Blogging threatened

The Federal Election Committee has made noises as if it's going to apply the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act to blogging, such that there would be penalties when bloggers tried to link to candidate's websites, or at least it will be seen as a contribution to the candidate under the act.
They picked the one issue that brings all bloggers, liberal and conservative, left and right, together. Everyone is attacking this, from Atrios and Kos (left) all the way to Powerline and Charles Johnson (right).

In 2002, the FEC exempted the Internet by a 4-2 vote, but U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly last fall overturned that decision. "The commission's exclusion of Internet communications from the coordinated communications regulation severely undermines" the campaign finance law's purposes, Kollar-Kotelly wrote.

The commission is split 3-3 on whether the decision should be appealed. Predictably, it's on partisan lines.
Says Bradley Smith of the commission:

How can the government place a value on a blog that praises some politician?
How do we measure that? Design fees, that sort of thing? The FEC did an advisory opinion in the late 1990s (in the Leo Smith case) that I don't think we'd hold to today, saying that if you owned a computer, you'd have to calculate what percentage of the computer cost and electricity went to political advocacy.

It seems absurd, but that's what the commission did. And that's the direction Judge Kollar-Kotelly would have us move in. Line drawing is going to be an inherently very difficult task. And then we'll be pushed to go further. Why can this person do it, but not that person?

Update: Totten has feelings on this as well.

Another Update: It seems that, related to the Jeff Gannon incident, a blogger sought and got White House press credentials. Which further blurs the line between Blog and Main stream journalism, which should give the FEC pause. (hat tip Instapundit)

Bush and Social Security

Looks like Bush is backing off a bit from his original proposal. The Dems have been pretty stout in their refusal to even consider carving into the payroll tax for private accounts.

President Bush said on Thursday he would focus for now on the financial problems facing Social Security, signaling a shift in tactics amid a slide in support for his private account plan.

Ok, that's Reuters talking. Really Bush is not backing off that much.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan made clear Bush was not backing away from private Social Security accounts despite a suggestion by a top Senate Republican they be taken off the table to get a bill this year.

That's further down in the article. Cute how journalists do that. Republican Senators are, however, saying that this battle is distracting from the debate about what to do about the program. That's kind of disingenuous, though, as it is part of the debate, not a distraction from it.
Although, when you think about it, this has all forced Dems and Reps to try to calm the issue down by saying that they WILL talk about making changes to the program so that it will retain solvency farther into the future, but not as long as private accounts. If I were the President here, I would be willing to drop the private account issue as long as it forced the Senate to actually do something about the program, like tying benefits to prices or something. That in itself would be a victory.
Or, if it doesn't get the Senate to do anything, it'll make them look really bad and the President really good.

On another note, check out this poll that the Times conducted.

In a New York Times/CBS News poll published on Thursday, 51 percent of respondents said diverting Social Security taxes into private accounts was a bad idea. The number rose to 69 percent when respondents were told the accounts would result in a cut in guaranteed government benefits.

Duh. This reflects less on the Times and CBS and their stupid questions designed to get poll numbers that make the president look bad than it does the public answering the questions.
So, really, if I contribute less to the system because I'm contributing more to my own personal account, I can expect less from the government upon retirement? Well, duh, I didn't think the idea was bad before, duh, but now that you put it that way, duh, I definitely think it's a bad idea.
Duuuuhhhh.

Lebanon, a summary

Country of the (insert time period here).

I thought that I would write up a little about the country of Lebanon this week, as there are happenings there of great historical significance. I have noticed that there have been many articles and blogs talking about the events of the last couple of weeks, with former Prime Minister Hariri being assassinated, the Lebanese people taking to the streets in protest of the Syrian occupation and the current Prime Minister dissolving the current government.
This is not a comprehensive analysis of Lebanese history, nor is it an attempt to bring out all of the relevant historical events that might have some bearing on what is going on over there right now. I am by no means an expert in this area. I just have an interest, and the current media seems content to bring out only the facts they seem to need in order to tell whatever story they want to spin.

Lebanon is a small country in the right place. It is about the size of Connecticut (and for us Oregonians would fit nicely on the west side in the Willamette valley to the coast) but has about 3.7 million people (so it's a might bit more crowded than the Willamette valley), but its location on the Mediterranean sea gives it a favorable status as a trading center. There are a few geographic regions that all stretch north to south (which, again, reminds me of western Oregon, although much drier). From west to east you have the coast, which is very Mediterranean, the Lebanon mountains, the Bekaa valley and the Anti-Lebanon mountains. The mountains are fairly rugged, and in past times have kept the coastal civilizations semi-isolated from the interior. The highest point in Lebanon is Qurnat as Sawda in the Lebanon mountains at 3088m (just over 10,000 feet). The Anti-Lebanon mountains are almost as high and form the border with Syria. The Bekaa valley is where much of the agriculture is, and where the bulk of the Syrian troops have been since the Taif accords were signed.

The area of Lebanon has a history dating back to ancient Phoenicia. You might have read some of that ancient people while you were skimming the Bible. David and Goliath and all that. The people there preceded the Israelites coming out of Egypt, and are thought by some historians to go back as far as 10,000 BC. They had excellent naval navigational skills and basically ruled the Mediterranean. They are also thought to have created the first alphabet.

Next we get into a long period of conquest by other civilizations. First the Assyrians, then Babylonians, Persians, and finally Alexander the Great came through. It is at this point that we see a decline in the Phoenician civilization as they were gradually Hellenized. In 64BC Pompey conquered Phoenicia and it became part of the Roman province of Syria. Because of all this conquering there are many great ancient temples, buildings and other sites dating back to the Greek and Roman periods. Lots of large stone edifices with large columns and stuff.

After the breakup of the Roman empire, Lebanon became part of the Byzantine empire and Christianity became prevalent, until the Muslims came in from the south, and were well received by the inhabitants, who didn't receive the Christianity of the Byzantines well. From this point Lebanon was a part of various Muslim dominated empires, but with Christians, Jews and Muslims living along side one another, often not in peace.
The last of these was the Ottoman empire, which captured the region in about 1515 and held it until WWI. It was in this time that the present form of Lebanon took its shape and was awarded an emerate by the Ottomans to Ahmad Maan about 100 years later.

I'll copy the next part from a history website as it's relevant, and says it better than I can:

When Ahmad Maan died, power passed to the Shihab family, who reigned until 1840, when internal power struggles brought the age of emirs to an end.
In 1842, the Ottomans divided Mount Lebanon into two administrative regions, one Druze and the other Maronite. That they immediately set to squabbling was anticipated and encouraged by the Ottomans, who practiced a 'divide and rule' policy. By 1845, there was open war, not only between Druze and Maronite, but also between peasants and their supposed feudal leaders.
The Ottomans, under pressure from Europe, created a single Lebanese administrative unit under an Ottoman Christian governor and the feudal system was abolished. The system worked, producing stability and economic prosperity until WWI, when Lebanon came under Turkish military rule and suffered a serious famine. Following the Allied victory in 1918, Lebanon came under French rule.

After WWII the Lebanese became independent from France, and for a time became, once again, a major trading center in the region. The problem was that the French had set up the government so that the Maronite Christians held power, and in a country where half the population is Muslim and there were lots of displaced Palestinians due to the conflicts in Israel, you are just asking for trouble. Leftist Muslims wanted power, Right wing Christians didn't want to give it up, and no-one really wanted the Palestinians there. In 1975 Civil war broke out.
The next 20 or so years involved a lot of civil war and high profile hostage taking. On the one hand you had the Muslims and Christians fighting over the government, and Syria coming in (at the Lebanese president's invitation). At the same time you have the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) making occasional attacks into Israel, so that Israel invaded a few times in order to eliminate the Palestinians living in Lebanon. After the second of these Israeli invasions, in 1982, the UN sent a peacekeeping force to prevent more bloodshed on either front.
This is where one of those watershed moments in the history of US involvement in the Middle east comes into play. That anyone in this scenario would drive a truck with explosives, on a suicide mission, into a building with peacekeepers, was probably quite a shock to Americans. So the bombing of the US compound in 1983, killing 241 US marines and 60 French soldiers was our first high profile exposure to what has become a regular fixture in our coverage of events in the Middle east.
Skipping some here. By the turn of the decade, Israel had retreated most of the way (leaving a DMZ at the border), and Syria had established control over most of the country.
Except for another Israeli invasion in the mid nineties, where they bombed several villages and killed many Palestinians, as well as thousands of Lebanese, the Syrians have had a measure of control over the government, due to the Taif agreements in the early nineties, and internal strife has been muted. However, the Lebanese have expressed their desire that now that things are relatively peaceful, that the Syrians pick up and go, which they have not. Last year the United Nations passed Resolution 1559 calling for Syria to withdraw from Lebanon and end all influence in Lebanese affairs.
So far Syria has not complied with the resolution, but with Iraqi elections and the assassination of Hariri, the Lebanese people have decided to take a more aggressive approach, and the US has put more political pressure on the Syrians to oblige. Syria still maintains that it is there because the Lebanese government asked it to be (although that was a long time ago) and because the government has yet to implement all of the constitutional reforms of the Taif accord. Now you all can tell me if you think Syria has any place advising another country on constitutional reforms.

Really, with all the joint - Christian and Muslim - protests going on I don't find it hard to believe that the Christians and Muslims can get along in a truly democratic situation. The government and power structures that the French left behind (another great job by the CESM) created a situation where the Christians had the power and the Muslims didn't. If the government is a fair democracy I see both groups getting along for the most part. They've each lived in the region of Lebanon for centuries, and the original civil war was, as is usually the case, more nuanced than just "Christians vs. Muslims."

The government of Lebanon, as provided by a loose constitution created in 1923 (amended in 1992, Taif accords), is a democracy, with three branches. The Judicial branch in this system is pretty weak, as it cannot provide for not judicial review of legislative acts, but can hear accusations against the president and Prime Minister. The Legislature is a single body with 128 seats, elected by popular vote on the basis of proportional representation, but divided equally among Christians and Muslims (there are 64 of each in the body). They serve 4 year terms.
The Legislature elects the President (currently Emile Lahud), who serves a 6 year term, and the president appoints the PM and the deputy PM.
Interestingly, by agreement, the president is a Maronite Christian, the PM is a Sunni Muslim and the Speaker of the legislature is a Shiite. I don't know if this will change, because as of last week, PM Omar Karami stepped down and declared the government dissolved. One hopes that the Lebanese will have some free and fair elections soon and not change the system, as it was generally thought that most elected officials were in Syria's back pocket.


Things are looking up, as the protests and demonstrations against the pro-Syrian government have been peaceful, with Christians and Muslims marching side by side in some cases. There have even been some reverberations in Syria. Also note the interview with Syrian opposition leader Farid Ghadry I noted below.
President Lahoud is giving the legislature 48 hours to pick a new Prime Minister, but some are calling for a "neutral" transition government ahead of elections due by the end of May.
This whole event has caused two bickering siblings to put aside differences:

In a rare display of unity, French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called for the immediate withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon and the holding of free and fair elections there.

Here is a nice timeline of events in the Daily Star. Hat tip to PublisPundit.

The power of words

And a little strength to back it up.
Farid Ghadry, the president of the Reform Party of Syria (a US based opposition party, pro-democracy) was interviewed by the National Review.
When asked if the Syrian people will be encouraged by the Lebanese uprising, he replies:

In my talks with the Syrians inside Syria, they are resisting demonstrating because as one human-rights activist told me: "President Bush has yet to call for freedom for the Syrian people." The Syrians are afraid to march without the international cover and the encouraging words of our president. We believe that the moment Syria leaves Lebanon, the president will hammer a strategy for Syrians to gain their freedom and democracy away from a culture of violence that is besieging Iraqis, Lebanese, and now Israelis.

Wow. One wonders if the Bush administration knew how well their strategy would be in promoting democracy in the entire region by forcing it in only one of them. Can this really work? And can it be applied to Iran? I'm betting the answer is yes.

Totten in Puerto Rico

Michael Totten has pictures and descriptions of our only remaining non-state territory from his trip. Great stuff. No history and politics, just culture and touristy descriptions.

The Origin

It all started here.

The journey actually began with a PowerPoint presentation at the Pentagon in 2002.
It was at a routine meeting of a Pentagon advisory board that Rand analyst Laurent Murawiec (whose public resume bizarrely includes a fling with LaRouche and just about nothing else) laid out a philosophy based on the old addage "When it rains on the Tigris, Egyptians open their umbrellas."

There are probably infinite variations of that phrase. Creating democracies in Iraq and Egypt was the crux of the presentation.

One person, however, borrowed the Baghdad/Cairo concept and made it the centerpiece of his Middle East strategy. He did so against the very strong urgings of every human being who has studied the history of the Middle East or been involved in Middle East diplomacy. "This is a different place with different rules...", we told him. "You're being naive. They're going to chew us up and spit us out...". We begged him to listen. He didn't. And now we're very close to the point where historians will be naming George Bush as the founding father of democracy in the Middle East.

This is what impresses me the most about Bush. I disagree with him on many levels. He's not charismatic in the traditional sense. But vision is the thing that drives leadership. No president has had the long term vision that Bush has on any issue for decades.
Except Reagan.

Hat tip to Instapundit.

Beirut fallen

There is a big protest going on in Beirut, Lebanon. The Caveman in Beirut estimates that there are over 200,000 people involved. And then there's this:

Prime Minister Omar Karami just did it - he resigned right in front of the Parliament after a lengthy speech introduction in which he complained of personal attacks in the local Lebanese media. Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri objected, saying that proper procedure required that Karami notify him first, but it looks like what's done is done.

The government has fallen. And now the fun begins.

AP story of the resignation here.

Uh oh.

This is disturbing.

Since the Jan. 30 elections, Shiite militants have stepped up their campaign to exact street justice from men who were part of the regime that oppressed and massacred members of their sect for decades. While Shiite politicians turn a blind eye, assassins are working their way through a hit list of Saddam's former security and intelligence personnel, according to Iraqi authorities, Sunni politicians and interviews with the families of those who've been targeted.

Former Baathists have responded in kind, this month killing several Shiites allied with major political factions. Cases under investigation include the killings of two Shiite militiamen outside a popular restaurant in Baghdad a week ago and the deaths of three Shiite militiamen who were in police custody.

Sistani has called for restraint, so I don't think, from the report, that this little campaign has the backing of the Shi-ite majority. But it could stir up a hornet's nest regardless.

"The head of Iraqi intelligence accused us of these assassinations and I told him, `If you have proof against us, give me the intelligence.' I offered to form a committee and hand over any guilty men," al Ameri said. "We don't want revenge from anyone. We've been oppressed and we shouldn't oppress others."

The guerrilla-turned-politician conceded that some Shiites were attacking former Baathists of their own accord. If al Sistani hadn't asked militiamen to use the courts - not guns - for revenge, he said, the situation would be much worse.

Bush the Extremist

I was perusing Kevin Drum's site the other day and I came across this post called Conservatism vs. Extremism. In it he starts out with a discussion on a article in the Prospect arguing that conservatives are more concerned with conservative philosophy, while liberals are more concerned with strategy (he uses "obsessed" instead of concerned).
About half way through he changes the subject slightly and says this:

For now, though, let me just say that I think both of these pieces gloss over an important point: extremism. I'd say that extremist liberals are every bit as ideologically driven as extremist conservatives and that moderate conservatives are every bit as interested in problem solving as moderate liberals.

Which I agree with him on. I'll take it a step further and say that I don't think that you can really say with any degree of accuracy what moderate liberals and conservatives believe (unless you are looking solely at elected officials) because peoples views are never confined to those stereotypes. I'm liberal on some issues, conservative on others. Am I a moderate? On some issues yes, and on some issues a resounding no.
After that he brings out this little diddy:

Back here on planet Earth, though, we happen to be at a point in history when the Republican party has been taken over by extremists like Tom DeLay, Grover Norquist, and George Bush. If the Democratic party were headed up by, say, Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, and Barbara Ehrenreich, you'd have all the liberal philosophy you could stomach. But it isn't. Those three have their own spheres of influence, certainly, but the actual Democratic party is run by folks like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Howard Dean, and Bill Clinton, none of whom are agitating to take over the means of production or disband the military-industrial complex.

Um.... Excuse me. Bush is an extremist? I'd pair Bush up with Clinton or Dean any day. If Kevin thinks that Bush represents the extreme right in American politics then he is further left than I thought he was. Noticeably, when your philosophy is far to the right or left of the spectrum, your idea of where the middle is can get kind of distorted.
The way I look at it, Bush champions issues like prescription drug support, liberalized immigration, large education programs that cost hundreds of millions of dollars, and I think I'm looking at the most effective liberal (modern definition) in recent memory. When I think what he's done internationally, I think I'm looking at the most effective liberal (classical definition) in recent memory.
Sure, he's conservative in many areas too, such as the social arena, and the generally conservative issue of Social Security reform (which was actually taken up in a similar way, but then dropped, by Clinton). So Bush is an extremist why?
Perhaps Kevin is referring to the reputation the current administration has, which has been built up by the left, of not conceding evidence that might refute his philosophy. "It's extremism that cares nothing for empirical evidence, not conservatism." OK, but in that case I wouldn't call Bush an extremist, I'd call him an American Politician.

Schiavo revisited

A judge made a decision extending the stay that's keeping Terri Schiavo alive for the moment. I've been concerned about this, as I think her husband is a slime for wanting this.
But the decision by the judge raises another flag that's a little disturbing. His reasoning for the extension of the stay is thus:

A judge Wednesday extended a stay keeping brain-damaged Terri Schiavo's feeding tube in place, saying he needed time to decide whether her husband, who wants to let her die, is fit to be her guardian.

Pinellas Circuit Court Judge George Greer extended until Friday an emergency stay that was to expire Wednesday afternoon. He said he also needs more time to determine whether Terri Schiavo needs more medical tests to determine if she has greater mental capabilities than previously thought.

Ok, I'm with the second reason, but the first one gives me pause. There's a pretty sacred tradition in this country that Spouses have the right to make the decisions for their respective others, if they can't make it for themselves. It's as if they are one in this decision making ability. At what point can a judge just say that a husband is not "fit" to be a guardian for his wife? Is there precedent here? I think that Michael Schiavo is a selfish bastard, but he is her husband. I would hate for a court to interfere with a decision I made on behalf of my wife just because folks don't like it.

Girls and Boys equal

Washington Post has a story about a study done that indicates that boys and girls have it about the same in the school years. Looking at individual areas, sometimes boys have the advantage, sometimes girls do, but as those things cancel each other out, both sexes fare pretty equally.

Although boys have the advantage in some areas and girls score better in others, they are doing about the same in a broad array of measures assessing essential dimensions of life, such as health, safety, economics and education, the researchers found.

However...

"If you're on one side or the other of the gender-wars debate, you could pick a specific indicator to buttress your case," said Kenneth C. Land, a professor of demographic studies and sociology at Duke University, senior author of the study.

Which, of course, happens.

"This reminds me of that saying, 'lies, damn lies and statistics," said Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women. "There's no question that boys and girls have disadvantages in different ways, but the variables they have chosen seem designed to show girls are doing better."

Oh, you mean like drug use, suicide, graduation rates, test scores? Variables like that? What do they want? I would think that any study proving the equality of the sexes would be what NOW people want! But apparenly a thriving female class might be dangerous to the cause. You can't protest high graduation rates and low drug use.

Iranian Blogger Day

The call has come over the wire, to dedicate today, Tuesday, Feb 22nd, to a couple of Iranian bloggers known as Mojtaba and Arash. This blog recognizes that they are probably not the only bloggers in Iran that need our moral support and encouragement.
Jeff Jarvis posts:

I first discovered the Iranian blog culture when its Johnny Appleseed, Hossein Derakhshan, reported on the arrest of blogger Sina Motallebi. We blogged about that and brought international attention to the story and Sina credits that with helping to get him out of jail and out of the country.

These people are in jail for doing exactly what we have the privilege of doing: Speaking. We must stand with them.

Totten has more too. And here is the website of the Commitee to Protect Bloggers.

Nepal

Winds of Change has a great post today on many things going on in South Asia, but most notably Nepal. For those of you not in the know, the King of Nepal has seized executive power and declared a state of emergency so that he could clamp down a bit on his government. India has been pressuring Nepal to slowly reform into a democracy, but this is a step in the other direction.
India has a great opportunity to reverse the flow here, but China is keeping quiet. Apparently the king closed down the Dalai Lama's office in Nepal, and the Chinese aren't crying about that.
Anyway, there's much more.

Does it include all countries?

One of the things that I learned, even about myself, when sitting before a marriage counselor in the early days of my marriage was that men typically say things, like "I'm sorry," before what they feel actually, emotionally, backs up what they just said.
I kind of understood that theory when it was explained to me, but later in my life I have actually experienced what it is like. I have to say I'm sorry whether I feel it or not. Later I realize what an idiot I've been, but I won't as long as the argument is continuing (and if I don't say I'm sorry for something the argument will continue). The same goes for I love you, and a whole host of other sentiments. For guys emotion is very much a decision to make, not an something you feel at that moment.
I wonder how that plays in politics sometimes. I have noticed that, despite the past actions of a politician, that when he starts talking about a particular philosophy in public, that his actions kind of follow that trend, whether that's where they started or not.
Take Clinton for instance. I was often amazed by how moderate he sounded in his speeches, and how much some of his rhetoric on programs almost sounded conservative. Later he would prove to move his administration pretty far to the right compared to the early days of his administration.
Bush has been like that too. You can't say that he has not made great strides in following an agenda that was set in his campaign speeches. One area in particular has struck me lately as a great example of this phenomena.
Back in the 1980s, Reagan had this habit (as did Carter and others) of supporting bad regimes in the fight against the USSR. Afghanistan is one example. But something happened in the 2nd term that kind of shifted that policy. Reagan began to talk freedom and democracy. His speeches began to look something similar to what Bush has been repeating over the last 3 years. The problem was that Reagan's track record to that point had not been great. But that changed. Say whatever you will about his methods, he sent the Philippines down that road by forcing the Marcos dictatorship out. Reagan was trying to support Democratic revolutions in central and south America (somewhat badly when that revolution was militant and brutal itself). The point is though that Reagan became more of a champion of democracy because of his own rhetoric.
Now GW is on that path. Lest anyone think that the only reason we invaded Iraq instead of, say, Togo, is that Iraq has lots of oil, see events in recent days as a partial refute.
There were some making the point that Togo was regressing, because the military took over and appointed the son of the just deceased leader as President. Calls came out for Bush to do something, or say something, because if he didn't it would prove the critics right.
Well, this weekend the Bush administration has announced that it will cut off military assistance to the country and endorse the sanctions imposed on it from the regional ECOWAS. How's that for an answer.
The Bush administration has reacted favorably to the Ukrainian elections and the Georgian elections. In addition, he finally has talked tough to Putin, showing a hardening of his attitude toward the crumbling democracy in Russia.

We must always remind Russia, however, that our alliance stands for a free press, a vital opposition, the sharing of power and the rule of law - and the United States and all European countries should place democratic reform at the heart of their dialogue with Russia.

In doing this, Mr. Bush has refuted my rather snarky comment regarding his past statements where Mr. Putin is concerned. Good show, Mr. President. (Hat tip to Oxblog)
I must say that based on my little story at the start of this post, that I expect that Bush will indeed be a champion of democracy during his second term.

Someone gets it

When you talk about cutting the budget (any political budget) one always hears the moans and groans about how all these vital programs will get cut, and sick old ladies will get thrown out onto the street, your son won't be able to run track because that's bee cut, and so forth.
When I read this it was a real breath of fresh air.

To hear the bureaus tell it, police would no longer have an officer assigned to public schools, grime would collect on downtown streets, fire stations would close, street lights would go dark and more 9-1-1- callers would be put on hold if the City Council went through with its plan to find major cuts in the city's spending.

Yet City Council members don't believe the fiscal sky is falling -- at least not to the degree suggested in the bureaus' budget proposals filed last week and Monday. Yes, City Council members have said they want to cut $8 million, or about 3 percent, from services in the general fund budget in 2005-06. Yes, Potter has said he's serious about rethinking the role of city government, and shrinking it if necessary.

But so far, commissioners aren't convinced bureau leaders have looked under every sofa cushion and behind every manager's office door for savings.

Commissioner Randy Leonard said the suggested trims he's seen were offered "to scare the citizenry." Commissioner Sam Adams said he's seen too many "Washington Monument" cuts -- slashes to services the City Council can't possibly make without huge public outcry.

"I'm seeing too many proposals that call for cutting programs rather than cutting management," he said. "That's not acceptable."

Finally someone gets it.

School closures in Portland

The student body population in the Portland School district has been steadily dropping over the last decade or so, as families with school age children head for the burbs. Some individual school populations are causing those schools to reach the point where the money coming in won't support certain activities or services, or much needed maintenance.
So the superintendent Vicki Phillips makes a plan to close some schools. This, of course, makes some people angry.

Superintendent Vicki Phillips on Monday unveiled a sweeping proposal to close four small elementary schools and two small middle schools in the next 18 months while expanding Ockley Green Middle School and Jefferson High School. Phillips said improving the district's academic performance was her primary motivation, though the district's budget picture also is a factor.

Academic performance was her primary motivation. Yeah, sure, whatever.
The reason that people are really upset is that Phillips didn't really think this through, and the parents of the schools say that they had no input into this process.
But beyond that, I think that tough decisions need to be made, and Phillips has at least moving in SOME direction. There are some interesting ideas on the table, like creating k-6 and 7-12 (or k-8 and 9-12) schools, eliminating the middle school altogether.
Here's a suggestion though. While you are making tough choices with students because you are having budget problems, PSD is running out of room in it's central office complex. That's right: the student population is decreasing, but the bureaucracy is increasing. And you wonder why there is a budget problem?

Carter worst President ever?

Powerline makes their case.

Update on Russian autocracy

Someone passed me this rather large piece in the Weekly Standard discussing just what President Putin has been doing lately and what that means to us.

IN RETROSPECT, we now recognize that the arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky on October 25, 2003 by heavily armed, special forces troops was the watershed event in the deterioration of democracy in Russia. Prior to this arrest, the soft suppression of democratic forces appeared to some as a manifestation of Moscow's historic political insecurity and an understandable effort to "manage' democracy and ameliorate the excesses of, and societal stress from, the Yeltsin era. Subsequent to October 2003, it became apparent that what President Putin had undertaken was a comprehensive crackdown on each and every perceived rival to state power and the re-imposition of the traditional Russian state, autocratic at home and imperial abroad.

and...

If the conditions which supported democratic change and reform in Georgia and Ukraine are any guide, President Putin has orchestrated a sustained and methodical campaign to eliminate not only democratic forces in civil and political life, but also the possibility of such forces arising again in the future. I do not think that it is accurate to say that democracy is in retreat in Russia. Democracy has been assassinated in Russia.

and...

The policies of Russia and the conduct of President Putin are growing increasingly eccentric and seem to be motivated more by an angry romanticism, than by a rational calculation of national interest.

Read the whole thing. GW Bush said once of Putin that he could see into his soul and thought he was an alright guy with the interests of his nation in mind. What do ya think now, GW?

Blogs in their opinion

Volokh has a look into the opinions of the Plame/Wilson case, and they mention bloggers and blogging. They actually use an article by Eugene Volokh (who happens to be a Constitutional Law professor in LA) where he states:

"[T]he rules should be the same for old media and new, professional and amateur. Any journalist's privilege should extend to every journalist."

Including bloggers. The opinion mentions blogging several times.

Update: Robin Burk notes that a day later, now it's Senators talking about blogs. Senators Cornyn (R) and Leahy (D) note:

Protect access to FOIA fee waivers for legitimate journalists, regardless of institutional association – including bloggers and other Internet-based journalists

Wow.

Speaking of Syria and others

That last post I got from Winds of Change (I should have given a hat-tip, but forgot). They also have their Winds of War, which talks about our fight against terrorism in the middle east and beyond, and Africa regional briefing, a summation of news and events in Africa.
I got the stuff on Syria and Lebanon there. The Lebanese state of revolt over the suicide bombing and death of Rafik Hariri should be interesting to watch.