President Bush has recently been compared with President Lincoln by Karl Rove, among others, suggesting that when Mr. Bush broke the law by wiretapping American citizens without a warrant, torturing suspects, etc. he was just doing what Lincoln did, what was needed to keep the country together in a time of war.

I don't think the Lincoln comparison is valid AT ALL. The civil war started as Lincoln was elected President, he didn't elect to start it, as Bush did with Iraq (note, I think the war in Afghanistan was justified, and should have remained the focus, instead of starting the war in Iraq, which has resulted in the continuing problems in Afghanistan). As such, Lincoln's restrictions on civil liberties were in response to a very specific and identifiable national threat. I don't mean to make light of 9/11, but it was not an attack strong enough to split our country or overthrow our government, no terrorist attack has that power. The proper response to terrorism is concerted police action on substantiated intelligence. Torture does not lead to substantiated intelligence, it leads to lies in an attempt to stop the torture, therefore Bush's retraction of basic civil liberties was unnecessary and unconstitutional. Our government is founded on the belief that certain rights are inalienable, these rights are laid out in the Bill of Rights to protect citizens from the government. When citizens accept the withdrawal of our basic rights we allow our government to abuse the very people it was meant to protect.


A second matter, an e-mail is flying around the conservative blogosphere discussing Barack Obama's lack of an American flag pin, and suggests that this makes him unpatriotic.

The attack on Obama regarding his patriotism is an ad-hominem attack that is without merit. No US Senator should be accused of unpatriotic behavior when they are representing their constituents and following the law. Real unpatriotic behavior is that which overturns the protections we have from our government and undermines the basic rights of the citizens of this country.

Whats really shameful is to send our troops to die in a war that was optional. Military intervention should be the last option, not the first. With inspectors on the ground in Iraq saying that Weapons didn't exist Bush went in anyway, and substantiated those reports. Why should our troops be sent to die because Bush couldn't accept that his assumptions were wrong (even when presented with solid evidence to the contrary)? That is true unpatriotic behavior. Obama's pin shows his disgust for fake patriots and fake patriotism that is common in politics. It is a refreshing change to have a politician try to speak with actions instead of using our powerful national symbols to elicit a false response from the electorate.

Another ad-hominem attack in the media right now is that on McCain. I completely disagree with the tone that argument has had as well. Whether or not he had an affair with that lobbyist doesn't matter. It is, however, surprising that he is so friendly with lobbyists when he is one of the Senators leading up lobbying reform.

The difference between Democrats and Republicans

Sure there are many policy differences, but there is a fundamental difference in approach to politics between Democrats and Republicans. Retired General Wesley Clark summed it up succinctly in a recent interview with David Corn:

"Democrats," he complained, "fall in love. Republicans fall in line."

Why is this such a distinction? When the Bush administration started moving to do things that weren't in our country's best interest (Iraq War (no point and waste of American lives and money), Patriot Act (loss of civil liberties), torture of detainees (aside from being morally reprehensible, it puts Americans at risk of the same treatment), detainment without due process, etc. Wow, what a long list! Anyway, as the Bush administration started doing these things, Republicans fell into line and accepted them as necessary and critisized all who didn't as "unpatriotic". Compare this to the Clinton Administration. Bill Clinton's crime bill was widely critisized by Democrats for its expansion of the federal death penalty. He was also critizised by Democrats for his affair with Monica Lewinski, taking part in the war in Kosovo, and several of his pardons.

What we need is an electorate that stands up to its leaders and speaks truth to power. Right now this is the Democrats.

John's definition of "free of personal attacks"

John said, on John in Carolina (http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2007/12/talking-to-regulars-commenters.html):

"an expression of appreciation to all of you whose thoughtful comments free of personal attacks "

Really? Be honest:

"Ralph Phelan said...
You are a useless dolt"

or,

"Some people might think you’re a Duke faculty member and/or someone who sincerely believes Mike Nifong got a raw deal from the NC State Bar.

But I don't believe that.

You’re a troll.
...
John"

or,

Ruth said...
'just a thought' is just wrong but "Facts don't matter." Well, to people like 'just a tought' they don't.

or,

And the racism, sexism, homophobia and platitidinous filibuster of "just a thought" contribute to the subtraction of value from this discussion, as well as an egregious contribution to global warming by wasting of bandspace.

Free of personal attacks? Who are you kidding? I was personally attacked from the very first moment I found your blog. The only poster who mildly engaged me was Ken from Dallas.

Just be honest with yourself. When you mean debate, you mean "the reinforcing of each other's common ideas free from anyone who might disagree or prove these ideas wrong." Its sad that Duke has prepared you this poorly.

The other complaint made was that I failed to address the points brought up by the other commenters.(http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2007/12/just-few-thoughts.html)

On another matter: Informed and fair-minded people reading your comments about what Communists and Nazis sought to do in Weimar Germany know those “protestors” often tried, frequently successfully, to shout down speakers with whom they disagreed.

But you didn’t acknowledge that.
...
Posted by JWM at 11:45 PM

I actually had acknowledged this, and explained why that example didn't apply, even before John posted his account, seen above.

As for your the freedom of speech issues, you are correct there are limits. You cannot incite a riot or cause others harm (yelling fire in a crowded theatre for example). The examples in the 20's and 30's you correctly refer to were attempts (many successful) to incite riots, and therefore were not allowable free speech. Yelling comments to Mr. Rove and being rude (because really thats all it was) is not a violation of Mr. Rove's rights. If someone threatened him with violence, or something similar, then that would be a crime, but saying his pants are on fire is not a crime or violation of his rights.

12:27 PM

Another I was still thinking about:

Incorrect. I specifically asked you a question. Twice. (If Plame was covert, why wasn't Armitage or Rove charged?). You finally indicated you didn't know. Remember?

To which I responded:

Ok. I apologize, here is my answer to those questions upon more reading and thought.

Mr. Armitage was not charged because he came forward and the statements he made to the prosecutor were corraborated. Mr. Libby and Mr. Rove did not come forward and there were inconsistencies in their statements. Mr. Rove was able to clear this up to the satisfaction of the prosecutor, Mr. Libby wasn't.

Would a troll really say they didn't know? Seriously, you made a good point, I hadn't heard that point before. The other point dominating the discussion, "she wasn't covert" are contradicted by other evidence (including the prosecutor himself in court documents).

Ken's comments, and the Exposure of John's Hypocracy

The following post appeared by one of the calmer posters on John in Carolina (http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2007/12/prof-mungers-interesting-comparison.html):

Ralph Phelan:

"I think any set of standards for the rules of decorum at an event are legitimate so long as they are stated clearly and enforced as written."

I am in agreement with you on decorum enforcement.

I seriously doubt that Duke's written guidelines for student behavior change from the classroom setting to that of behavior toward an invited speaker. If anything, the rules of decorum are probably tighter.

It has become common practice from left wing students to harass and insult invited speakers (mostly conservative) at universities across the nation. The administrations have turned a blind eye toward enforcing decorum because, I suspect, they are politically motivated.

Professor Munger's agreement that he would expel an abusive student from his class shows that he understands intent. When he says that type of treatment is acceptable toward invited guests, I believe he is being hypocritical.

Ken
Dallas

Ken,

It has become common practice from left wing students to harass and insult invited speakers (mostly conservative) at universities across the nation.

It is also standard practice on John's board to silence critics by erasing their posts, even when they contain no personal attacks or offensive material. The rules of decorum set out by John were:(http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2007/12/reader-comments-today.html)

I hope you can understand my desire to keep JinC a place where people can have reasoned, fact-based discussions with respect for diversity indicated by the care and respect shown for those who offer reasoned, fact-based contrary points of view.

Why doesn't he follow his own rules? Doesn't this make John a hypocritic in the same regard?

Just a thought.

Allowed commenter at John in Carolina?

A commented on the blog John in Carolina posted the following:(http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2007/12/prof-mungers-interesting-comparison.html)

Professor Munger:

It is a breath of fresh air to find a Duke student or professor who makes arguments based on verifiable facts, and is willing to listen to and respond articulately to ideas with which you may not agree.

I have ben aghast watching from afar at what certainly seems to be a HUGE problem at Duke (and of course other universities) with a culture where professors and other professionals are celebrated and promoted for spewing hate, bigotry, and anti-intellectual behavior.

They get away with it because they are black, or so it seems. A white person would not survive professionally for five minutes making such outlandish public statements.

If you do not know what I mean, or disagree, I would be glad to share a catalog with you (example: "white innocence is black guilt"; "[the presumption of innocence] is silly sentamentalism", etc.)

There is hope yet.

Jim Peterson

Seriously? "I would be glad to share a catalog with you (example: "white innocence is black guilt"; "[the presumption of innocence] is silly sentamentalism", etc.)" I'll call you on that. Why don't you come up with some examples as well for the following:

They get away with it because they are black, or so it seems. A white person would not survive professionally for five minutes making such outlandish public statements.

Really? Senator Trent Lott told an audience "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years, either." My Thurmond ran on a platform of the Dixiecrats (segregationists).(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat)(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond)

Strom Thurmond said the following during the campaign:

I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigger race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches.

So what happened to these white men for their words? Mr. Thurmond served in the US senate until 2002, when he declined to run for reelection. Mr. Lott was forced to resign, but only from senate leadership. These white individuals remained for more than "five minutes professionally."

Reply to my Nifong comments

Anonymous said...
"Just a thought" (JAT for short) is a good monaker for the person.

I'm sure he is enjoying all this undeserved attention.

Meanwhile, he is a distraction for those of us who have been engaged in dialogue on this and the DIW and other blogsites for many months.

That JAT needs someone to explain the racist mire oozing throughout this case makes me think he just read the last 10 pages of the book without bothering to understand the characters, setting, and plot.

Nobody as brilliant as Joan
Foster needs to be wasting her superb wit and incisive intellect with this dimwit.

Let him have his tantrum, but don't let's sidetrack from the reasonable dialogue that hopefully will keep us searching for truth and justice.

There is MUCH yet to be done. The LAX three were just the bait that revealed the demons. I'm glad they escaped with their freedom, and their good names intact, but the sewer still exists. If JAT can't figure it by now, he will never figure.

He is making himself the issue, and he is much too small a figure to merit so much froth.

7:38 PM

Lets take this in segments.

"engaged in dialogue on this "

Where is the dialogue when my posts are deleted? You aren't interested in a dialogue, you are interested in reinforcing each other's radical views without the restraint of a critical ear. If you were interested in a dialogue then you would incorporate me into your dialogue, instead of running scared behind a screen of deletion.

"let's sidetrack from the reasonable dialogue that hopefully will keep us searching for truth and justice"

Ok, we should seek truth and justice. I agree. Please see below, truth and justice has already been found and exercised.

"revealed the demons"

Seriously? Demons? Is the anti-Christ behind this conspiracy as well? Lets return to a "reasonable debate".

"He is making himself the issue, and he is much too small a figure to merit so much froth."

Really? I am attempting to probe your ideas and rational behind your opinions. Your group started attacking me instead of having the "reasonable debate". You lost the moral high-road when you decided to silence my criticisms.

By the way someone as brilliant as Joan can probably defend herself. John, why don't you let her respond to my comments instead of deleting them?

Irans nuclear weapons program

Most people have seen the recent NIE report (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315742,00.html). The new NIE states:

with "high confidence" that the [nuclear warhead development] program halted in 2003

Most of the controversy surrounding this has to do with when Mr. Bush knew the conclusions of the report (same reference as above). This is probably not the important issue. The issue is what project should the US pay attention to, the weapons program, or the enrichment program. These are not entirely separate. The enrichment program is more important, and it deemed the rate limiting step by the intelligence community.(http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007_11/Albright.asp)


But let me start at the beginning. I do not believe that Iran should have nuclear weapons. However, Iran's remaining nuclear program is legal under international law. How do I know this? Because the US sold it to them. (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/013007E.shtml)

Such dreams were energized by a bold new American experiment called Atoms for Peace. Unveiled by President Dwight Eisenhower in 1953, the program promised to share some U.S. nuclear technology with foreign nations that vowed to forgo atomic weapons.
...
U.S. reactors, for instance, went to Iran, Pakistan and Colombia

One of the main reasons Iran reacts poorly when the US tries to shut down their nuclear program was because it was sold to them by the US. Because of our history supplying this regime, we need to stop trying to stop them entirely. There is a compromise position, allow Iran to have its program but without enrichment capability.

Without highly enriched weapons grade uranium, Iran cannot build a weapon. This statement is obvious, but how enriched is Iran's uranium? (http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007_11/Albright.asp)

The August IAEA report does not state how much LEU Iran has produced, only that the IAEA has verified enrichment to levels up to 3.7 percent, though Iran has claimed enrichment up to 4.8 percent.

Iran is using its nuclear program as a source of national pride(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/29/international/middleeast/29nuke.html), so if anything Iran is reporting a higher value than is generally available, explaining the discrepancy between the inspectors value and the value that Iran claims.

How enriched does Iran's uranium need to be for it to be used in a reactor or to make a bomb? Low enriched uranium is used in reactors, weapons grade is used in weapons.(http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007_11/Albright.asp)

LEU fuel typically has less than a five percent uranium-235 concentration, while weapons-grade uranium has more than 90 percent of the uranium-235 isotope

So, right now Irans Uranium is squarely withing the fuel uranium regime. There is still time to deal with this issue.

The timeline given in and conclusion of the this report:

The U.S. intelligence community has given the date as no sooner than 2010 but before 2015, and a new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) reportedly contains the same projected estimate...

Iran has not yet therefore demonstrated competency at enriching uranium, though it is clearly on the road toward doing so.

What we need to be addressing is Iran's uranium enrichment program because this is one of the most critical steps for making a weapon. In early August, President Bush changed his dialogue about Iran to reflect this, though it may have had to do with the impending NIE. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/)

Russia's plan to supply Iran with uranium could be the solution: (http://www.kommersant.com/p832102/Iran_Nuclear_UN_Russia/)

Russia has recently allowed experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to Novosibirsk Plant Chemical Concentrates which is the storage site for nuclear fuel for the first block of the Bushehr nuclear power station. As soon as inspectors seal the barrels with the fuel it will be ready to be shipped to Iran.

If Russia supplies Iran with Uranium, then the international community, including both the US and Russia, can pressure Iran to halt its enrichment program entirely. Because the transferred uranium is monitored by the IAEA, Iran could be effectively stopped from having the capacity for creating weapons. The US needs to come to the table, without preconditions, to make such a plan work. They have been unwilling to do so. (http://www.nysun.com/article/43433) Iran will not stop its current program to come to the table because (at a minimum) national pride prevents it (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/29/international/middleeast/29nuke.html). The US should take the high road and come to the table without the demanded preconditions. This is the quickest way for us to stop WWIII.