

Untenable

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Cain) — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 02:50:00 +0000

The situation in Iraq keeps getting more untenable. The Washington Post reports that U.S. and Iraqi forces killed at least 16 members of a "terrorist cell" tied to Moqtada al Sadr. This cell, according to the Post, was "responsible for attacks on soldiers and civilians."

Of course, while some of Sadr's followers are engaging in terror attacks, others are holding positions in Parliament and in goverment ministries.

An outspoken opponent of the U.S. presence in Iraq, Sadr has become a potent political force, fielding more than 30 loyal members in Iraq's new parliament. The incident Sunday was his deadliest encounter with U.S. and Iraqi forces since his Mahdi Army militia waged two violent uprisings in 2004.
"I think we are going to have a firm stance against the American forces because of this crime," Salam al-Maliki, the country's transportation minister and a close Sadr ally, said on al-Iraqiya television.

So we're dammed if we do and dammed if we don't. Either we allow the operation of terror cells, or we kill people closely affiliated with a member in good standing of Iraq's governing coalition. Maybe there was a time, back just after the fall of Baghdad, when we could have prevented some of this by crushing Sadr's movement. Maybe when they were looting the city would have been a good time. Or maybe after they murdered Abdel Majid al-Khoei, the moderate cleric under (ineffective) U.S. military protection. Or maybe after the 2004 uprisings.

Now, however, they're part of the government. Such a key part of the government, in fact, that prime mininister praises them in a March 20 Washington Post opinion piece:

Sidelining Moqtada al-Sadr's group from the Governing Council was a mistake. Had it been integrated into the political process back then, long before the formation of the Mahdi Army, events would have turned out differently in the south. I corrected this policy and brought Sadr's group into the democratic process. This inclusive approach resulted in the huge nationwide turnout for the December elections and a parliament that truly reflects Iraq.
During my term as elected prime minister, Sadr's group has not attacked any coalition troops. Furthermore, Sadr and several Sunni leaders are now catalysts for maintaining the peace in Iraq, calling on their followers not to retaliate against terrorist provocations, which aim to ignite civil war.

I'm not saying that al-Jafari's policy is wrong-- he may be making the best of a terrible situation. But how long with the U.S. be able to maintain its position in Iraq while at war with not only an insurgency but with a key member of the governing coalition?

Sorry, I'll stop now. I should probably be blogging about a good news story, like the opening of an Iraqi school or something.

A Sad Prose Poem from an Iraqi Blogger

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Cain) — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 23:10:00 +0000

Citizen Cain's favorite Iraqi blog, Healing Iraq, resumed regular posting about a month ago after a long hiatus. Zeyad, Healing Iraq's maitre de blog, had been extremely optimistic about the prospects for his country in the aftermath of the invasion, and very positively-inclined towards the Coalition. It has been sad to see Zeyad's building frustration over the years with the circumstances in his country, and with the failures of the occupation.

His latest post, which describes the growing chaos in Baghdad, concludes with an intensity and passionate insistence on bearing witness that brings to mind Dylan's Hard Rain, albeit in realistic prose rather than Dylan's dream-like poetry.

Please don’t ask me whether I believe Iraq is on the verge of civil war yet or not. I have never experienced a civil war before, only regular ones. All I see is that both sides are engaged in tit-for-tat lynchings and summary executions. I see governmental forces openly taking sides or stepping aside. I see an occupation force that is clueless about what is going on in the country. I see politicians that distrust each other and continue to flame the situation for their own personal interests. I see Islamic clerics delivering fiery sermons against each other, then smile and hug each other at the end of the day in staged PR stunts. I see the country breaking into pieces. The frontlines between different districts of Baghdad are already clearly demarked and ready for the battle. I was stopped in my own neighbourhood yesterday by a watch team and questioned where I live and what I was doing in that area. I see other people curiously staring in each other’s faces on the street. I see hundreds of people disappearing in the middle of the night and their corpses surfacing next day with electric drill holes in them. I see people blown up to smithereens because a brainwashed virgin seeker targeted a crowded market or café. I see all that and more.

Don’t you dare chastise me for writing about what I see in my country.

I'm not sure who the last sentence is aimed at. Who is chastising Zeyad for writing about what he sees? Whoever it is, don't listen Zeyad! Keep on calling it like you see it.

Third Anniversary

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Cain) — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 00:47:00 +0000

We should all pause to recognize the anniversary of this major event.

Kinsley: Don't Make Me Sick!

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Cain) — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 20:28:00 +0000

I realize that I'm commenting on this late, but Michael Kinsley's Friday column on healthcare is a terrible disappointment. What atypically weak reasoning from one of Citizen Cain's faves.

Kinsley critiques the superior arguments of Krugman and Wells on a couple of points.

First, regarding the superior efficiency of single payer health care, Kinsley says, that Krugman and Wells :

don't do much more than simply assert that a single, government-run insurance program would be more efficient. Even the most competitive industry can seem wasteful and inefficient when described on paper. Dozens of computer companies making hundreds of different, incompatible models, millions spent on advertising: Wouldn't a single, government-run computer agency producing a few standard models be more efficient? No, it wouldn't.

Actually, Krugman and Wells don't merely assert that a government-run insurance program would be more efficient. They show that government-run insurance programs in other countries are more efficient than our patchwork public-private system. They also explain that, unlike computer software companies, with health care "the fragmentation of a system that relies largely on private insurance leads both to administrative complexity because of differences in coverage among individuals and to what is, in effect, a zero-sum struggle between different players in the system, each trying to stick others with the bill." Krugman and Wells note that an additional reason for superior efficiency of government-run insurance is its ability to bargain for lower-price pharmaceuticals (unless, of course, as with the Medicare drug benefit, pharmaceutical-company-written law prohibits such bargaining).

Second Kinsley states that:

Krugman and Wells note repeatedly that 20 percent of the population is responsible for 80 percent of health care costs. But that doesn't explain why health insurance should be different from other kinds. The small fraction of people involved in auto accidents in any year is responsible for almost all of the cost of auto insurance. You insure against the risk of being in that group.

But healthcare insurance isn't like auto insurance. It seems just and appropriate that people who get in a lot of accidents or who have DUIs and speeding tickets should have to pay more for their auto insurance. Does it seem right that sick people should have to pay more for health care insurance? Most people would say no. And while some might agree with making smokers or heavy drinkers pay more for health care, few would agree with denying such people insurance entirely. By contrast, if someone has a terrible driving record, denying them insurance (and a driver's license) might be the best thing for society.

This Kinsley argument is just depressing, coming from a liberal:

Krugman and Wells say that private insurance is flawed by "adverse selection": Insurance companies will avoid riskier customers. Only a single payer (that is, an insurance monopoly) can insure everybody, and spread the risk. But anyone is
insurable at some price -- a price that reflects the cost he or she is likely to impose on the insurer. Adverse selection is only a problem to the extent that insurance is not really insurance but rather a subsidy.

No no no! Adverse selection is a problem to the extent that it prevents sick people from getting insurance. Adverse selection is a problem to the extent that it makes employers want to avoid employing potentially unhealthy people because of the impact that it could have on employer-provided health insurance costs.

Kinsley concludes by recommending a pathetically small health care reform, based on a bogus issue.

Should people be allowed to opt out of rationing if they can afford it? That is, if the system (private or single-payer) won't pay for the $100,000 pill, should you be able to pay for it yourself? Fear that this would not be allowed helped to kill the Clinton health care reform 13 years ago.

Bizarrely, Kinsley fails to explain that this fear was unfounded. The Clinton plan would have allowed individuals to purchase additional insurance or health care as they chose. Moreover, no one is proposing national health insurance programs that would prevent people from buying additional health care.

Kinsley concludes by stating that "if a few smaller reforms like that don't work, maybe it will be time for single-payer." This makes no sense politically. Can he really be serious that progressive forces in this country should mobilize in favor of small reforms that are unlikely to do any good, and that after "a few" such failed reforms, then we'll be in position to convince the country that single-payer is the way to go?

Ignore Kinsley. His way would ensure that progressives lose the trust of the nation on health care issues for a generation. Now is the time to build a movement that can elect a government that will support the most just and efficient system-- single-payer government-provided healthcare.

Howard Fineman: A Tale of Two Politicians

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Cain) — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 23:07:00 +0000

Howard Fineman has recent articles discussing the possible Presidential prospects of Rudy Guiliani and Hillary Clinton. He doesn't have any news to report in either case, but the articles make for an interesting contrast in how Fineman treats the two politicians. For one, it's the best of coverage; for the other, the worst of coverage. Can you guess which one is which?

First Guiliani. The article is called "Awaiting the Almighty: Rudy Giuliani may or may not run for president. But he's having a heavenly time thinking about it." While "lesser birds" will flock to the Southern Republican Leadership Conference, "America's mayor" flies "alluringly alone." He has "near-total name ID, a 9/11 hero's aura—and, most valuable in these post-Katrina days, a reputation for administrative competence." He's "macho" and has "a hide of titanium." He dazzles audiences "with his energy and his revival-style witness to his faith in Jesus." He's got "charisma."

By the way, the Guiliani article also contains the gem that Newt Gingrich is "rapidly re-emerging and always provocative."

Now Clinton. This time it's called "Hillary's Money Politics: The Clintons take a page from the Bush playbook, but what about Bill and those ports?" Getting into a Clinton fundraiser "is no easy trick." She chooses "to keep her toughly worded anti-Bush rhetoric (the kind that excites Democratic hearts and opens their wallets) safely behind the closed, hand-rubbed doors." Her political strategy is to intimidate the rest of the possible Democratic field by raising so much money that they'll give up before the race starts. "It's an ironic but exact copy of what Bush did in 2000." She's "on the way to becoming the leading female empire-builder in the history of American elections." And "not only is she asking big donors to support her—she is, at least implicitly, asking them NOT to give to anyone else." Hillary isn't "completely secretive" because she "now has an interest in leaking—on her own terms, of course—the names of big shots . . ." Her "obsessive money focus" creates the "risk" that she will become "blind to the politics of an issue." Also it "can create conflicts—or at least the appearance of conflict—between candidate and spouse," for instance when Bill praised the "Dubai guys" and collected $600K in speaking fees from them while Hillary was denouncing the Dubai ports deal. Finally, it's lucky for Hillary that foreign citizens aren't allowed to give campaign contributions, because, says Fineman "the rules had allowed it, I'm sure they would have been asked—and Hillary would have had even more explaining to do."

Nowhere in his article does Fineman ever explain how Clinton is "implicitly" asking donor not to give to other candidates. Perhaps its just obvious that any politician would prefer that potential opponents not receive financial backing. Can Fineman explain how this is more true of Hillary than anyone else? Nor does Fineman explain how he's sure that Hillary would have gone begging to Dubai, or whether he thinks that other politicians, like say George Bush or John McCain might also have some explaining to do in this hypothetical situation. Most importantly, he doesn't explain why he chooses to end his articles about some politicians but not others with a zinger based on a hypothetical possibility. He doesn't explain whether Guiliani might occasionally have a meeting behind "closed, hand-rubbed doors," and if so, why he chooses to use this snarky language only in Clinton's case.

If this is a harbinger of the kind of coverage Clinton can expect during the 2008 election, the Democrats might as well run Al Gore.

Autism-Mercury News

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Cain) — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 23:47:00 +0000

A couple of news items news to report on the autism-mercury front.

First, a couple of bloggers seem to have figured out independently that contrary to some assertions, California Department of Developmental Services (CDDS) data do not support the idea that new cases of autism are decreasing in response to the removal of thimerosal from most childhood vaccines. Interverbal has done a very thorough analysis, including some spiffy graphs, showing that while the total number of cases managed by CDDS is growing at a reduced pace, among children aged 3-5 (the supposed beneficiaries of reduced thimerosal) autism cases managed by CDDS is continuing to grow. Joseph at Autism-Natural Variation also has a crack at the California numbers, and shows why the “thimerosal theory” for explaining increased diagnosis of autism is much less likely to be correct than the theory that increased diagnosis is due to broadening criteria.

Nice job fellas! But while you may have done it better, don’t forget who did it first. I just want to be loved. Is that so wrong?

Second, proponents of the thimerosal theory can now point to a peer-reviewed study in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (JAPS) that says that autism rates are declining as a result of removal of thimerosal from vaccines. But what kind of peer review did this study really go through? How good is the evidence? Orac provides the answers. I highly recommend his respectful insolence. I won't rehash his arguments, but rather offer a few supplemental thoughts:

Citizen Cain can reveal, after an exclusive investigation, that “peer review” in JAPS means approval by a panel consisting of Phyllis Schlafly, Randall Terry, Jack D. Ripper, and a chipmunk. For you kids out there, Jack D. Ripper is a character in the classic movie Dr. Strangelove, who drinks nothing but rainwater and grain alcohol so that his “precious bodily fluids” won’t be contaminated by fluoridated water. Anti-chipmunk prejudice may explain why JAPS has no scientific standing, and why it isn’t listed in Medline.

This study, by a father-son team, David and Mark Geier evaluates two data sources to determine changes in autism incidence. One is the CDDS data. If only the Geiers read Citizen Cain, or even those Johnny-come-latelies Interverbal or Autism-Natural Variation, they could have spared themselves a lot of embarrassment.

The second data source is the Vaccine Adverse Event Report System (VAERS). As you might have guessed from its title, VAERS isn’t a system for tracking autism or other neurological conditions; it’s a system for tracking adverse reactions to vaccines. Therefore, not surprisingly, very few reports of autism incidence are made to this reporting system. According to Figure 1 in the Geiers' article, between 1993 and 2005 nationwide reports of autism to VAERS ranged from zero per quarter to about 78, with most quarters receiving fewer than 40 reports. Since about 1 million little Americans are born every quarter, and since an estimated 1 out of 166 people are thought to be on the autistic spectrum, something on the order of 6000 autistic Americans are coming into the world every quarter. Therefore, VAERS is finding about 2/3 of a percent of autistics. Can you, dear reader, see it might not be a good idea to try to track trends in autism incidence through a system that can't account for even one percent of autistic children? Trends in autism reported to VAERS clearly have far more to do with changes in the fraction of autistic children who are reported to VAERS than with actual changes in the number of autistic children.

What does real science on autism incidence look like? Nothing like what the Geiers have excreted. Real science looks like this. A team of researchers evaluated cohorts of four to six year old children in 1987 and 2002, using "diagnostic interviews, psychometric tests, and medical workups." They found that despite reported increases in pervasive developmental orders, the actual prevalence found in these evaluations had not changed, "suggesting a stable incidence."

Debunking the Sexual Repression Theory of Terrorism

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Cain) — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 03:14:00 +0000

Andrew Sullivan approvingly links to an Ian Buruma article that attempts to resurrect one of the less persuasive theories about the origins of Islamist terrorism-- that sexual repression in Islamic countries leads to distorted, sexually-frustrated personalities that are prone to violence. Exposure to the permissive and sexualized West "provokes a mixture of rage and envy" that causes some to express their violent urges in terrorist acts against the West, or against Israel. Three weeks after 9/11, anthropologist Lionel Tiger put forward a similar argument in Slate, although in his case he emphasized the role that polygyny plays in limiting the sexual prospects of underprivileged men in parts of the Islamic world.

Citizen Cain would not deny that the differing sexual mores of Islam and Western countries could promote rage and envy among some Moslem men, nor that certain manifestations of terror-- such as the promise of sex in the afterlife for suicide bombers -- arise uniquely out of a particular social-sexual ideology. No doubt, sexual repression and segregation of men and women in some Islamic cultures has far-ranging cultural and psychological impacts.

But as an explanation of the motivations for terror, this theory just doesn't fit with the evidence. If sexual repression promoted terror, one would expect that it would also promote a variety of other violent expressions. If Islamic terrorism were caused by a generalized frustration among Islamic men, it would stand to reason that Islamic countries would be generally more violent than more sexually permissive countries. Is it so?

Bernard Lewis is a favorite among conservatives, and isn't usually accused of taking an excessively positive view of Islamic peoples. But here he is in his influential September 1990 Atlantic essay:

There is something in the religious culture of Islam which inspired, in even the humblest peasant or peddler, a dignity and a courtesy toward others never exceeded and rarely equaled in other civilizations.

Hmm. Dignity? Courtesy toward others rarely equaled in other civilizations? Doesn't sound to me like a culture riven by violence. Lewis continues:

And yet, in moments of upheaval and disruption, when the deeper passions are stirred, this dignity and courtesy toward others can give way to an explosive mixture of rage and hatred which impels even the government of an ancient and civilized country -- even the spokesman of a great spiritual and ethical religion -- to espouse kidnapping and assassination, and try to find, in the life of their Prophet, approval and indeed precedent for such actions.

Okay, so that doesn't sound so good. But it doesn't seem, in Lewis's telling, that this "rage and hatred" is driven by sexual frustration. After all, it's hard to see why sexual frustration would be especially powerful during periods of "upheaval and disruption." Lewis, rather, attributes this rage and hatred to the challenge that the West poses to Islam as an alternative source of values and social organization, to the (correct) identification of the West as the source of "cataclysmic changes" that threaten traditional ways, and to the humiliation of a proud civilization bested economically, scientifically, and militarily by the West.

Is Lewis's assessment right? Beats me. But it provides no support for the theory that sexual repression is at the heart of Islamic rage.

If a generalized sexual frustration drives terrorism, surely it should also drive other forms of crime. And yet, here's Robert D. Kaplan, describing a 2002 trip to Yemen:

The Arab world, while afflicted by political violence, had little or no common crime. In this sense, Islam had risen to the challenge of urbanization and modern life, and was a full-fledged success.

Kaplan again:

For decades millions of Muslims have been pouring out of the villages and leaving behind, you know, a situation where religion was just a natural outgrowth of age-old practices. And rushing into these pseudo western cities where there was bad sewage, bad plumbing, you know, electricity and water systems were decaying and where family life was under attack. And in order to keep crime rates low, to keep family life stable-- which they did successfully-- they had to reinvent religion in starker, more ideological austere terms. This worked. So you have these cities in the Muslim world with millions of people, poor, downtrodden yet random crime is very low, almost nonexistent because the intensification of religiosity has worked but it's produced an ironic situation. There is now a fertile . . . [petri] dish to call it that for the emergence of disease germs like terrorists.

No generalized rage here, in Kaplan's version. Just an intense religiousity that reinforces traditional family life and social order, but that also incubates in its followers a willingness to commit terrorist acts to defend or promote or impose their religion. Is he right? Again, Citizen Cain doesn't know. But at least Kaplan's explanation, unlike the sexual repression hypothesis, accounts for both the low crime rates in many Islamic countries and the existence of terrorism.

Kaplan might be prone to over-generalization, or he might just be wrong about the low crime rate in Islamic countries? What do the statistics say? Let's turn to the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control for an Epidemiology of Violent Deaths in the World. This publication does not distinguish between Islamic countries non-Islamic countries, or between sexually repressive and sexually permissive countries. But it does break out homicide data by region, including the "Middle Eastern crescent." In 1990, this region had an age-adjusted homide rate overall and for males that were lower than the world averages, and lower than the United States. Overall rates of violent death were high, but as the result of the Iran-Iraq war, not as a result of homicides.

The proponents of the theory that Islamic sexual repression leads to terrorism lack an explanation of how this causation could work without also promoting high rates of non-terrorist violence. So can we please move on and think more sensibly about what the real sources of terror are, both in Islamic culture and in our own policies?

Classy Dick Cheney

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Cain) — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 02:06:00 +0000

What a classy guy Dick Cheney is.  Completely takes responsibility for shooting his friend in the face.  Won’t hear of any suggestion that it was the victim’s fault.  So Brave and so Manly that John Podhoretz can’t but sing his praises.

Of course, a really brave and manly man, a man taking responsibility for his actions, might not have let Katherine Armstrong issue a statement blaming the victim, and might not have allowed that statement to stand for three days as the only official account of what happened.  He might not have, in his taking-blame interview, have recommended Armstrong’s perspective as the truest one.  He might not have allowed Scott McClellan to blame the victim, and might not have had Mary Matalin publicly declare that he, the Vice President, did nothing wrong and broke no rules.

But I quibble.  How can anyone possibly question the Veep’s character now.? How can anyone wonder if maybe he’s not telling the full truth after this brave and manly performance?  After all, what could he possibly be hiding?

Climate Change: Why Government Scientists are Speaking Out

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Cain) — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 03:54:00 +0000

The New York Times today describes efforts by the Bush White House to silence NASA climate expert James Hansen and other government climate scientists, and the efforts of these scientists to fight back and get the word out about what they consider to be disturbing trends in the earth's climate. Why are climate scientists feeling so fiesty? Why is the White House so upset at what they have to say?

Excellent articles in the Washington Post and the Guardian provide some clues. The Washington Post describes how scientists are increasingly concerned that the climate is rapidly approaching a "tipping point," after which feedbacks in the climate system will encourage more rapid warming, which in turn trigger additional changes which trigger still more warming. The Guardian article provides details on a particularly disturbing recent piece of evidence of such a feedback mechanism: a recent study that found that a large area of permafrost in Siberia is melting, to reveal the peat bog beneath. This event could result in the release of substantial amounts of methane and, by exchanging white ice for dark peat bog, cause the earth to absorb more solar energy. Not a happy prospect.

The White House is committed to putting out the perspective that we have endless time to act on global warming. No urgency about it at all. Information that suggests the problem might be more urgent is clearly unwelcome.

Hamas: The Glass is Half Full

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Cain) — Sun, 29 Jan 2006 20:20:00 +0000

Fafnir points out the little-noticed bright side of Hamas: a "sensible fiscal policy" and "intriguing plans for health savings accounts." Fafblog? Yes. Fafblog!

Bush-Made Catastrophe

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Cain) — Sat, 28 Jan 2006 15:52:00 +0000

From Jenifer Moses's Washington Post op-ed today.

though Congress passed a $29 billion aid package for the Gulf Coast region, it's being split between Mississippi and Louisiana, perhaps because, even though Mississippi has fewer than one-fifth the number of affected households Louisiana does, its governor, Haley Barbour, an ex-Republican National Committee chairman, is a pal of the president.

Maybe also because a lot of the displaced people in Louisiana are Democrats.

One long-term fix -- not just for residential planning but for flood control in general -- is restoring Louisiana's wetlands, which in the olden days acted as a natural buffer to storm surges, and without which none of South Louisiana would have been inhabited in the first place. But no one's talking much about the wetlands, perhaps because the subject is too, well, environmental. (And we know how the Bush administration regards the environment.)

Ladies and gentlemen, the Bush rebuilding policy-- help out the Republicans and screw the rest, ignore the environmental roots of the problem, nickel and dime the rebuilding of the levees-- oh yes, and make promises you have no intention of keeping.

Promises Unfulfilled

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Cain) — Sat, 28 Jan 2006 15:30:00 +0000

Citizen Cain recommends this morning's Washington Post article by Spencer Hsu about the Bush administration's failure to deliver on its promises about rebuilding after hurricane Katrina. Read it. Future historians will debate the relative importance of incompetence, indifference, venality, and retrogressive social experimentation in contributing to this debacle. Just who are these 43 percent who think this guy is doing a good job?

More dumping on Dowd

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Cain) — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 15:39:00 +0000

Reed Hundt joins the noble alliance of Maureen Dowd bashers.

O'Reilly Tells Half the Story; Smears Vermont Judge

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Cain) — Wed, 25 Jan 2006 02:11:00 +0000

Bill O'Reilly has clamped his jaws like a pit bull onto the case of the Vermont judge who gave out a 60-day sentence to a man convicted of sexual assault on a young girl. O'Reilly shows no signs of letting go until the judge, Edward Cashman, loses his job, and he seems to consider it a disgrace to the entire state that Vermont citizens haven't hung the judge from the highest tree.

I've got to admit-- the judge's sentence sounds pretty indefensible, if all you know about the case comes from O'Reilly. Here's what readers of O'Reilly’s most recent column and viewers of his January 13 “Talking Points Memo” know about the subject:

34-year old Mark Hulett "confessed to raping" a girl over a period of four years, while the girl was 6 to 10. Hulett lived in the girl's home, a friend of her parents.

Judge Cashman suspended all but 60 days of what could have been, should have been, a life sentence, or at least a 25-year sentence-- the mandatory minimum in the noble state of Florida.

Judge Cashman's "sympathies are with the rapist," not with the little girl or her family.

Vermonters who don't push for removal of Judge Cashman from the bench are complicit in evil.

Inexplicably, elements of the left-wing, secular press are defending Cashman.

As you may have suspected, there are a few things about this version of events that aren’t quite right, and a few that O'Reilly forgot to tell you.

Judge Cashman is a conservative Vietnam vet, appointed by a Republican governor, and is a former prosecutor with a reputation for being tough on defendants.

Hulett has an IQ of between 75 and 85, putting him in the category of "borderline intellectual functioning." Judge Cashman also determined that he had the emotional maturity of a 12-14 year old, and did not seem to understand why people were upset with him about what he did.

The girl’s parents seem to have emotional or mental problems of their own, and seem to have been quite lax about protecting their daughter. They allowed Hulett to sleep in the same bed with their child, and a second man has pled guilty to abusing the girl in separate incidents.

Hulett has no criminal record, and there is no evidence that Hulett ever abused any other children—that is he has not sought out children that he hasn’t been placed into bed with.

The sexual molestation involved fondling and oral sex, but not vaginal or anal intercourse.

Hulett's suspended sentence is for 10 years to life in prison. If he fails in treatment, refuses treatment, uses drugs or alcohol, lives in an apartment complex that has children, visits a bar, or looks at pornography, he can receive life in prison.

Cashman had intended to impose a three years of jail time, as recommended by the Vermont Department of Corrections, but if he had done so the Dept. of Corrections would not have provided sex offender treatment to Hulett until he finished his jail term. Cashman determined that the danger to the public upon Hulett’s release would be greater if he did not get treatment immediately, as he can with a 60-day sentence.

Cashman found that for Hulett is a good candidate for treatment, but that without treatment he poses a serious risk of reoffending. More on this below.

Did Judge Cashman make the right decision? Citizen Cain isn’t wise enough to say. But reading his statement on the reconsideration of the sentencing order, I was struck by the careful thought that Cashman put into the case, and I was glad that an independent judge was making a decision on the individual merits of the case. Much better that than a huge mandatory minimum imposed regardless of the circumstances. Consider the following from Judge Cashman’s statement:

Treatment experts in this area of human misbehavior believe they are able to group those who molest children based upon the of the offender's perception of the relationship. lf the offender views the encounters as "child to child," the perpetrator is reliving a prior abuse of his own. The age of the child molested often is the same age as that of the offender when he suffered a similar molestation. These offenders appear amenable to treatment and present low risks to re-offend, provided competent personnel properly treat and supervise them.

The other group of offenders perceives the relationships as "adult to adult." This group presents different treatment issues that make predictions of treatment compliance and success much more guarded.

The evidence on this point came into the record from the defense expert. He believes that the defendant falls into the latter group. He did not agree that the defendant would fail in treatment compliance. Yet, he did offer-guarded concern that Mr. Hulett would need lifetime treatment and supervision.

The court finds the balance of the evidence shows that Mr. Hulett presents a long-term risk to re-offend. How long could it go? The evidence of record was that it might be for the rest of his life. He needs treatment. He needs supervision. This presents the most pressing concern for public safety arising in this case.

The cognitive and emotional impairments described above do not impress the court as mitigating factors, as first impression might dictate. Rather, they present additional concern for long term risk control. Mr. Hulett's failure to empathize, as well as his emotional age, may create substantial supervision problems. His intellectual skills require specialized materials and treatment techniques.

The solution to these concerns requires quick and effective treatment. Delay in treatment, especially if connected with lengthy imprisonment, creates additional risks by hardening the defendant into a pattern of thinking that further alienates him from the fundamental social values we are trying to promote.

Again, I don’t know if Cashman came to the right decision, but he clearly was a man trying to do his job as best as he could. Could the same be said of a journalist who sensationalizes a difficult case, incites a public campaign and fails to give his readers and viewers key information to help the evaluate the situation? Bill O’Reilly has every right to disagree with Cashman’s decision, but he’s doing a public disservice by telling only half of the story.

Lewinsky, Barnes

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Cain) — Wed, 25 Jan 2006 02:08:00 +0000

Why is it that President Bush and Fred Barnes can get away with doing the very same thing that got President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky in such trouble?

I'm just asking.

Thinking About Wal-Mart

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Cain) — Sun, 22 Jan 2006 17:51:00 +0000

Yesterday, I attended this excellent conference, sponsored by the Center for the Study of Race, Politics and Culture and the Center for Gender Studies at the University of Chicago. I won’t summarize it, but here are some thoughts that it provoked:

When I first started hearing about opposition to Wal-mart in the 1980s and early 1990s, the issues were primarily about protecting small businesses, preserving the character of small town business districts, and preventing sprawl. The critique of Walmart was fundamentally against the model of “big box” retail—small is beautiful; the big box is ugly. There are still important issues related to where retail development is sited, what it looks like, how well it fits with the neighborhood, its impact on transportation, and its use of public subsidies. However, the focus of the anti Wal-mart campaigners has shifted, and protecting small business is now a tertiary issue. The big box has won. It is unstoppable, because it increases the efficiency of the retail sector and translates these efficiencies into lower prices that benefit consumers, especially low-income consumers. So now what Wal-mart critics want is a better big box—one that pays better wages and health care benefits, that treats its employees better, that allows union organizing, and (for the more ambitious campaigners) that doesn’t create pressure on its suppliers to reduce wages and benefits to hold costs down. They want Wal-mart to be more like Costco.

Anti Wal-mart campaigners have focused on keeping Wal-mart out of particular communities. Campaigners usually do seek to connect local campaigns to the broader fight for workers by imposing conditions on Wal-mart’s entrance to a community through a Community Benefits Agreement (CBA). A CBA can include a requirement to pay a “living wage” significantly higher than the general minimum wage, to provide health care benefits, to contribute towards neighborhood beautification, etc. I have a lot of sympathy for these efforts, but this approach is a tough sell when, as in Chicago, Wal-mart wants to move into neighborhoods that have little existing retail and few job opportunities, and when Wal-mart can locate in suburban communities right on Chicago’s border without facing these obstacles. They naturally lead to questions about why big box retailers face requirements that don’t apply to smaller retailers and other types of employers. Moreover, the focus on Wal-mart expansion into new communities seems more suited to a campaign to protect local small business than to a campaign to improve working conditions for workers at the big boxes. The current critique of Wal-mart as a bad employer cries out for broader efforts: to raise the minimum wage, to enforce labor laws, to establish a national healthcare system. Given the current state of our national politics, I can’t blame anti Wal-mart campaigners from focusing on local fights, but it doesn’t seem like a winning strategy. Moreover, broader-scale efforts are possible even without immediate prospects for national legislation. Rather than fight expansion of Wal-mart into particular communities one at a time, it would seem more productive to organize a boycott of existing Wal-mart stores, until the company meets specific demands, perhaps related to allowing unionization. Boycotts have been attempted, but the primary focus of the anti Wal-mart effort is organizing communities against Wal-mart expansion.

Wal-mart pursues a “low-road” strategy of lousy wages and benefits, accepting the costs of high turnover, high costs for re-training, “shrinkage,” bad employee morale, and poor corporate image. To some extent, this strategy arises out of Wal-mart’s corporate history, management style and preferences, and are therefore changeable—Wal-mart might be equally profitable with a strategy that treated its employees better. However, to a large extent, Wal-mart’s approach is dictated by its role as a retailer of low-end goods for whom low-cost is everything. For Wal-mart, in comparison to higher-end retailers such as Costco, it is less important to have high quality staff who are highly knowledgeable and helpful. Therefore, boycotts and community organizing can accomplish only limited objectives. A low-end retailer can follow a high road labor strategy only so far and remain profitable, if its competitors are taking a lower road. Which is why a decent minimum wage, enforcement of labor law, and creation of a national right to basic health care are so essential.

Maureen Dowd: Stupid, Insincere, and Ugly

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Cain) — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 01:08:00 +0000

Has there ever been a worse liberal pundit than Maureen Dowd? Any more shallow, smug, and harmful to liberal causes? Dowd condemns Gore and Kerry because "they allowed themselves to be painted as girlie men." Daily Howler has the goods, showing how Dowd herself tossed the paint on Gore 2000, doing great service to the RNC in the press corps' War Against Gore.

Don't worry Bob! Josh and Kevin (and even Atrios) may not link to you, but Citizen Cain will!

During the 2004 campaign, Citizen Cain fell out of his lazyboy when Dowd basically called Kerry a pussy on Real Time with Bill Maher. I don't remember Dowd's exact words, but I do vividly remember Aaron McGruder summarizing Dowd thus-- "So you're saying that Kerry is a bitch?" Dowd smirked and shrugged, as if to say, "if the shoe fits . . ."

Note also that Gore and Kerry's crime is they "allowed themselves" to be portrayed as weak. Not that they actually were. As if anything they could have done could have kept the likes of Dowd and the RNC from their nasty work. Dowd also manages in today's column to call Senator Clinton a "manly girl." Nice.

Did you know, by the way, that Dowd isn't as smart, sincere, or pretty as Naomi Wolf? It's true! Says so right here.

The South Side Gets Screwed! Citizen Chien Edition

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Cain) — Sat, 14 Jan 2006 15:06:00 +0000

In the second of our our continuing series covering instances where Chicago's South Side doesn't get a fair shake, we turn to the issue of dog parks-- those little patches of the Chicago public park system where dogs can run around off leash. These places are essential for those of us who have young, athletic and sociable dogs for whom a leash walk just doesn't cut it. In fact, Citizen Chien is sitting next to me right now, whimpering softly as he pines for the society and stimulation of a dog park.

So, where in Chicago can you find this essential public service-- you guessed it, on the North Side. The Chicago Park District maintains 10 DFAs-- Dog Friendly Areas. All but one of these is on the North Side, and the single South Side location is Coliseum Park in the South Loop, a long distance from most South Side neighborhoods. Moreover, Cain and Chien have visited three North Side dog parks-- Wiggly Field, Montrose Beach and Margate Park-- and each is vastly bigger and nicer than Coliseum Park.

Don't our South Side dogs deserve the thrill of running free with other dogs every bit as much a North Side dog? Don't our South Side children deserve to use public parks without being terrified by dogs whose owners illegally let them off leash because that's the only way they have to exercise them properly (not that Citizen Cain excuses this behavior)? What do you say-- Chicago Park District?

One South Side neighborhood, Hyde Park, had a group organized to get a dog park. This group, whowever, has given up on getting a park, for reasons that its web site doesn't make entirely clear. Don't give up South Siders! Your pooches are getting screwed!

Reconstructing Iraq-- Oh Nevermind

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Cain) — Sat, 07 Jan 2006 23:55:00 +0000

Remember back in 2003, right after President Bush declared victory in Iraq, how the political controversy of the moment was whether all of the fantastic reconstruction that would be occurring would be paid for with U.S. grants or with loans? “Why not loans?” asked foolish optimists on both Right and Left, “since the Iraqis are going to be swimming in all that oil money.” In the end, we decided to provide $18 billion for reconstruction, that the Iraqis wouldn’t have to pay back. When we weren’t debating that important topic, we were discussing what other countries we would cut in on all that lucrative Iraqi business action—the French and Germans were definitely out; the coalition of the willing was in. But what about those who didn’t join the coalition, but didn’t oppose our invasion too strongly? For instance, should we cut the Canadians in for a piece?

Those were the days! Hard to imagine that at one time reconstruction was supposed to be fun and fun and profitable and a means of rewarding our friends and punishing our enemies. After this optimistic beginning, we started realizing that anything that got reconstructed would be blown up unless we provided security so roughly half of the reconstruction money was reprogrammed towards security. And, of course, the Coalition Provisional Authority just lost $8.8 billion—let it disappear down a dark hole.

Nonetheless, just a month ago, President Bush cited reconstruction of Iraq as a key element of strategy for victory in Iraq:

BUSH: And all three aspects of our strategy—security, democracy, and reconstruction—we have learned from our experiences and fixed what has not worked. We will continue to listen to honest criticism and make every change that will help us complete the mission.

On Thursday, Keith Olberman pointed out when discussing President Bush’s meeting with former Secretaries of State and Defense to discuss Iraq (for five minutes) that Bush seems to have kicked away one leg of this tripod:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We take to heart the advice, we appreciate your experience, and we appreciate your taking time out of your day. We have a dual-track strategy for victory. On the one hand, we will work to have a political process that says to all Iraqis, The future belongs to you. And on the other hand, we‘ll continue to work on the security situation there.

The main thrust of our success will be when the Iraqis are able to take the fight to the enemy that wants to stop their democracy. And we‘re making darn good progress along those lines.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OLBERMANN:
Contained therein, perhaps the only reason news to have come out of today‘s photo opportunity at the White House, the president‘s strategy for victory in Iraq mysteriously shrinking to only two elements, having been threefold just last month.

Back in 2004 pundits loved to our President call a man of constancy, principle, and follow-through. But when it comes to reconstruction of Iraq, as with so many issues, the closer we look the more it seems that this Presidency is best described as a short attention span Presidency—one that devotes constant attention to securing electoral advantage and to pleasing the Republican donor class, but when it comes to following through on policies and programs, it just can't be bothered.

Pat Robertson-- Nothing if Not Reliable

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Cain) — Fri, 06 Jan 2006 03:16:00 +0000

Pat Robertson can always be relied upon to be crazy and offensive:

Conservative Christian evangelical broadcaster Pat Robertson on Thursday linked Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's stroke to God's "enmity against those who 'divide my land.'"
"He was dividing God's land and I would say woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the EU, the United Nations, or the United States of America," Robertson said on his television program, "The 700 Club," broadcast from his Christian Broadcasting Network in Virginia Beach. "God says 'this land belongs to me. You better leave it alone.'"

Apparently, the 77-year old morbidly obese Sharon would have lived in perfect health forever were it not for his decision to cede control of Gaza to its inhabitants.