If you haven't read about Genghis's fundraising events, please do so.  But, if you can't attend, then consider taking part, right here, right now, in my Obama fundraising challenge.

Here are the terms: I pledge to donate $100 to the Obama campaign, and $100 to the democratic senate candidate of Genghis's choice, if he will permanently change his avatar to one that isn't an animated gif.  It's that simple.

I call on all of you loyal TPM readers to join me in pledging what you can, if Genghis will take off his technicolored dreamshirt. If you are with me, sign below and let Genghis know what you'll do for the progressive cause.

Come back to us, Fake Sinbad.  Come back.

What's the problem with FISA anyway?

Let me be upfront about this: what follows will be interpreted by some of you out there as further apologia for Obama.

I don't see it as such. Obama's FISA position concerns me, though it's not for the "constitutional" reasons that seem to upset many people in these parts.

You see, I'm not too worried about the Constitution here. It's true that the Fourth Amendment prohibits warrantless searches. But the Constitution's protections are limited to people inside the Country, not people outside the Country. If I'm calling my next door neighbor, I should be able to rest assured that my rights and my privacy are protected. But if I'm calling someone in Zimbabwe, there's a portion of this conversation that is occurring outside the United States jurisdiction. Is such an international conversation protected by the U.S. Constitution?

The answer is, it's unclear.

Perhaps this is why FISA was enacted in the first place in 1978. Faced with the unclear scope of the Constitution, Congress decided to render the question moot by legislatively imposing warrant requirements on the interception of foreign communications. The current FISA bill loosens those warrant requirements, which makes the question relevant again: does the Fourth Amendment require warrants for these searches?

As I say, this question doesn't leave me sweating at night. There are legitimate, tenable arguments for both positions. The truth is, this seems to be a question without a non-arbitrary answer. And quite frankly, whichever way the issue is resolved, the Constitutional implications are virtually insignificant. It's a fuzzy boundary problem.

But what about the erosion of the Constitution?!? Isn't this simply the first step to dictatorship!!? This slippery slope argument, which I hear on this site a fair amount, is Constitutional alarmism. There's a difference between a legitimate question as to the limits of the Constitution, and a total erosion of rights clearly established by the Constitution. The best response to alarmist slippery slope arguments was that given by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. In response to a plaintiff who alleged that a ruling against it would pave the road to countless civil rights abuses, Holmes simply said, "Not while this Court sits." I think the Constitutional concerns about FISA fall in the same boat.

At this point, I've got a lot of Obama supporters on my side, and a lot of suspicious people lined up against me. But here's where the going gets tough for me: FISA and Guantanamo are the same issue.



The problems faced by those held at Guantanamo (not counting the legitimate torture problems) relate to the Sixth Amendment rights to a fair and speedy trial, and the Constitutional right to habeas corpus. But do these rights apply to foreign nationals held by the US Government on foreign soil? It's another fuzzy boundary problem, and the resolution of the question has no broader Constitutional implications.

This is where people start demanding that I be thrown off the internets. And this is also where I begin the difficult work on redeeming myself.

For me, the problem with FISA, and the problem with Guantanamo, is not the US Constitution. It is Article 9 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, ratified by the United States in 1992. It is the Third and/or Fourth Geneva Convention, ratified in 1949. And it is binding customary international law.

The Covenant prohibits the United States from conducting illegal searches and seizures upon anyone. And the Covenant grants habeas rights, and fair trial rights, to everyone. Similarly, the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions require fair trials "affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples." There are no fuzzy boundary problem here. The United States is not "eroding" international law around the edges: the United States has abandoned it wholesale. The United States is in open violation of customary international law.

Granted, I think the violations are clearer with respect to Guantanamo: US obligations under the Covenant may be limited by Article 2 to those under the "jurisdiction" of the United States, which clearly includes those being held at Guantanamo, but does not seem to include those at the wrong end of an international phone call. But there is a very real reason why I prefer to point to the ICCPR, instead of the US Constitution, as the source of my FISA/Guantanamo concerns:

For far too long, the United States Government, and its citizens, have assumed that they are above international law. (It's a mindset that is only reinforced in American law schools.) But we will be allowed to ignore international law only so long as the rest of the world agrees to look the other way. And while we flagrantly violate the law, we may be justly and roundly criticized, not for violating our own Constitution, but for renouncing the moral and legal principles that the entire world has adopted.

Obama compromised on FISA, and it made me mad.

Obama was equivocal on guns, and it made me mad.

Obama criticized the Supreme Court ruling on the Death Penalty, and it made me mad.

After all of these things, (and notwithstanding my stealth-snark Apology) I began to wonder why I had supported Obama during the primary.

Then I read this underrecommended post, and I started to remember.

What I liked about Obama was his conviction that, despite the different attitudes and beliefs between the "red" states and the "blue" states, we are at essence more alike than we are different.  

The partisanship model of politics has been in full force in this country for at least the past 30 years.  Democrats and Republicans stress their differences in an attempt to stand apart from their opponents.  Democrats are "in favor" of abortion rights, affirmative action, redistributing wealth through taxation, etc.  Republicans are "opposed" to these very same issues.  So, (says the partisanship model), politics is a jockeying of power to see who can win the policy war and implement their policies over the opposition of their opponents.

But over the past decade, growing numbers of people have been rejecting this paradigm, perceiving that the "defining" policies of Democrats and Republicans should really be considered as fringe issues.  The fact is, there are issues that the entire population can get behind: Growing the economy, increasing the standard of living, improving education and access to health care, etc.  If our government spent half as much energy on these issues as it does on the fringe issues, we could accomplish a lot as a nation.

So I had forgotten the principal lesson of Obama's message: Don't lose sight of the forest for the trees.  Don't get hung up on the fringe issues.  Keep your eyes on the prize.  If one side gains an inch, or loses an inch, on the abortion issue, but we all gain a mile on education, the entire nation wins.

Viewed in this light, Obama's actions these past few weeks seem sensible and noble.  What really matters to you: telecom immunity, or increased health, happiness and prosperity for everyone.  Knowing that in the world of politics there is a finite amount of time and a finite amount of energy, which is the fight to fight?

If your answer to that question is telecom immunity, then you are still locked in the thralls of a partisan mindset.

Dow Jones Industrial Average:

Oct 1, 1999:         11497

June 26, 2008:      11453

Thank you, pro-business, Republican-controlled administration.

Many people here know me as one of Obama's most outspoken critics on this website. It's true, at times I may have crossed the line and slurred the man.  Please chalk it up to the heat and passion of the moment.  You may also recall a time or two when I said that I would rather vote for McCain than Obama; later, I vowed to support and campaign for Nader in his independent bid for the presidency.  I take it all back.  

At the end of the day, I simply cannot stomach the thought of four more years of a Republican administration.  Although for months now I have argued that Obama is inexperienced, callow and power-hungry, I have to admit that these were exagerations of real concerns that I had.  They were the reasons that I preferred Clinton to Obama.  They ring hollow as reasons to choose McCain over Obama.

I will vote for Obama.  Not just because I cannot tolerate the thought of a McCain administration, but also because - after all is said and done - he might be a good leader.  Heck, he might be a great leader - I'll even admit that.  Time will tell.  And that possibility alone stands in marked contrast to what I know of McCain.  I have no desire to see any of his policies implemented.

I know that many of you have seen me as a far-right version of gotalife, or Otto F, or even "Present."  Some have accused me of being a Republican in sheep's clothing.  My friends would laugh at this--nothing could be further from the truth.  I'm just a progressive who became deeply, deeply committed to his candidate.  And I hope that I can become equally committed to Obama. 

Now I seek to join the ranks of Louisville 1975, Armchair Gorilla, and Destor23 before them.  This is my concession, and my apology.

Obama 2008!

It's now almost two hours since the RBC was supposed to resume after the lunch break. Still no sign of them.

My wife says that, in her time at the UN, they would hold committee meetings in the morning, cut all the deals at lunch time, and come back for "public debate" as a mere formality.  Could be that the same is happening here.

In the April 21 issue of The New Yorker there is a piece by Jared Diamond (author of Guns, Germs and Steel) about vengeance among tribes in New Guinea.  When hostility between tribes results in bloodshed, the social scales become unbalanced and those affiliated with the victim feel compelled to take it upon themselves to right perceived wrongs.  It makes no difference that the often violent "payback" hurts the avengers as much, or more, than the original transgessor.  The avengers are driven to vengeance by a sense of pride and an identification with a group (the tribe).  As described by Diamond's New Guinean friend, vengeance provides a genuine sense of satisfaction.
The dynamics of vengeance are familiar to anyone who has heard of the Hatfields and McCoys, or seen West Side Story or Romeo and Juliet.  The desire for vengeance is part of human nature, as primal as the need to divide the world into an "us" and a "them", into friends and enemies.  The cycle of vengeance is so strong--so engrained in our nature--that it can only be countered, Diamond suggests, by the imposition of the State.  Only in the State can we surrender our desire--our right--for vengeance in favor of a dispassionate and objective dispute resolution system.  Only in the State can we trust that an impartial arbiter will decide the fair resolution of our disputes. 
The State can do this by depersonalizing aggression.  The difference between an "enemy" and a "criminal" lies in the fact that an enemy stands opposed to you personally, while a criminal stands opposed merely to the state.  In the State, all transgressors are criminals, not enemies.  Final resolutions are only possible where the dispute resolution system can keep the dispute impersonal.
But the system breaks down--and civilization along with it--when disputes transcend the ability of the State to keep impersonal.  As Diamond mentions,

"In times of war, even modern state societies quickly turn the enemy into a dehumanized figure of hatred, only to enjoin us to stop hating again as soon as a peace treaty is signed. Such contradictions confuse us deeply. Neither pacific ideals nor wartime hatreds, once acquired, are easily jettisoned. It’s no wonder that many soldiers who kill suffer post-traumatic stress disorder."

The analogy is not far-fetched.  The dispute resolution system employed within the Democratic Party--the primary electoral process--has failed to keep the dispute impersonal.  It has gone on too long, employed arbitrary and inconsistent rules, and disempowered voters from important states.  The legitimacy of the process has been called into question.  The Democratic party has factionalized into two tribes: Obama supporters and Clinton supporters, many of whom have come to view the other as the "enemy."  Although the "dispute" will soon be settled, there is no groundwork for a lasting peace.  The contradictions faced by passionate Obama and Clinton supporters will not be easily jettisoned.
In recent weeks, polls have consistently shown that significant numbers of Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama if he is the nominee.  The polls show the same is true of Obama supporters, if Clinton were the nominee.  Anecdotally, a number of people on these boards have claimed that they would refuse to vote for the democratic nominee if it is not the nominee that they support.  It's easy to dismiss all these claims as being in the "heat of the moment."  It's easy to imagine that every voter acts as a rational agent, and that such voters would recognize that it is not in their best interests to support McCain in a general election.  But these conclusions are naive: the desire for vengeance is very real, and has time and again driven otherwise rational people to inflict great harm upon themselves and others.  In the face of disappointment for a defeat, people desire the genuine satisfaction of vengeance--even if it is accompanied by great personal cost.
The dilemma of the cycle of vengeance is a real tragedy.  As Diamond's New Guinean friend explained,

“I admit that the New Guinea Highland way to solve the problem posed by a killing isn’t good. Our way disturbs our day-to-day life; we won’t be comfortable for the rest of our lives; we are always in effect living on the battlefield; and those feelings go on and on in us. The Western way, of letting the government settle disputes by means of the legal system, is a better way. But we could never have arrived at it by ourselves: we were trapped in our endless cycles of revenge killings.”

So, in the absence of a satisfactory and legitimate dispute resolution procedure, how do the New Guinean bloodfeuds end?  In one of two ways: either with a death, or with a payment.  In other words, the factionalization of the Democratic party can only be healed by Obama's defeat, or his concession to pay a political price.  This could mean his agreement to select Hillary as his vice-president, to offer her another position of power, to adopt some significant Clinton policy positions such as truly universal health care, or to literally pay off her campaign debts.  Most likely, some combination of all three will occur.
However, if the Obama campaign wants the support of passionate Clinton supporters, it cannot rely on some idealistic conception of democratic voters as rational agents voting in accordance with their economic and personal interests.  Such motivation may work well in game theory, but will fail miserably in the real world of election politics.  The anger is real, and so is the desire for vengeance.

So I don't generally like to just link to an article, but this one was really something.  Some may say that the unicorn puts it over the top, but I say it's just the icing on the cake.

Walk on water, BHO!

In the interests of fostering Unity (of course), walking a mile in
another's shoes, and just amusing ourselves with more Meta, I propose that for the
next 24 hours, each of us post comments as though we supported the other democratic candidate.  Maybe for a day we can turn TPM into MyDD, or even, Hillaryis44.

Forgive my appearance--I've been feeling a little under the weather.  But today on MyObama, I was invited to participate in this event.  I won't make any comments about it (at least not in the blogpost body), but you can take it for what you will.

Dear Friends,


We are Barack Obama supporters and independent spiritual practitioners,
who feel it’s important to extend a special blessing of spiritual
support and protection to Barack during this time of the presidential
campaign. We invite you to join in with us in whatever way works for
you: prayer, meditation, ritual blessing, song, affirmations, whatever…


Let your heart-light and conscious blessing surround Barack, nurture
and sustain him, gently yet firmly protect him from all reactive,
misguided intent, and support him with the spirit of mutual
empowerment, hope, freedom, and change that he is bringing so
profoundly into American politics and, truly, into the social contract
of all humankind.


Whatever you do, however you do it, we suggest that you make a point of
dedicating a few minutes each day to this blessing, support and
extension of spiritual protection to Barack Obama. Any time that works
for you, whether it’s a regular time each day or not, will contribute
to our united efforts.


With deepest respect, regards and blessings for your participation and contributions.

In case people out there are worried about the effects that the long democratic primary will have on the Democratic candidate in the General Election, it's worth remembering that both democrats lead McCain in pledged delegates.

According to CNN, Obama has 1,437 Pledged Delegates, Clinton has 1,278, and McCain has a measly 1,246.  And when you factor in the Super Delegates, it's not even close!

I'm not sure, but I think what this means is that, while Obama will most likely defeat Clinton for the Democratic nomination, Clinton is almost sure to defeat McCain for the Republican nomination.  We could see an Obama vs. Clinton face-off in November!

David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager, just announced that so far in April Obama's raised $10,000,000,000,000.

Yes, that's right: an unbelievable TEN TRILLION DOLLARS!!!

Obama has vowed that he will only spend one trillion dollars on his presidential campaign, and that if he is elected President in November, he will donate the remainder of his campaign warchest to entirely eliminate the national debt ON DAY ONE!!

Obama: Only a moron would vote for anybody else.TM

So here I am, Ben Hocking, your favorite Comp Sci professor who likes to blog on TPM.  You've seen me.  You know me.  Right?

Wrong.  I'm actually the little baby that runs the Troll-a-thon.

Turns out that, with the new TPM layout, it is ridiculously easy to impersonate another user.

I can't decide if this is a bug or a feature.

p.s.--I have the real Ben Hocking's permission to post this using his photo and handle.

At least, I think it was the real Ben Hocking.

...is canceled due to lack of interest and lack of recommendations.

Now I won't be able to give away that 2008 Toyota Prius.

You have only yourselves to blame.