Bush’s Surveillance State

"More than anything else, what these revelations highlight — yet again — is that the U.S. has become precisely the kind of surveillance state that we were always told was the hallmark of tyrannical societies, with literally no limits on the government’s ability or willingness to spy on its own citizens and to maintain vast dossiers on those activities. The vast bulk of those on whom the Government spies have never been accused, let alone convicted, of having done anything wrong," – Glenn Greenwald in a must-read post. Don’t miss this nugget either: they began this two weeks after coming into office?

The Bluff Of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

Alvalukefrazzaafpgetty

One of the saddest signs of the irrationality of even the rational Republicans (like McCain) on gay issues has been the GOP candidates’ embrace of Clinton’s "Don’t Ask Don’t Tell" nonsense. The firewall argument – the one they offer when they realize no other one works any more – is that it’s too risky in wartime to change the policy. Romney – a useful indicator of GOP cynicism – epitomizes this stance, even after he clearly recognized the idiocy of DADT only a few years ago. One benefit of last night’s "Sixty Minutes" report is that it reveals that, in fact, wartime is the period when gay discharges routinely decline. They decline because the military in practice doesn’t want to lose trained, good service-members in the middle of a war. The anti-gay policy is in fact a peace-time luxury, designed to perpetuate and legitimize bigotry – not to ensure effective defense. In so far as homosexuality affects unit cohesion, it does so entirely as a function of some soldiers’ prejudices and phobias, in a way indistinguishable from the way racists kept black soldiers segregated for so long. Here, at least, is some honesty:

U.S. Army Maj. Daniel Davis, speaking to Stahl out of uniform to emphasize that he does not speak for the U.S. military, says don’t ask, don’t tell is necessary to achieve cohesion among soldiers, especially those in combat. Most service members are conservative, he says, and won’t readily accept gays. "If you have a moral or religious issue, you cannot order me to [bond] with that [gay] person," says Davis, a specialist in battlefield tactics.

This was Peter Pace’s argument and Duncan Hunter’s.

I guess it’s a sad but useful reminder that gay people – even those who risk their lives to defend their country – are still, in the eyes of the Republican base, a sub-moral caste of undesirables, people whose presence in any institution – the military, the academy, the priesthood, civil marriage – inherently debases it. There is, alas, nothing we can do to rebut this – no act of courage we can display, no love we can profess, no virtue we can uphold, no family we can defend to prove our civic equality and human dignity. Our inferiority is a priori for the religious right. It makes us impossible to "bond with," because we are moral contaminants. That’s what we’ve learned this past decade. And it’s the only reason the policy remains in place.

(Photo: Staff Sergeant Eric Fidelis Alva, who was the first injured serviceman in the Iraq war. He lost a leg for his country. But he is still impossible for some to bond with.)

Straw In The Wind Watch

Another reader email to be taken for what it’s worth (but I’ve learned to listen to many of these kinds of emails over the years):

My died in the wool Republican, midwestern born, septuagenarian mother shocked me during a phone conversation yesterday by asking me what I thought of Obama. I responded cautiously (though I’m strongly inclined in Obama’s direction). She generally avoids politics with me, and I’ve always assumed that this is because she knew we disagreed.  As the conversation continued it became clear that she was intrigued by Obama and would be strongly inclined to vote for him were he to win the Democratic nomination.  She volunteered her strong dislike for Hillary Clinton, however, and said she would never vote for her. 

When I attempted to probe her on the Republican candidates, she wouldn’t be drawn (apart from echoing my crack about Huckabee’s brand of religiosity). What really floored me was her final remark that if Hillary won the Democratic nomination, she "probably wouldn’t vote at all,"  i.e., she wasn’t contemplating voting for any of the potential GOP nominees. This from the widow of a career military chaplain, still living in a heavily military community.

An Enduring Discrepancy

Why is Obama doing so much better in the early primary states than nationally? Because they’re the ones paying attention. And Clinton can’t campaign:

After the Clinton re-election in 1996, they have never been tested in a competitive race. When Giuliani dropped out of the New York State Senate race and the young Congressman Rick Lazio had to enter at the last minute to try to stop Hillary’s bid, the conclusion was pre-ordained. Hillary’s re-election was a cakewalk against a totally under funded opponent. She doesn’t know how to win.

Why Travel? Ctd

A reader writes:   

That post reminded me of something Maestro Toscanini once told an orchestra:

"I hate you all, because you destroy my dreams."

He heard the music in his head in a very specific way. No one could make the music as he heard it. No matter how hard he tried. There are recordings of his rehearsals that are more brilliant than the performances.

Kind of like Norman Podhoretz thinks about the Iraq war.

Ron Paul, Jim Cramer, and the Fed

A reader crystallizes the response I had to this clip:

This was some of weirdest, most-contradictory television I have seen. Cramer was screaming earlier this fall because he wants the Fed to lower rates in order to pump up the market, so his friends don’t get hurt. Yet here he is complaining that they created the housing bubble? Well, yes, they enabled it at least, how? Well, with low interest rates. So Cramer, who wants a huge increase in the money supply, is agreeing with Paul, whose complaint is that the Fed has enabled inflation and who wants to get rid of monetary policy by going to the Gold Standard. Doesn’t make sense to me.

On another note, one of the problems with the Gold Standard (besides preventing a country from smoothing  out the business cycle) is that it is basically deflationary. I am not a "Fed worshipper," I think the Fed did enable the housing bubble, but these guys are really a little single-minded. So, single-minded that they don’t seem to realize that they believe opposite things–it makes one wonder whether they really do understand Monetary Policy as much as they think they do.

I guess my preference is this side of Ron Paul’s: a Fed that cares solely about sound money. Which is not how it’s been behaving. Tyler Cowen comments here.