So North Korea has the bomb....

.... Or does it?

They're claiming they do, we've long assumed they do, and yesterday's supposed test would seem to support that.

But the estimated yield is small enough (as little as half a kiloton, maybe as big as a kiloton), that two alternate possibilities suggest themselves:

1. It's a fake. I suggested this last week, when NK first started saying it would test a nuke. Could NK simply have blown off a thousand tons of TNT? It was an underground explosion, after all, so the amount of direct evidence will be limited. There might not even be any release of radioactive particles, which would be the best evidence that the bomb was, in fact, a nuke -- although even that might be spoofable.

And there is precedent for it, although the earlier case involved an open-air explosion easily proven to be nonnuclear. (h/t: Adventures of Chester)

2. It was a dud. Note the comments thread, too, where other people raise the "pile of TNT" theory.

Here's a guy who discusses why the test could have been a success even at 1 kiloton.

So it appears that we don't yet know enough about what actually happened to decide what to do. I bet NK is gathering all sorts of useful data on the world's reaction, though.

nuclear, North Korea, politics, midtopia

Ah, campaign season....

.... that time to reflect on how low human beings can go.

From 10 Zen Monkeys:

1. “My opponent parties with lingerie-clad Playboy bunnies! And then goes to church!” That's the National Republican Senatorial Committee, going after Tennessee Senate candidate Harold Ford.

2. “It was unbelievably demoralizing to be painted as a pampered slut!” The NRSC again, this time targeting Jim Webb in Virginia.

3. "(everything she says) depends on your area code.... she just tells you what you want to hear." NRSC ad against Claire McCaskill of Missouri.

ZM lists two others, but for my money they don't compare with these:

Brad Miller even spent your tax dollars to pay teenage girls to watch pornographic movies with probes connected to their genitalia.” An ad by Republican challenger Vernon Robinson in North Carolina.

For simple loopiness, there's this one, also by Robinson.

And then there'sthis one from Nebraska, which takes aim at Sen. Ben Nelson.

I cannot wait until Nov. 7, simply to make it stop.

politics, midtopia

Hastert to take responsibility for Foley scandal

As the House Ethics Committee meets behind closed doors to discuss the Foley scandal, House Speaker Dennis Hastert is planning to take responsibility for the mess -- though not resign.

At a news conference in his home district in Illinois, Hastert will also ask the Ethics Committee to consider new rules so that anyone making inappropriate contact with pages be disciplined. In the case of staff, they would be fired; lawmakers would be subject to expulsion, the official said.

Hastert also was ready to appoint an outside expert to investigate the scandal and recommend changes to the page program, virtually as old as Congress itself.

Hastert's right about one thing: outside demands for resignation are premature. If it turns out he knew about more than the relatively tame e-mails (rather than the lurid IMs), he should go. But we don't know that yet. So sharp questioning should continue, but it's too early to kick him out of his leadership position.

On the other hand, GOP legislators may toss him out simply for letting this scandal pop up five weeks before a crucial election. A sacrificial lamb may be needed, and he might be it.

Regarding what Hastert knew when, a former GOP aide says he warned Hastert three years ago about Foley (though it's not clear that such a warning included details of the explicit IMs that are really driving this controversy). In any case, Hastert's office flatly denies the claim.

Addressing where the leaks came from, the e-mails appear to have been midwifed by a gay activist named Michael Rogers, who claims to have helped provide the e-mails to ABC, and gave Democrats a heads-up that something was coming.

The original leak, however, may have been a longtime GOP aide. This article from The Hill relies on anonymous sources, but I'd wager that the "source" is in fact Rogers, and at least The Hill goes into detail about the supporting documentation. The article also notes that the IMs surfaced in response to the leak of the e-mails, suggesting that perhaps nobody was sitting on anything.

So efforts to link the scandal to Democrats are so far not bearing much fruit. They jumped on the bandwagon, of course (with Minnesota candidate Patty Wetterling even going so far as to rush out a misleading ad about it), but what we appear to have is the Dems getting nothing more than a heads up from Rogers a few days before Foleygate broke -- a heads up regarding the e-mails, not the IMs. And the DCCC didn't even return Rogers' call until just before the scandal broke.

For now, we have a lot of questions. But not enough yet to firmly tar either the GOP leadership or allegedly conniving Democrats.

Update: It's not Foley related, but in the vein of Republican sex scandals, we have the odd spectacle of Rep. Don Sherwood running a TV ad in which he apologizes for having an affair but denies trying to strangle his mistress. I'm sure that'll win a lot of votes.

Hastert, Rogers, Foley, politics, midtopia

Crying "discrimination" too many times

This NAACP chapter has its collective head in an untenable spot.

SPRING VALLEY, N.Y. — The village chapter of the NAACP has filed a complaint accusing the Ben Gilman Medical and Dental Clinic of religious discrimination for closing on Saturdays.

The complaint, filed Sept. 6 with the state's Division of Human Rights, alleges that the clinic's practice of remaining closed Saturdays in observance of operators' Jewish Sabbath, unlawfully imposes their religious beliefs on others.

Complainants say the practice is an unlawful violation of people's civil rights, particularly since the clinic's operator, Monsey-based Community Medical and Dental Care Inc., has received millions of dollars in federal funding.

In addition to the Gilman clinic, Community Medical and Dental Care operates Monsey Medical and Dental Center.

If you read to the bottom of the link, you'll see that this appears to be an outgrowth of an ongoing battle between the clinic and the NAACP. But let's ignore that and focus on the case at hand.

The NAACP has this exactly backward. Religious discrimination would be forcing a Jewish-run clinic to close on Sunday because all the Christian-run clinics are closed that day. Someone deciding to shut their business to observe their personal holy day is an example of religious freedom, not discrimination.

The federal funding makes the argument a little more interesting, but not compellingly so. For one thing, does the NAACP think their constituents would be better off if the clinic simply shut down rather than accept federal funding with such strings attached? And I'll bet federal funds are used by plenty of Christian-run clinics that aren't open on Sunday.

Each clinic has the right to limit its business by limiting the hours it is open. In response, another clinic is free to set up shop to cater to those who wish to have Saturday hours.

There is a legitimate practical concern here in the context of public health: if these clinics constitute the only practical health-care option for the region, then being closed on Saturday represents a gap in coverage. But I doubt this is the case. Spring Valley isn't in the middle of nowhere; there are undoubtedly hospitals and other care providers within a reasonable distance. And even if it were the case, trying to legally compel a business owner to violate their religious beliefs is not the way to go.

health care, discrimination, civil liberties, NAACP, religious freedom, politics, midtopia

Free speech and national security

I've written before about the book "Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime". It's a fascinating and comprehensive history of the development of free-speech law, with a sweeping historical view of how free-speech has been treated in times of crisis. It outlines some of the limitations of free speech as well as documented government abuse of security powers.

The author, Geoffrey Stone, was on Minnesota Public Radio yesterday for a discussion of the issue; you can find the audio at the above link. He was in town to give a talk at the University of Minnesota.

If you're interested in a historical perspective on the current free-speech/security debate, it's well worth a listen.

civil liberties, free speech, Geoffrey Stone, politics, midtopia

Blogging lawsuit

A Minnesota-based blogger is suing another blogger in a case that could have larger implications for bloggers as a whole.

It all started with a phone call to Aaron Clarey, informing him that he'd been branded a racist.

Clarey, a Minneapolis economist, blogger and radio host, traced the accusation to a physics laboratory in California. There, a graduate student named Sanjay Krishnaswamy had created a blog on which he posed as Clarey -- photograph and all -- and posted comments about "miserable brown wetbacks" and why "blacks are more likely to commit crimes than whites."

Krishnaswamy's lawyer says the fake blog was clearly a parody, an over-the-top production meant to draw attention to the real Clarey's "outrageous" viewpoints.

But when word of the phony blog reached Clarey's employers in Minnesota, he says he found himself facing the potential loss of his community-education gigs teaching finance courses and salsa dance classes, not to mention his reputation.

That's why Clarey, a libertarian who blogs under the name "Captain Capitalism," is suing Krishnaswamy.

I can't find a link to the fake blog -- perhaps it's been taken down due to the lawsuit -- but Clarey's blog is here.

As a brief aside, since we're on the subject of lawsuits, is Clarey infringing on a copyright with his alter ego?

Back on topic: It's sleazy to create a blog posing as someone else unless the intent is clearly parody. The question, then, is what is meant by "clearly." Since I can't find the fake blog, the strength of its "parody" argument is impossible to judge.

Anonymity isn't really the problem here. People who post under pseudonyms -- like me -- may be shielded from real life personal consequences of what we write, but our words are still our own, and our credibility rises and falls based on those words. And if it came down to criminal activity, I'm sure that Blogger would roll over for a subpoena demanding my true identity, which I imagine could be tracked down through IP numbers.

So the problem is impersonation. And not just any impersonation, but impersonation with the intent to harm the reputation of the target by posting lies about him.

But there are other considerations. Is Clarey a public figure? Most likely, thanks to his prominence as an economist and radio host. But let's look past him. Is blogging alone enough to make someone a public figure?

The question is important, because public figures have a much harder time winning suits like this one. I can call President Bush a Nazi without fear; I could conceivably be sued if I wrote that my neighbor is a Nazi. I could create a fake blog purportedly written by Bush without fear; can I do the same with Aaron Clarey? Or some random blogger I happen to dislike?

Which is why this case bears watching. It could define the legal status of bloggers, as well as the limits of parody in the blog world.

Captain Capitalism, Aaron Clarey, parody, blogging, politics, midtopia

You wouldn't hit a guy surrounded by kids, would you?

This made me laugh.

In the fine tradition of George W. Bush standing under the "Mission Accomplished" sign, or any one of the Katrina backdrops (where no expense was spared to bring power to an area for a photo op, and then just as quickly cut off), we now have the head of the NRCC, Tom Reynolds, using small prop children as set decoration in a press conference devoted to the topic of…yes, predatory online sexual solicitation of minors.

Ironically (but predictably), the kids became something of a problem:

Reporter: Congressman, do you mind asking the children to leave the room so we can have a frank discussion of this, because it's an adult topic. It just doesn't seem appropriate to me.

Reynolds: I'll take your questions, but I'm not going to ask any of my supporters to leave.

Why yes, let's discuss a Congressman having sex with teenage boys in the presence of 30 small children. I wonder what sort of family values that'll teach....

Idiot.

scandal, Foley, Reynolds, politics, midtopia

Bring it on, NK!

And I don't mean that in a bellicose way.

North Korea is claiming it will test a nuke. Sometime.

North Korea triggered global alarm on Tuesday by saying it will conduct a nuclear test, a key step in the manufacture of atomic bombs that it views as a deterrent against any U.S. attack. But the North also said it was committed to nuclear disarmament, suggesting a willingness to negotiate.

I'm not sure why this should alarm anyone, considering we've assumed they have nukes for years. We should welcome it as a sort of "put up or shut up" test. If they do it, it confirms they have nukes. Sure it will give them data that will be helpful in building better bombs, but all in all I'd prefer to know exactly what we're dealing with -- although I wouldn't put it past them to simply fill a hole in the ground with 13,000 tons of TNT and detonate it to simulate a small nuclear blast.

And think how satisfying the diplomatic exchange would be:

NK: "We're going to test a nuke!!"

U.S. NEGOTIATOR: "Okay. Say, did you happen to see the lunch menu? I'm really hoping they have some of those little cucumber sandwiches. I love those."

Such a collective yawn might get them to cease such attention-getting tantrums. Probably not -- it doesn't work that well on my 3-year-old, either -- but it's better than rewarding the behavior. Ignore it and concentrate on adult negotiations.

nuclear, North Korea, politics, midtopia

3-1, baby!

A crucial game this week. Division rivalry, yes. But also my brother. And he's a Packers fan to boot. I didn't want to win; I had to win.

He had Larry Johnson and the Falcons defense, which helped hammer me in the early going. Heading into the Monday night game, I was up by six points -- but I had only one player left, and he had three.

Luckily, my one player was Donovan McNabb. He faced down Brett Favre, Greg Jennings and David Akers and let me pull out the victory.

fantasy football, midtopia

Republican corruption, continued

In a follow up of sorts to yesterday's post, Republican Rep. Mark Foley, R.-Fla., resigned abruptly today after questions were raised about e-mails he sent to a former page.

The resignation leaves no Republican on the ballot just six weeks before the election, meaning a seat that was considered safe for the GOP may now end up Democratic by default.

Tempting as that might be for Democrats, in the interest of giving voters a choice the Republicans should be allowed to choose and field a candidate.

corruption, Foley, politics, midtopia

This is freedom?

The Iraqis are free to pass any laws they want, of course. But is this what we envisioned when we invaded?

Under a broad new set of laws criminalizing speech that ridicules the government or its officials, some resurrected verbatim from Saddam Hussein’s penal code, roughly a dozen Iraqi journalists have been charged with offending public officials in the past year.

Currently, three journalists for a small newspaper in southeastern Iraq are being tried here for articles last year that accused a provincial governor, local judges and police officials of corruption. The journalists are accused of violating Paragraph 226 of the penal code, which makes anyone who “publicly insults” the government or public officials subject to up to seven years in prison.

Okay, let's cut the Iraqi government some slack for being weak and under siege. But besides being ineffective, it's also corrupt, riddled with militias and death squads and increasingly autocratic.

Not a good omen for the future of the country.

civil liberties, terrorism, Iraq, politics, midtopia

U.S. becoming a rogue state?

I've got my own takes on the detainee bill and the warrantless wiretapping bill. But Matthew Yglesias at the American Prospect asks an interesting question: Has the U.S. become a rogue state?

A sample:

Other countries, of course, practice torture in violation of international law. As has now been clear for a while, we have been in their company for some years. The latest twist, however, is that we now won't show any shame about it. Rather than simply violating the laws to which we have agreed to adhere, we're repudiating them, simply denying that the standard by which civilized nations operate apply to us....

Consequently, the United States now presents itself as what amounts to the globe's largest and most powerful rogue state — a nuclear-armed superpower capable of projecting military force to the furthest corners of the earth, acting utterly without legal or moral constraint whenever the president proclaims it necessary. The idea that striking such a posture on the world stage will serve our long-term interests is daft. American power has, for decades, rested crucially on the sense that the United States can be trusted and relied upon, on the belief that we use our power primarily to defend the community of liberal states and the liberal rules by which they conduct themselves rather than to undermine them.

Agree or not, it's a thought-provoking read.

civil liberties, torture, terrorism, politics, midtopia

Republican corruption

I don't think Democrats are inherently more virtuous than Republicans. But it's clear the Republicans shouldn't be trying to claim the moral values high ground anytime soon.

First, a just-released House report documents 485 contacts between the lobbying firm of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the White House, including 82 meetings in the office of Karl Rove -- with Rove himself present at 10 of those.

All in all, that would seem to belie White House claims that they did not have a close relationship with Abramoff.

Meanwhile, an internal HUD investigation found that Housing Secretary Alphonso Jackson told his aides to steer contracts to Bush supporters, and avoid awarding them to Democratic donors.

And let's not forget Bob Ney and the near-criminal incompetence and cronyism that went into awarding contracts in Iraq.

Quite a record, really, when you put it all together. But it doesn't appear to be one that Republicans want to run on.

Update:Another Republican Congressman, Mark Foley, has abruptly resigned.

Alphonso Jackson, Iraq, corruption, politics, midtopia

Rights? What rights?

In one of its final moves before recessing tomorrow, the House passed a bill essentially legalizing President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program.

The vote was 232-191. The text of the bill is here.

It's little more than a rewrite of the FISA law to make the NSA program explicitly legal.

Under the measure, the president would be authorized to conduct such wiretaps if he:

• Notifies the House and Senate intelligence committees and congressional leaders.

• Believes an attack is imminent and later explains the reason and names the individuals and groups involved.

• Renews his certification every 90 days.

The Senate could vote on a similar bill tomorrow.

The good news is that this bill at least requires Bush to say an attack is imminent.

The even better news is that it's unlikely the House and Senate could work out their differences before the elections, probably rendering the bills moot for the time being.

But there's still no excuse for not requiring a warrant within a few days. It's just not that hard a rule to follow.

Republicans accused Democrats of coddling terrorists, which just shows what a brain-dead bunch they are. The Democrats have the balance right on this one:

Democrats shot back that the war on terrorism shouldn't be fought at the expense of civil and human rights. The bill approved by the House, they argued, gives the president too much power and leaves the law vulnerable to being overturned by a court.

Exactly.

NSA, civil liberties, terrorism, politics, midtopia

Congress approves detainee bill

It took 10 hours of debate, but the Senate finally joined the House in passing the detainee-treatment bill, by a vote of 65-34. Olympia Snowe didn't vote.

Yesterday's House vote was 253-168.

Here's the text of the Senate version, while this is the text of the House version.

The bill is a compromise of sorts, rather than a simple rubber-stamping of Bush's plans, but Congress gave the most ground. It still has plenty of odious provisions, notably the denial of habeus corpus rights to detainees -- a provision that could cause serious trouble down the road.

Senator Carl M. Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, argued that the habeas corpus provision “is as legally abusive of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution as the actions at Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo and secret prisons were physically abusive of detainees.”

And even some Republicans who voted for the bill said they expected the Supreme Court to strike down the legislation because of the habeas corpus provision, ultimately sending the legislation right back to Congress.

“We should have done it right, because we’re going to have to do it again,” said Senator Gordon Smith, a Republican from Oregon, who had voted to strike the habeas corpus provision, yet supported the bill.

Another problematic piece is that while the Senate version pretty carefully defines everything in the bill as only applying to noncitizens, the House version makes no such distinction when defining unlawful combatants. Thus the House version appears to legalize an "enemy combatant" designation for citizens, with criteria to be defined by the administration. If the government designates you an enemy combatant, you have no more legal rights than an alien sent before the military tribunals.

That sound you hear is the Constitution being smudged in some of its more inconvenient places.

The bill dispenses entirely with the need for a search warrant, and allows hearsay evidence. The latter is indefensible, and the former, while making sense under limited circumstances (seizure during combat, for instance), is unnecessarily broad and sweeping.

It bars evidence obtained from "cruel and inhumane treatment", although rather hypocritically it allows such evidence if it was obtained in 2005 or earlier, at the discretion of the tribunal judge.

It has what sounds like a reasonable method for dealing with classified evidence, including providing an unclassified summary of such evidence, or simply admitting facts that would tend to be proved by such evidence. We'll see how that plays out in reality, but at least it addresses the problem.

The only real limit on detainee treatment in the bill is a section defining "grave breaches" of the Geneva Convention, including rape, torture and murder. But the definition of torture and other mistreatment is vague, referring only to "serious" physical or mental pain or suffering. That's better than the administration's preferred wording -- "severe" -- but we'll see how it plays out in practice. Given the administration's history, they will probably define "serious" using the same definition they would have given "severe."

On the plus side, the bill requires the administration to publish its interpretations of such things, so we'll be able to see where they land. And it gives Congress and the judiciary the right to review those interpretations, a clear limiting of Bush's claims of "inherent authority."

And since detainees don't have access to the regular courts, it's unclear how they would seek redress for any violation.

The bill isn't a total disaster. Most of it deals with the structure and conduct of the tribunals, and they're largely based on the UCMJ. And we can hope the "enemy combatant" detail dies in the process of reconciling the House and Senate versions. If that happens, we'll be left with no habeus corpus, no search warrants and hearsay evidence. Plus a "wait and see" on the torture provisions.

That's bad enough, but it could have been worse.

civil liberties, tribunals, detainees, terrorism, politics, midtopia

The Republicans are coming!

It's official: the Twin Cities are getting the 2008 Republican Convention!

Seriously, this is cool. Not so seriously, some random thoughts:

* I imagine the police are already counting the overtime

* I'm glad I no longer live in Minneapolis. Conventions are supposed to boost the local economy, but the costs will fall most heavily on Minneapolis residents, and I don't think they're going to get their money back.

* Traffic is going to suck; St. Paul streets are a nightmare even without tens of thousands of out-of-towners, and without a light-rail link from the airport all those visitors are going to be driving, busing or taxiing into St. Paul. At least those of us who work in downtown Minneapolis will only get the peripheral effects.

* This should kill our chances of getting the Democratic convention. The two are scheduled to be held on consecutive weekends, and there's no way our humble metropolis could handle both.

* I wonder how hard it will be to get press credentials to blog from the convention center?

Republicans, convention, 2008, politics, midtopia

NIE summary released

The Bush administration has declassified and released (pdf) the summary of the National Intelligence Estimate that was partially leaked last week.

I'm not sure why Bush thinks this validates his strategy, or demonstrates that the leak was misleadingly narrow.

Here's the summary of the summary.

Good news
1. We've seriously damaged the leadership of Al-Qaeda.

2. The ultimate political aim of jihadists -- conservative Sharia government -- is opposed by the vast majority of Muslims.

3. Prominent Muslim clerics have begun condemning Islamic violence with increasing punch and frequency.

Bad news
1. Al-Qaeda remains a serious threat to the U.S. homeland and has grown less centralized, making it harder to penetrate.

2. The number of jihadists is growing, both in numbers and geographic reach.

3. Expect more attacks in Europe, often from home-grown radicals.

4. Iraq is proving a great training and breeding ground for terrorist leaders, breeding a "deep resentment" of the United States and increasing support for jihadist movements.

5. The factors fueling terrorism currently outweigh the factors restraining it, and will continue to do so for the forseeable future.

6. Sunni extremist organizations other than Al-Qaeda are likely to expand their reach unless countered, perhaps obtaining the ability for large-scale terror attacks. However, they pose little threat to the U.S. homeland itself.

Predictions and suggestions
1. Addressing the underlying factors that produce terrorism -- autocratic governments that are corrupt and unjust, fear of Western domination, Iraq, lack of social and economic reforms and pervasive anti-U.S. sentiment -- will help fight it. But the instability inherent in such transitions will provide jihadists with short-term advantages.

2. If jihadists feel they have lost in Iraq, it will dampen their fervor and hinder recruitment.

That's it. Anything strike you about that list? Like, you already knew everything on it? Maybe it's because all the really good stuff remains classified, but there's really nothing new in it; it's all stuff we've known about for a very long time -- including the leaked bit about Iraq helping to breed terrorists. I'm not a CIA analyst, but I've been making much the same points -- including the need to address the factors that breed terrorism -- for years.

That aside, however, what does it mean?

I'm sure war supporters will latch on to the first item under "Good news" and the last item under "Predictions" to say "We're beating Al-Qaeda, and Iraq is where we'll break the back of terrorism."

But that's misreading the document. We've done great harm to Al-Qaeda, true -- and good for us. But that has almost nothing to do with Iraq. And the gist of the NIE is that Al-Qaeda is resilient and still our biggest threat.

As for Iraq, let me break the report down for you.

The NIE first states what is: Iraq is a breeding and training ground for terrorists, and inspiring growth in jihadi ranks worldwide. This is likely to continue for the forseeable future, and the report lists "Iraq" as one of the four underlying factors fueling militant Islam.

It then adds a truism: That if we somehow manage to "win" in Iraq -- whatever that means -- it will be a blow to the jihadists.

Well, no kidding. Besides being blatantly obvious, it is an assessment of what could be -- not what is, not even what is likely to be. In fact, the NIE points out that the situation favors continued growth in the jihadist movement for the forseeable future.

So this is a bit like General Paulus at Stalingrad musing, "Yes, the Russian encirclement is getting stronger every day. But if we could somehow break out, we'd be fine."

Given that it is becoming increasingly obvious that we are not even remotely serious about winning in Iraq, I think it's unlikely we will "win" in the sense suggested by the NIE. But that's beside the point. The point is that war supporters will try to counter the NIE's "what is" assessment with the NIE's "what could be" truism. That's comparing apples to oranges to try to put a brave face on what is a pretty pessimistic NIE.

Bush, NIE, Iraq, terrorism, politics, midtopia

DVS bureaucracy

I usually don't hate my encounters with Minnesota government. They may not be the most flexible organizations, but state agencies are usually staffed by nice people who know their job, and the government tries to give you multiple options for getting things done.

For instance, my car's registration renewal form arrived in the mail today. And I had three options for renewing it:

1. Go to a service center and pay in person;

2. Take the pre-printed form and envelope and mail it to them along with a check;

3. Go online, fill out the information at the DVS web site, and pay with a credit card, incurring a $1.25 "convenience fee."

So let's see. Go online, mess around with the Web forms and credit card numbers, and be charged $1.25 for that "convenience." Or write a check, stick it in the envelope with a 39-cent stamp, and drop it in the mailbox.

Kind of a no-brainer for me: mail them a check.

But it seems kind of silly from their end. I'd be willing to bet money that it costs them less to process an electronic payment than it does to process a paper payment. That's why most companies, after initially trying to charge consumers for electronic payments, gave up the ghost and now provide electronic payment options for free; it saves them money.

The State of Minnesota appears to have missed that memo. Their pricing structure encourages people to pay using the method that costs the state the most to handle. That's pennywise and pound foolish.

A note to DVS employees: If I'm wrong and electronic payments actually do cost more, drop me an e-mail or a comment explaining that and I will apologize for impugning the efficiency of state government.

bureaucracy, politics, midtopia

Demand paper ballots

I have no fundamental problem with electronic voting. It would be quicker, cheaper and more user-friendly than the current paper system.

But any voting system that doesn't include a tamper-proof paper record that can be verified by each voter and used to backstop the electronic system should be laughed out of the room.

It has been demonstrated again and again that the most popular system, Diebold's AccuVote, is laughably vulnerable to tampering. Never mind the controversy over Diebold executives' support for Bush.

And now we have a real-life example of problems caused by pure electronic voting. Much of it is traceable to poor performance by poll workers, but the lack of a paper trail makes fixing or even assessing the damage nearly impossible.

Which is why I don't understand why this is still even under debate.

Board members agreed to hold the hearings, probably in December after the fall elections and runoffs.

Secretary of State Cathy Cox, who chairs the election board, has been dismissive of most of the criticisms of the state's voting machines, saying Wednesday that "so-called experts" have not taken into account a comprehensive series of independent security measures put into place in Georgia.

Perhaps those security measures are enough. But why are we holding the hearings after the elections? Isn't this important enough to put on the front burner?

To quote Reagan, "Trust but verify." Insist on a paper backup; problem solved. Otherwise, expect a blizzard of justified lawsuits from voters and candidates after the fall elections.

voting, Diebold, elections, politics, midtopia

The blindingly obvious

In the "what took them so long" department, the CIA has finally recognized that the invasion of Iraq has increased terrorism rather than hindered it.

This has been blindingly obvious for years. As has the solution.

But the Bush administration has never let facts get in the way of policy. Not even when the facts threaten to undermine that policy. For instance, even as the Army is extending more tours in Iraq, the administration has been trying to cut the Army's budget. The Army, in an unprecedented move, has protested the cuts as not only unwise, but as making it impossible to meet current commitments.

This pennywise, pound-foolish approach to security isn't an isolated instance. For instance, the U.S., while calling for U.N. intervention in Lebanon and Darfur, has been concerned about the growing cost of such peacekeeping missions. So in order to keep costs down, they pressured the U.N. to withdraw peacekeepers from East Timor in 2005. That worked so well that Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and Portugal had to send troops to restore order in May, and the UN will reintroduce about 1,600 police.

Meanwhile, a group of retired officers who had made stinging criticisms of Donald Rumsfeld individually earlier this year are appearing before a Senate committee today, where they are expected to repeat those blunt assessments. A taste:

"I believe that Secretary Rumsfeld and others in the administration did not tell the American people the truth for fear of losing support for the war in Iraq," retired Maj. Gen. John R. S. Batiste said in remarks prepared for a hearing by the Senate Democratic Policy Committee.

A second witness, retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, is expected to assess Rumsfeld as "incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically ...."

"Mr. Rumsfeld and his immediate team must be replaced or we will see two more years of extraordinarily bad decision-making," said his testimony prepared for the hearing, to be held six weeks before the Nov. 7 midterm elections in which the war is a central issue.

At long last, the national consensus is arriving at the conclusion that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake that has hurt our efforts to combat terror. Too bad it took three years, 2,800 American lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi lives, tens of thousands of wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. What's worse is that, even having reached that conclusion, we cannot simply end the war because of a moral obligation to see the Iraqi people through to some sort of conclusion.

Given all of the above, however, it seems unlikely that the current administration will be able to deliver such a conclusion. In which case, pulling out immediately is the only rational choice. If we're not going to do what we need to do to fix the mess we created, then we should leave before we do any more harm to ourselves and Iraq.

security, Rumsfeld, terrorism, Iraq, politics, midtopia