Whoa, Slow Down

Abe Kaul blogs like he's on crack.

Results Coming In

The special election in the CA-50th seems to be tightening as the night goes on, Busby currently trails 45.06% to 49.64% with 78% of precincts reporting. I don't think she can bridge the gap, though I hope I'm wrong when I wake up. An impressive run by Busby to do that well in a heavily Republican district and force the Republicans to spend $4 million to the Democrats $2 million in order to hold onto it. A fiercely Republican district, I will count the closeness of this race as a moral victory.

In other news, Jon Tester has defeated John Morrison for the Montana Democratic Party nomination to take on Sen. Conrad Burns in the November election. The nation's most unpopular Senator is in trouble. David Sirota has a great post on Tester.

Good Night and Good Luck.

Election Day

It is election day in the CA-50. I would expect a close race for the House seat left open by Duke Cunningham. Personally, unless there is very low Republican turnout (a definate possibility) I don't see Busby getting over the 46% she took in the primary.

I will now take this moment to criticize the fact that there is a special election at all. It is only a few months until the general election in November, and much of that time the House will be out of session. There was no reason for a special election here, whoever wins is going to have to be elected again after just a few months. Personally I think Arnold should have just appointed someone to fill the seat until the election, instead San Diego County has to spend a lot of money and resources on running this special election. The OH-02 special election was different, the winner of that election had most of a term to fill out, and thus it made sense. Here it really does not. I hope the best for Busby, but there shouldn't be a special election, it is a waste of time and resources.

On the Mexican Presidential Election

I am watching this election pretty closely, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador of the Center-Left PRD in Mexico is currently running neck in neck with Felipe Calderon of the right wing PAN (Vincinte Fox's party). The Institutional Revolutionary Party that ruled Mexico as a one party state for 70 years until Fox's election in 2000 seems to be completely out of the race. The New York Times ran an excellent article about the race and about Obrador in particular yesterday. Some exerpts from the article of particular interest to me.

As the Mexican historian Enrique Krauze has pointed out, López Obrador's emphasis on his loyalty to the poor connects him, in the mind of much of the Mexican general public, to "the core ideals of the Mexican Revolution." It is common at campaign rallies to see people holding placards with slogans like "López Obrador: For all Mexicans, but first for the humble" and "They will not rob us of our dreams."
...
"People say that I am promising too much. But we're talking about a society where 20 million people — 20 million! — live on $2 a day. So when, for example, I talk about giving food aid to the poor, I'm talking about 20 pesos each" — the equivalent of about $2. "And that money — those $2 — would double what these 20 million get and radically change their lives. What the people of Mexico need is not that much, you know."
...
Everything changed when Fox, the PAN candidate, won the 2000 elections and the PRI government of Ernesto Zedillo did not try to invalidate the results. But in the minds of many Mexicans, perhaps even a majority, this political transformation was not matched by economic progress. The middle class unquestionably expanded during Fox's term, and along with it grew rates of homeownership and, in certain regions of the country, disposable incomes. But in other parts of the country, the Nafta years were ones of falling incomes and rising joblessness. A result was mass emigration to the United States, enormous even by already-high past standards. "It's not a migration; it's an exodus" was the way one of López Obrador's aides described it. Or, as one Mexican writer put it to me, Fox did create 10 million jobs for Mexicans — unfortunately, they were all in the United States.

López Obrador emphasizes the emigration issue at virtually every campaign stop. Resentment at the treatment of Mexican migrants in the United States is at a fever pitch in Mexico, with practically every affront against illegal workers, real or imagined, getting huge coverage in the Mexican media; the recent pro-legalization rallies in the U.S. were treated with adulation. But López Obrador speaks of emigration as a tragedy for Mexico and as something Mexico needs to put a stop to out of its own national interest. Unlike many Mexican political figures, AMLO doesn't seem to expect the U.S. to continue to accept the current levels of immigration. Nor does he base his economic calculations on the $20 billion that emigrants to the U.S. send home each year, in the process helping to prop up the Mexican economy. And he says that addressing the question will be a priority for his administration.

"If I am elected," he told me, "I will propose a conference on migration with the United States. Building a wall is not a viable solution. The only thing that will work is creating jobs in Mexico. Fox was not able to maintain good relations with Washington. But I can't see any reason why I can't succeed in doing so."

Mexico has not had anyone like this ever, someone who really seeks to make life significantly better for poor Mexicans who have been forgotten about in a neoliberal tide. All through her history Mexican politics have been dominated by foreign business interests. There have been brief shifts away from this, obviously in the break from Spain, in the rise of Benito Juarez, and the Mexican Revolution, all represented an acknowledgement of the struggles of indigenous and southern Mexicans, but they were shortlived. Independence was followed by Santa Anna, Juarez was followed by the French occupation, and the Revolution was betrayed by the PRI. Obrador follows from the tradition of Hidaldo, of Juarez, and of Zapata, the tradition that fights for the poor and disenfranchised of Mexico.

Too many particularly in the south have been pushed aside by this neoliberal tide. In principle NAFTA can be good for Mexico, and where I had worried about the extent to which Obrador was against the treaty, this article kind of puts those fears to rest. He seems to acknowledge that NAFTA and globalization are a fact of life but wants to alter the trade policies so that poor rural farmers and workers are better protected. In terms of US Mexico relations, I really think that Obrador hits immigration issues on the head, its bad for Mexico to be losing some of its most motivated citizens to the United States. It is as I've said many times here before, an economic refugee crisis. It is a problem of human suffering, and people are going to continue to migrate to where the jobs lie, to Mexico City and to the United States until the basic problem of poverty that drives the situation is dealt with.

Great article on the race, not nearly as pro-Obrador as I am, but a very good summary of the election circumstances, go check it out. As a side note, I believe that Obrador's support is underrepresented in the polling, his support will come from rural and poor areas where pollsters will be unable to reach. Mexican polling has failed before, Fox trailed by 6% right before the election in 2000, and we all know what happened.

Gore Instists that he Will Not Run for President

In today's Washington Post, Al Gore explicitly states that he will not run for President.

"I can't imagine any circumstances in which I would become a candidate again. I've found other ways to serve. I'm enjoying them."
...
"I have no plans to be a candidate for president again," he said. "I don't expect to ever be a candidate for president again. I haven't made a so-called Sherman statement, because it just seems unnecessary, kind of odd to do that."

Its a shame, if he wanted it I think the Democratic nomination certainly, and the Presidency likely would be his for the taking in 2008. The remade Al Gore would be a compelling candidate far better than the cautious candidate we saw in 2000.

Pinning Down the Identity Gap

I believe I have found the cause of the identity gap. It would certainly need more study if I have. Check out the Diary at DailyKos.

The Republican Strategy in 2006

They have no record to run on, they have cheerleaded a disastrous war, the most visable public figure for their Party has a 30% approval rating, and they have failed to engage in any oversight of an administration that, as Blumenthal pointed out in yesterday's Salon, has shown a blatant disregard for the Constitution. So what are the Republicans going to do to avoid losing one or both Houses of Congress in November? Jack Cafferty hits it on the nose on CNN this morning. They are going to try to ride hatred, bigotry, and fear into the election.

This is pure politics. If has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in gay marriage. It's blatant posturing by Republicans, who are increasingly desperate as the midterm elections approach. There's not a lot else to get people interested in voting on them, based on their record of the last five years.

But if you can appeal to the hatred, bigotry, or discrimination in some people, you might move them to the polls to vote against that big, bad gay married couple that one day might in down the street.

Its really no different than the strategy in 2002 and 2004, divide the country and push all public debate into a "us vs. them" mentality. In 2002 and 2004 it was easier for they could simply use 9/11 to do this. Now, with Republican leadership in foreign policy clearly out of touch, this tactic of division and seclusion has a greatly diminished chance of working for the Republicans in 2006. So they have returned to their favorite whipping boy in 2004, the gays, and added a new player to the mix. The "illegals". Expect the Republican theme in 2006 to be a constant harping of the need to be afraid of these two minority groups. Be afraid of the gays and the illegals.

The War Paradigm

Sidney Blumenthal has a good article over at Salon on the "war paradigm" adopted by the Bush Administration after the September 11th attacks. Not anything really new, but he clearly and concisely hits the mark on the way this Administration governs. One piece of information I was unaware of:

In the short run, Bush's defense of his war paradigm could precipitate three potential constitutional crises. In the first, freedom of the press would be at issue. On May 21, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales announced the "possibility" that the New York Times would be prosecuted under the 1917 Espionage Act for publishing its Pulitzer Prize-winning article on the administration's warrantless domestic surveillance. "It can't be the case," he said, that the First Amendment "trumps" the "right" of the government "to go after criminal activity" -- and he then defined the Times' printing of its story as "criminal activity."

The 1917 Espionage Act? I was either unaware of Gonzalez making this argument or had forgotten all about it. That shows a truly unbeleivable disrespect of the first amendment and for openness in government. Very good article, go read it.

Spokesman Review Avoids Reality

Ironically on this day the Spokesman Review decides to run this fantasy article, the major news of the day would be this report. One wonders if Sowell and the Spokesman Review which chooses to pick up his article have been paying attention particularly in the past month when we've seen a major decline in the stock market, rising inflation, and now very low job returns. Is there any remaining doubt that the Spokesman Review clings to some FoxNewsesque idea of balance? Anyone who hopes to become informed by reading the paper should probably be avoiding the Spokesman at this point. When the Spokesman Review consistantly runs this kind of crap and then "balances" it with soft moderates like David Broder its seriousness as a paper is put into question.

Bush Tries to Reconcile House and Senate Immigration Bills

President Bush attempting to convince the House and Senate Republicans to reach a compromise over their competing immigration bills today spoke from the US Chamber of Commerce headquarters on the need for compromise.

At this point it strikes me that neither bill is good, the Senate bill is bad but not terrible and the House bill is outrageous. There is no reason that this issue needs to be dealt with at this exact moment. Democrats should withdraw their support and allow Republicans to feud over the xenophobe bill and the corporate friendly bill. If most Democrats withdraw their support from both bills I don't think there's any way that these can be reconciled, we can come back to the issue after the midterms or after the 2008 Presidential election. Until this is taken for what it is, an economic refugee crisis nothing good can come of it. What is needed is serious visa reform (which a guest worker program with a path to citizenship starts to do), a renegotiating of NAFTA, and a committment to helping Mexico improve her rural infrastructure. As long as we're talking about militarizing the border, eliminating due process for illegal immigrants, and building a giant fence nothing should be passed.

SCOTUSBlog on the Ceballos Decision

Basically this decision is outrageous, it severely limits the Constitutional rights of whistleblowers and is completely impractical. SCOTUSBLOG has the scoop.

Today, the Court took that very signifiant step, holding that "when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline." This apparently means that employees may be disciplined for their official capacity speech, without any First Amendment scrutiny, and without regard to whether it touches on matters of "public concern" -- a very significant doctrinal development.

Or perhaps not quite. In order to issue such a holding, the Court would have had to distinguish or overrule Givhan v. Western Line Consol. School Dist., 439 U. S. 410, 414 (1979), which provided First Amendment protection to an English teacher who had raised concerns to the principal about racism in her school’s employment practices. Citing Givhan, Justice Kennedy writes that "[t]he First Amendment protects some expressions related to the speaker’s job," even when made within the workplace. But, he argues, "[t]he controlling factor in Ceballos’ case is that his expressions were made pursuant to his duties as a calendar deputy.".

So, it appears that if one's duties are to expose wrongdoing in the workplace, such exposure is entitled to no constitutional protection, but that if an employee whose duties do not involve such whistleblowing makes the exact same complaint, then Pickering/Connick analysis still applies. A somewhat odd result, at least on first glance. And odder still: Under today's opinion, if Mr. Ceballos had written a newspaper article complaining about the wrongdoing in question, rather than taking the matter to his supervisor, he would at least be entitled to whatever constitutiional protection Pickering/Connick offers.

I guess the lesson in all this is that if you have a complaint about your workplace you're better off going to the press than to your employer, great idea Justice Kennedy. Furthermore, Jack Balkin makes the argument that employee whisleblowers are screwed no matter which way they go. If they use internal channels they forfeit their first amendment rights and if they go to the press they become workplace pariahs and will probably have to leave their job anyway.

My Published Work on Immigration

Several weeks ago I was asked by the Linfield Review to write an article on immigration. I did, and it was published. I had hoped to link to that article here, but that issue of the Linfield Review seems to have not been posted on the web, so without further ado, I present to you the article, edited for one or two things that I meant to change before I submitted it but forgot.

Since 1886 the statue of liberty has welcomed immigrants to the United States with the famous slogan “give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breath free…I lift my lamp beside the golden door.” Now as the United States debates immigration, with some proposals featuring a giant fence along the Mexican border, that sentiment is threatened. What emerges from the immigration debate that we are currently engaged in will define who we are as a country for a long time to come.

The United States is in a unique position economically and geographically in the world. Very few developed nations share a significant border with a developing nation as we do with Mexico. Immigration from the developing world into the developed world is a common trend worldwide, the United States is somewhat unique because of that 2,000-mile border with a developing country. This situation makes the United States perhaps a more desirable destination for people from Latin America. Other developed nations, which also serve as destinations for immigration from the developing world do not have this geographic situation that may make immigration to the United States in particular so appealing to Hispanics seeking a better life.

There has been much debate over whether immigrants, and particularly illegal immigrants improve or harm the US economy. Some of the arguments are patently false, and need to be dismissed from the discussion, that illegal immigrants don’t pay taxes, and that they are a drain on social services in particular. In fact, illegal immigrants are ineligible for services such as food stamps, Medicaid, or welfare benefits, but do pay taxes on their income, in fact they serve as a major boost to social security since they pay the payroll tax but are ineligible for its benefits. Businesses appreciate the labor that these individuals provide, for they are very hardworking individuals who, unfortunately are not always paid the minimum wage or given the essential protections afforded to most workers. There is some wage loss due to immigration, according to George Borjas, a Harvard economist; immigration from 1980 to 2000 caused an average 4% wage decrease for US-born males. When lower prices, increased productivity, and other benefits of illegal immigrant labor are considered, Borjas estimates that the average American is 1% wealthier because of illegal immigration.

While the opportunities that people find in the United States are certainly greater than they were in Mexico the lives of these individuals hardly transforms from poverty to wealth. The Pew Hispanic Center notes that in 2004 the poverty rate in the United States among Hispanics was 22.5% compared to a 14% national average. That number includes both citizens and non-citizens; you could imagine that the non-citizen and illegal numbers would be far higher. People endure these conditions to enter the United States illegally because conditions are worse in Mexico. After the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement, the number of Mexicans living in conditions of poverty increased by 19 million. NAFTA is not bad, the agreement has generally improved the Mexican economy, but it lacked provisions to protect low wage workers and small farmers. Some Mexicans employed full time may make as little as $2.50 a day.

Given the apparent minimal effect that illegal immigration seems to have for Americans it is the cultural implications of immigration that make it such a big issue. This is about a perceived threat to the American way of life with millions of people creeping up from the South speaking primarily a foreign language. If this is true then the issue is ultimately about isolation. Many Americans want to seal their culture off from perceived outside threats. This would explain why people are willing to support free movement of goods across borders, but not free movement of people, for tennis shoes from Malaysia bring no apparent cultural change, while socializing with a completely different culture does.

An honest approach to the immigration issue should seek greater integration, for down the road of greater integration lies the best course for the United States. We should welcome immigrants and the good work they do in this country as we have in the past, perhaps make it easier to gain citizenship for those who want it, and pursue policies that help Mexico and Latin America to improve itself, like renegotiating NAFTA and supplying aid directed towards improving infrastructure. Down this path we welcome what it different and take the cultural changes as they come while easing the desperate circumstances that drive people to risk their lives to come here. The slogan on the statue of liberty signals an attitude that built this country into what it is today, we cannot afford to abandon that sentiment now.

Why Don't They Come Here Legally?

The New York Times ran an article today pointing out the absurdity of much of the "illegal immigration" frame that has dominated our public discourse on this issue. George Lakoff points out at the Rockridge Institute that this is more properly a "economic refugee crisis" than it is a "illegal immigration problem". When we think of the issue in terms of illegal immigration it is likely that the discourse revolves arround the fact that so many hispanic immigrants are here without the proper paperwork to be legal. It sets the debate in terms of the immigrants having broken the law. What the New York Times does excellently today is point out that the idea that people should "wait in line" is a false one, for oftentimes there is no line to wait in.

Six years after he came here from Mexico, David E. has a steady job in a poultry plant, a tidy mobile home and a minivan. Some days he almost forgets that he does not have legal documents to be in this country.

David's precarious success reflects the longtime disconnect between the huge number of Mexican immigrants the American economy has absorbed and the much smaller number the immigration system has allowed to enter legally.

Like many Mexicans, David — who spoke in Spanish and whose last name is being withheld because he feared being fired or deported — was drawn by the near-certain prospect of work when he made his stealthy passage across the desert border in Arizona to this town among the cucumber fields of eastern North Carolina.

"If I had the resources and the connections to apply to come legally," said David, 37, "I wouldn't need to leave Mexico to work in this country."
...
By big margins, Mexican workers have been the dominant group coming to the United States over the last two decades, yet Washington has opened only limited legal channels for them, and has then repeatedly narrowed those channels.

"People ask: Why don't they come legally? Why don't they wait in line?" said Jeffrey S. Passel, a demographer at the Pew Hispanic Center, a research organization in Washington. "For most Mexicans, there is no line to get in."

The United States offers 5,000 permanent visas worldwide each year for unskilled laborers. Last year, two of them went to Mexicans. In the same year, about 500,000 unskilled Mexican workers crossed the border illegally, researchers estimate, and most of them found jobs.

"We have a neighboring country with a population of 105 million that is our third-largest trading partner, and it has the same visa allocation as Botswana or Nepal," said Douglas S. Massey, a sociology professor at Princeton.
...
For Mexicans who try to immigrate legally, the line can seem endless. A Mexican who has become a naturalized United States citizen and wants to bring an adult son or daughter to live here faces a wait of at least 12 years, State Department rosters show. The wait is as long as seven years for a legal resident from Mexico who wants to bring a spouse and young children.

Although David E. graduated from a Mexican university, he does not have an advanced degree, a rare skill or family ties to a legal United States resident that might have made him eligible for one of the scarce permanent visas.

Instead, he said, after he despaired of finding work at a decent wage in his home city, Veracruz, he discovered an alternative immigration system, the well-tried underground network of word-of-mouth connections. Contacts he made through the network helped him to make the trek to Arizona, traverse the country in a van loaded with illegal Mexicans and land a job eviscerating turkeys at a poultry plant in Mount Olive three weeks after he arrived.

David has been at the plant ever since, rising to become the chief of an assembly line but still working as much as 12 hours a day on a red-eye shift that ends at 3 a.m.

From time to time he has made inquiries about becoming legal. But he said he was detained twice by the Border Patrol when he first tried to cross into the United States, and with that record, he feared that any approach to the immigration authorities might end in deportation.

Emphasis mine. So great, we're going to demonize people for coming to the United States illegally when there are no channels for them to come here legally. This grossly unfair visa distribution must end. Thanks to Mountain Man at DailyKos for the catch.

The Irony of the DaVinci Code Uproar

I went to see the DaVinci Code today. While it seems to have been largely panned I liked the movie, but that's not what I intend on speaking to here. At the end of April Vatican Officials called for its boycott. Numerous other groups have protested the film as well.

The irony of it all of course is that by reacting as they have to a fictional film, based on a novel that never claimed to be anything else, those who have reacted to this film and are offended by its content serve only to prove its point.

Now is the time for a spoiler alert, if you have not seen the film or read the book you may be well served to stop here. The premise of the film is that in order to justify a patriarchal message the catholic church had suppressed that Jesus Christ was married to Mary Magdalene and had a female child with her. In short, that Jesus christ was human, and that the catholic church would go to any length to prevent this getting out in order to justify a doctrine that serves to oppress women.

The uproar over this movie by the Catholic Church and many other religious groups makes Dan Brown's point more effectively than the book itself. It suggests that some are so determined to prevent free thought and questioning of church doctrine that they will go to extreme radical measures to prevent it. And there lies the point of this movie. Those who have put so much effort into killing this movie should perhaps consider Robert Langdon's (Tom Hanks) ending remarks. "Is it divine? Is it human? Can't the human be divine?" To question doctrine should not be something so actively fought, but considered. The Catholic Church has throughout its history been an organization less than committed to womens rights and equality. The movie is treats the Catholic Church brutally and in many regards with historical honesty. Maybe it should be considered whether it is really worth trying to destroy those ideas that question your doctine or whether it is better to consider the substance of the attack and admit ones past mistakes moving forward with more compassion.

As a side note, fiction is fiction ya know, its not like anyone is claiming this to be a documentary or to be factual. It is an engaging fascinating mystery flick, making a major PR campaign to get out the news that fiction is fiction seems a little odd.

Back In Action

Ok, after a long semester featuring the class from hell I can now restart this blog over the summer and hopefully keep it going into the fall. With the research project that bogged me down this semester out of the way I suspect I can pull it off just fine. Now I hope to once more be able to write about the world's happenings. I missed the isolationist immigration proposals, the new wiretapping revelations, and much more. Now with fewer conflicts over the next three months I will be able to discuss what happens in the world here as I also attempt to transition this into a place for labor related stories in particular. Cwech Blug open for business again.

I Quit!

I've been trying to juggle this blog with school all year long, and I just can't pull it off. I will keep this open and post when I'm dying to say something, but beyond that, this blog is shutting down until June. I simply cannot pull it off at this time, I have not posted much recently and I do not expect to in the near future.

The Hillary Media Circus

I'm trying to keep an open mind about the 2008 Presidency. For starters its simply too far out to worry about. There are people I like (Feingold, Edwards), and people I don't like (Biden, Kerry, Hillary). I kind of suspect that the 2008 Democratic nominee might be someone on nobody's radar screen who will emerge from some obscure governorship. The in thing right now on those who can't bother to wait for people to actually start campaigning is to treat Hillary Clinton as the defacto nominee 2 years before the primaries begin. The Washington Post runs an op-ed piece today explaining I think quite well the Hillary Clinton phenomenon. It also does an excellent job of expressing why I think Hillary Clinton is not the right person to nominate.

It is, of course, Hillary's very wifeyness that titillates. All wives are mysterious to others (even to their husbands, I suspect) since their relationships to their men are not based on merit, as we know it, or patronage, as we know it, but on love and sex (at first), children (after a while) and then something else. Since we do not know our own marriages, we cannot know anyone else's. This engenders endless speculation about the distribution of power and the importance of pillow talk. (Somehow, it's OK for the unelected Karl Rove to advise Bush, but if Laura did it, some people would go nuts.) Did Nancy Reagan actually tell Ron what to do? What about Eleanor Roosevelt -- especially Eleanor? She was even more vilified than Franklin and all she ever did was go down into a coal mine, invite Marian Anderson to sing on the Mall and make some speeches in that high, squeaky voice of hers. Hardly worth hating, you'd think. But, oh, she was certainly hated.

Hillary, of course, is a very famous and very mysterious wife. We need not enumerate the reasons. They were more or less impeachable. Did she know? How could she not have known? Was she complicit? Is she an enabler? And now that she is a public official in her own right, even more mystery attaches to her. Who is she? What, exactly, are her politics? Is she a Cubs or a Yankees fan?
...
Some scrutiny of a possible president, even a mere senator, is expected, even required. But for one person to be so loved, so hated, and of such compelling interest -- so much more a celebrity than, say, John McCain -- suggests that more than politics is involved. Like Marie Antoinette, Hillary has emerged as the repository of so many fears, so much dread, such aspirations -- so much good and bad -- that we have to look past her office or her ambitions and suggest, strongly, that something deeply Freudian is at work. It was Freud, after all, who spoke for all men (and many women) by asking, "What do women want?" Now -- some fear, others hope -- we may finally have the answer.

My frustrations of late with Senator Clinton have been based arround her push to the center and apparent pandering to the non-existent centrist voter. But I am confident that if hypothetically Hillary could get elected, then she would make a good President whether I like her campaign style or not. The reason to object to Hillary Clinton running is that nobody has an open mind about her. It would be very difficult to get people to look beyond the irrelevencies that Cohen discusses and to consider the merits of candidate Clinton. It does not have to do with her being a woman, it has to do with her person, she is a much loved and much hated person who everyone has already made up their mind about. A less famous woman could stand a chance. I would welcome and support a Boxer candidacy if she decided to run, Hillary's problem is not her being a woman, but her presence as an irrational vent for many people to express everything wrong in the world.

Shhhh

I take a perhaps unusual view of Senator John McCain of Arizona. In spite of the conventional wisdom of McCain as a moderate I consider him a relatively conservative Senator who's image as a maverick, a moderate, and a pragmatist make him unbeatable. Paul Krugman exposes McCain's conservatism in the New York Times today, and I agree with most of his argument though he uses some questionable data as "facts". For example he sites voteview.com as ranking McCain the 3rd most conservative member of the United States Senate. Now, voteview could be right, and seems to be run by trustworthy people (a UCSD Poli Sci professor), but the ranking of McCain as the Senate's most conservative member is way out of step with everything else I've seen which tends to place him towards the middle and mainstream of the Republican caucus. That said, Krugman hits the principle quite accurately.

He isn't a moderate. Mr. McCain's policy positions and Senate votes don't just place him at the right end of America's political spectrum; they place him at the right wing of the REpublican Party.

And he isn't a maverick, at least not when it counts. When the cameras are rolling, Mr. McCain can sometimes be seen striking a brave pose of opposition to the White House. But when it matters, when the Bush administration's ability to do whatever it wants is at stake, Mr. McCain always toes the party line.

While I think Krugman's analysis of Arizona's senior Senator is ultimately correct I don't think this is a cat you want to let out of the bag. If McCain decides to run for President in 2008 his moderate image may prevent him from winning the nomination for lack of traditional conservative voters supporting him. I would argue that McCain cannot be beaten, he's too well liked accross party lines. Should he decide to run, the only thing keeping him out of the White House will be the Republican Primary, and in that setting his moderate image might kill him. So let's not tell the public that McCain is a right winger just yet.

The Plight of Airline Pilots

The New York Times illustrates the hardships pilots currently endure as the airline industry continues to limp along. The thing that particularly disturbed me was the discussion of increased hours. This is not just about pilots, the more fewer pilots are pushed to work more hours with less rest the more dangerous it is for everybody flying. I don't know what can be done here, the airline pilots union is in a bind, they work for an industry that is running in most cases out of bankruptcy and is really struggling to get by. That is the root cause of the problem, and with that in mind it is difficult to know how the union should react to improve the situation. I think everyone can tell that pushing too hard on airlines to improve pensions and reduce hours could be the final blow to many airlines experiencing losses from reductions in the number of passengers. There is one thing I do know though, this is the wrong attitude.

Not everyone agrees that the longer working schedule is a problem.

"It's hard for me to feel sorry for them," said Capt. Jeffrey R. Hefner, the safety chairman of the union that represents pilots at Southwest Airlines, who have always flown longer hours than pilots at older airlines.

"They're a bunch of spoiled brats," he said. "Historically, this has been a really cushy job once you get to the majors. You make a lot of money and you don't have to fly a lot. But there had to be a market balancing at some point."

Great, so pilots have union officials who think the members of the union are a bunch of spoiled brats, I'm sure that really helps the situation. What ever happened to union officials who fight for improved conditions for their members?

Dubai Ports Controversy Ends

Dubai Ports World has agreed to sell operations to a US Company effectively ending the showdown over ports. In an amazing bipartisan effort to shut the US off from the rest of the world, Congressional Democrats and Republicans joined together to stop the deal. I just don't get this, especially the Democrats, Republicans have a long history of xenophobia and it would be unreasonable to expect it to end now. But the Democrats should not have made this the issue they made it. This will come back to hurt Democrats ultimately in the attitute it enforces. That attitude is that we must resign within ourselves because there are people in the world who seek to hurt us. Democrats saw this as a political opportunity to show the Country that they were better on national security than Bush, but it will come back to hurt them because it reinforces that isolationist attitude that Republicans thrive upon.

That said, I feel no sympathy for Bush here, he dug his own grave on this issue through his rhetoric towards Iraq. Paul Krugman pointed this out on February 24th and puts it far better than I.

The administration successfully linked Iraq and 9/11 in public perceptions through a campaign of constant insinuation and occasional outright lies. In the process, it also created a state of mind in which all Arabs were lumped together in the camp of evildoers. Osama, Saddam -- what's the difference?

Now comes the ports deal. Mr. Bush assures us that "people don't need to worry about security." But after all those declarations that we're engaged in a global war on terrorism, after all the terror alerts declared whenever the national political debate seemed to be shifting to questions of cronyism, corruption and incompetence, the administration can't suddenly change its theme song to "Don't Worry, Be Happy."

The administration also tells us not to worry about having Arabs control port operations. "I want those who are questioning it," Mr. Bush said, "to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company."

He was being evasive, of course. This isn't just a Middle Eastern company; it's a company controlled by the monarchy in Dubai, which is part of the authoritarian United Arab Emirates, one of only three countries that recognized the Taliban as the legitimate ruler of Afghanistan.

But more to the point, after years of systematically suggesting that Arabs who didn't attack us are the same as Arabs who did, the administration can't suddenly turn around and say, "But these are good Arabs."

This is all about retreat from the rest of the world, and thus Democrats should not be blocking this deal. It is nice however, to see Bush get nailed by his own rhetoric. That said, today the xenophobes have won with the Dubai company agreeing to sell operations to a US company. Next up, a 2000 mile long fence between the United States and Mexico.