Why Scott Brown Will Defeat Elizabeth Warren

Politically, I definitely lean to the left, and I live in a state bluer than Frank Sinatra's eyes.  In this heavily democratic state, we've got a race for Senate going on.  By all rights, Scott Brown shouldn't have a chance:

• Elizabeth Warren is a great representative of democratic party ideals: fighting big business and standing up for the little guy.
• Elizabeth Warren supports the new Health Care Law, and Scott Brown doesn't.
• Elizabeth Warren supports gay marriage, and Scott Brown doesn't.
• On immigration, taxes, gun control, and unions, Elizabeth Warren is squarely to the left of Scott Brown and more closely aligned to most people's views in Massachusetts.

And Elizabeth Warren is going to lose.  Why? Because Scott Brown beats Warren hands-down on one critical issue: he is the poster boy for independent-minded politics.  People across the country are so sick of partisan politics that Scott Brown's willingness to publicly rebuke his own party on even a few issues is incredibly refreshing and attractive.

Most notably, Scott Brown has taken major lumps from his own party for rebuking the Republican stance on abortion: not only pointing out to Massachusetts voters that he is squarely pro-choice, but highlighting his independent-minded politics.  In the past he voted against his party for the Dodd-Frank bill to overhaul Wall Street, and with democrats to attempt to end a Republican fillibuster on the Bring-Jobs-Home bill.

In this divisive age of partisan politics, a candidate that has proven his willingness to think, vote, and speak-out independently is so unique that he will win Massachusetts on this "soft" issue alone.  While Elizabeth Warren will win every vote from the democratic base, Scott Brown will get the republican base and most of the independent voters as well.  This is because they value independent thinking and a willingness to cross party lines more than they value alignment on individual issues.

Legitimately Ignorant

I actually think this whole controversy of Congressman Todd Akin using the term "legitimate rape" is overblown.  Granted, there should be no such thing as an illegitimate rape, and rape must be horrific for a woman no matter how it occurs; but this argument is nothing new.  People have been making attempts to distinguish violent, forcible rape by strangers from statutory rape for years.  To be fair to Mr. Akin his intent (as much as I find it ridiculous) was no different than arguments that have been made many times before.

All this discussion of the word legitimate is completely missing the point!  Instead, we should be looking at what he said next:

"...the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

Holy moley!  Now that is scary!  Akin is implying that if you are forcibly raped you won't get pregnant.  In fact, if you parse his apology carefully, he never disavows the implication.  I'm no expert, but every Internet search I just did for the past two hours came up with nothing but evidence to the contrary.  So where did this crazy idea come from?

The only reference I could find is from a mathematically and logically flawed piece written back in 1999 (apparently there was also a previous book with these ideas in it).  Here is the quote:

"Finally, factor in what is certainly one of the most important reasons why a rape victim rarely gets pregnant, and that's physical trauma. Every woman is aware that stress and emotional factors can alter her menstrual cycle. To get and stay pregnant a woman's body must produce a very sophisticated mix of hormones. Hormone production is controlled by a part of the brain that is easily influenced by emotions. There's no greater emotional trauma that can be experienced by a woman than an assault rape. This can radically upset her possibility of ovulation, fertilization, implantation and even nurturing of a pregnancy. So what further percentage reduction in pregnancy will this cause? No one knows, but this factor certainly cuts this last figure by at least 50 percent and probably more."

So the author (Dr. John C. Willke, M.D.) admits that "no one knows," then immediately makes up a number of 50% based on no evidence whatsoever.  The funny thing here is that even if you believe Dr. Willke, he still would imply that half of the pregnancies that result from violent rape cannot be avoided.  So even the probable source of the idea doesn't think all violent rape pregnancies can be avoided.  (Note: The mathematically flawed conclusion of Dr. Willke's paper is that forcible rape pregnancies are incredibly rare; the implication being that it affects so few women as to not really be a concern compared to the number of abortions that occur.  Refuting the paper's obvious logical flaws are left as an exercise to the reader, or may be the subject of a future blog post.)

My concern, and the reason not to spread lies like this, is because it encourages and allows some people to believe that women just don't get pregnant from forcible rapes, and therefore there is no need to protect women or provide any exceptions in those situations.  Worse yet, it may encourage others to think women who do get pregnant after rape somehow weren't "really raped."

That a candidate for the United States Senate could be so foolish as to spread a clearly false concept just to make a specious argument is dangerous, and only undermines every well-meaning argument pro-lifers may want to make.  To rush to this man's defense when he continues to stand by this kind of misguided thinking makes all pro-lifers look bad and appear to be legitimately ignorant.  Toss this guy out, do not continue to rally to his defense.

UPDATE 1 8/22/12: Anderson Cooper did a great piece debunking Dr. Willke's claims, basically echoing the sentiments of this blog post.

UPDATE 2 8/23/12: Congressman Akin called into a TV news show last night and finally disavowed the comments and admitted he was misinformed.  Unfortunately, he may have missed the media coverage opportunity and may not even care to highlight it: I can find almost no coverage of his disavowal this morning, and no mention of disavowing the medical issue on his website as of today.  His initial comments on the Today show about being "medically wrong" don't cut it, because he accompanied it with the statement that "pregnancy can happen as a result of rape" which doesn't clarify his previous distinction that he himself made between forcible and statutory rape.

Across Lite for iPad - Rebus Not in Free Version

Short Answer: Across Lite for iPad has a free and a paid version.  The free version does not include rebus solves or timing.  The paid version includes both.  As of this writing, the paid version was $4.99 and is available only as an in-app upgrade over the free version.  In other words, to get it, install the free version on your iPad, then choose the upgrade option within the app to pay for and get the additional features.

Long Answer:

I'm a crossword fan/nut/snob/enthusiast.  Either on my own or with my wife I do an average of three or so crossword puzzles a week.  To demonstrate my snobiness, I'll be sure to mention to you that the puzzles are almost always from the New York Times, and are almost always Thursday, Friday, Saturday or Sunday puzzles.  [Harumph].

Until recently I've always done them on paper, for the past several years printed from nytimes.com (annual subscription required).  The Across-Lite software that I use to print from a computer also allows solving (filling in) the crossword on the computer; but I rarely did this.  It just was more comfortable to sit back in a chair or in bed when doing the crossword.

My iPad changed all that.  The tablet form factor lets me do an electronic version of the crossword in my preferred reclined positions.  There are a couple of iPad apps that let you do the puzzles, but Across Lite was free and I'd been using the desktop version for years, so I'm using that and have been happy with it.

Still, I got very frustrated this morning when I was solving a puzzle that included a rebus.  For those of you that aren't crossword geeks, a rebus is a single square in the puzzle whose answer is not just a letter.  Typically, it is a word or phrase, or sometimes a symbol.

The desktop version of Across Lite includes a way to solve puzzles with a rebus, but I couldn't find it anywhere in the iPad version.  So I googled "across lite ipad rebus" and similar terms.  Nowhere could I find a mention of whether or not Across Lite would allow you solve rebus squares.  I checked the LitSoft (makers of Across Lite) website, FAQ and help sections: still no mention either way.  In a flash of brilliance that didn't immediately pay off, I even searched for "premium" versions of the Across Lite in the app store on the iPad.  I saw no mention of a paid / premium app.

The answer turned out to be an in-app upgrade.  Hidden within the app was an upgrade option.  For $4.99 I could upgrade the software and the little dialog box told me it would enable rebus solving.  I paid for the upgrade and it unlocked my "rebus" button (and a few other convenience functions) and I was able to finish the puzzle.  Yay.

I don't mind that they charge for the feature, I just wish I'd not wasted 30 minutes searching for it, with no mention of how to get it (I still haven't found any mention - besides what I'm writing now - of this upgrade online).  I knew that the program must have it somewhere, but nearly gave up!  So I thought I'd post this so that the next person searching for "how do I enter a rebus into across lite" will get a result that may actually help them.  Happy solving.

Battery Acid Damage to Mac Wireless Keyboard

It was a cleanup day: only 3 weeks after returning from Europe I chose to finally catch up on all the non-urgent paperwork, clean up the desk, organize the travel gear.  It was during this summer-cleaning that I discovered that my wireless Apple keyboard (used primarily for the iPad when traveling but not on this trip) had not been used in months, and had what looked like drip-stains on the outside.  I immediately diagnosed acid damage: I'd left the batteries in too long.

Challenge #1: (solved) Opening the battery compartment.  The acid had fused it shut and no amount of force I could apply with a coin (my normal way of opening this up) would budge the screw cap.  I even checked the internet to validate that I was trying to turn it the right direction (counterclockwise - I was doing the right thing).  Eventually, a large screwdriver from the tool box gave me the leverage I needed and the cap came off.

Challenge #2: (solved) Getting the batteries out.  They just weren't budging, and no amount of slamming the side of the keyboard against the wall, floor, counter or desk was getting them to move (I wonder if hammering the side of your keyboard voids the warranty?).   A quick internet search on battery removal reminded my of the baking soda trick.  So I prepared a small bowl of water and baking soda. I had no idea of the right proportions so I used about a tablespoon of baking soda to about a cup of water.  I propped the (now open) keyboard on its side with a folder paper towel underneath it and leaned it against the wall.  I used a spoon to drip small amounts of soda-water into the battery compartment until it was full.  After about 5 minutes the water level started to drop and I'd add more water, some eventually seeped out the bottom.  I let the water sit in the compartment for about 10 minutes, then tried tapping the batteries out, and voila!

Challenge #3: (pending) Getting the keyboard to work again.  So far no luck.  I tried carefully flushing the battery compartment (careful not to get the rest of the keyboard wet) with more soda-water to clean off the contacts, then used a rolled paper towel and a chopstick to pull out more residue.  Then (after waiting an hour for the whole thing to dry) put the batteries back in.  Perhaps it just didn't dry enough, but I suspect the acid damage may have seeped into the switch and I may be toast.  I'll try again tomorrow and post an update if it works.

My fun this morning...

The Real Issue with FISA

Talk about missing the point. The Senate and the media are asking useless questions:

• Did the President break the FISA law?
• Was the Congress properly informed?
• Is FISA outdated?
• Is the program useful enough to justify domestic wiretaps?

Who cares! The legality of a program that everyone vehemently agrees is useful to our national defence is a moot point. If it isn't legal today, then it will be soon. If the Democrats think the law-breaking on this issue is a political liability for the President, then they are mistaken.

The key question that is only rarely being asked has not yet been answered. This question should be informing the public debate, and it has not been addressed by the President or Congress to anyone's satisfaction as yet:

Are there any limits on executive power in wartime?

Here is the logic. The president chose to ignore the FISA law. This is not important in itself (he did so with reason and with "safeguards" in place). This is important because of the precedent it sets. If the President does not believe he is beholden to the laws passed by Congress, then we must wonder whether or not there are any limits or oversight over presidential action.

The rest of this post will explain why it is obvious that the law was ignored, then why it is so significant that it was.

The President Believed He Had the Power to Ignore FISA

Since it underpins my argument, I'm forced to point out that the President did choose to ignore the FISA law. Noone can argue that the President's actions are in direct violation of FISA (even the administration doesn't deny that). The legal argument being made by AG Gonzales is that powers inherent in Article II of the Constitution, paired with Congress' authorization to fight Al Qaida constitute a "statute" envisioned within FISA as an exemption from itself.

However, we must assume any such statute should be clear and explicit. Any lower standard would make FISA useless to begin with. So we must see how explicit this exemption statute is.

Article II says nothing on this issue beyond that it is the President's job to defend the country. Later Supreme Court rulings have interpreted that power to include warrantless surveillance of wartime enemies on foreign soil (but say nothing about breaking existing laws).

That leaves us with the authorization to use force against Al Qaida. The text of that authorization is:

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Not only does the text of the resolution not mention the use of force domestically, but according to Tom Dashle who helped negotiate the text of the resolution...

Just before the Senate acted on this compromise resolution, the White House sought one last change. Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words "in the United States and" after "appropriate force" in the agreed-upon text. This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas -- where we all understood he wanted authority to act -- but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens. I could see no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary request for additional authority. I refused.

Washington Post Op-Ed by Tom Dashle, 12/23/05.

So not only did Congress specifically deny the authorization for use of "appropriate force" within the United States, but the White House (at the time) felt that the explicit addtion of those words were needed to permit domestic action.

So that is far too much time spent on the unimportant issue. Clearly the president chose to ignore the laws on the books because he believed he had the right to do so in order to protect us all. That leads us to the key question:

Is There Anything The President Cannot Do?

Bob Schieffer: Do you believe that there is anything that the President cannot do if he considers it necessary?

President Bush: I don't think a President can order torture. I don't think a President can order the assasination of the leader of another country with which we are not at war. Yes, there are clear red lines.

From Face the Nation Interview aired 1/29/06.

If laws on the books are not sufficient to deter presidential action to protect us, what is the criteria? As a country, we must know what those "red lines" are. Why can't a president order torture, but can order domestic surveillance? Without clear criteria we take a huge risk of immoral abuse of this executive power over time.

For example, are the following actions permitted without Judicial or Legislative oversight?

• Detainment of American's suspected of terrorism without representation
• Surveillance of any American with or without an international side of the call
• Imposement of martial law in an area suspected of terrorism
• Postponement of local or national elections to ensure the safety of polling places
• Extension of a presidential term?

I'm not suggesting the George Bush is about to round up all Muslims and put them into camps, or begin bugging political opponents on the grounds they may be meeting with terrorists.

However, we've now learned that there is no oversight to prevent that kind of abuse. We must clearly define limits-of-power to protect ourselves from less scrupulous future actions. Past democracies have turned to authoritarian regimes without those limits. We must aggressively protect and enforce the limits and balances dictated by the Constitution.

Just tell us what the criteria is. It seems to me that "the Executive cannot break or ignore a federal law" might be a good start. I'm sure we can all agree on something that provides the protections we need while also protecting our democracy.

Too Late for the Court

Although I'd hoped to have made this post several weeks ago, it is nonetheless fitting that I'm posting this now: well after the Alito confirmation hearings and public debate. Yes, this posting is too late to inform the debate; but similarly, the entire public debate occurred far too late to make any difference in the makeup of the Court.

The fate of the Supreme Court was sealed when we elected our President in 2000 and 2004. The President picks the justices; and we selected a socially conservative executive who openly opposes a woman's right to choose.

After the fact of the 2004 election results, it was both futile and divisive to fight the nomination of a Supreme Court candidate who was clearly qualified for the job. Certainly, the confirmation process was useful and necessary to guarantee Justice Alito's credentials. However, all the attempts by democrats to get Alito to admit he'd overturn Roe or eliminate all controls on presidential power were doomed to failure from the start. Even had they succeeded in rattling Justice Alito into a public-relations mistake, the next candidate would have been just as conservative.

Even though I'm appalled that we have a court becoming more and more conservative, I believe we must respect the process. Within the rules it was fine to try to find any reasonable reason to keep Alito off the court. Once those arguments were exhausted, the Senate should have voted on his qualifications and ability to fairly evaluate cases, not on his likelihood to overturn Roe. Had there been a Democrat in the White House, we less conservative citizens would have demanded as much for any candidate.

I believe that the majority of American's would not support (what I believe will be) Alito's stance on social, right-to-life and executive-powers issues. If you are upset about the Court's possible overturn of Roe, but you voted for Bush in 2004, then shame on you for not realizing the implications of your vote. The makeup of the Court was the largest (albeit rarely-discussed) issue of the 2004 election.

But that ship has sailed.

Right for All the Wrong Reasons

How did we end up where we are with our policy in Iraq? The administration's National Strategy of Victory in Iraq is a clear, concise and focused document. Shockingly, I find myself agreeing with the administration almost point-by-point. Here are a few:

• "An emerging democracy in Iraq will change the regional status quo that for decades has bred alienation and spawned the transitional terrorism that targets us today."
  
  
• "Failure in Iraq will embolden terrorists..."
  
  
• "It is not realistic to expect a fully functioning democracy [sic] to be in place less than three years after Saddam was finally removed from power."
  

This is wonderful. The Bush Administration is publicly stating several new strategies that were either understated or never stated before:

• Regime change in Iraq is a vital U.S. interest, but not because of an imminent threat of WMD use; it is vital because we need a beacon of democracy in the region to provide an alternative to extremism.
  
  
• That goal is attainable, but not with just a few billion dollars and a short military campaign, but rather with a long-term (more than three years at least) and huge resource commitment to political, security and economic efforts.

The administration will reply that this is not a change in policy, but I cannot swallow that explanation. I was there. We were all there when we were told that the reasons for invading Iraq were:

• Potential use of WMDs by Iraq.
  
  
• Distribution of WMDs to terrorists who might use them directly against American targets here or abroad, bolstered by...
  
  
• Repeated claims that there was a linkage between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein.
  

What is the explanation for the discrepancy between what we're being told today and the justifications for war back in 2002? There are only 2 logical explanations:

• This was our strategy all along and it just wasn't "spotlighted," or
• The administration adjusted strategy when political expediency forced a change.

This blog entry will assume the best intentions and motivations of the administration. This leads us to assume the first of those explanations: that today's stated policy was our strategy all along.

Since we have no proof (yet) that intelligence was intentionally manipulated to make the WMD claims, I will also assume for the purposes of this blog entry that the administration truly believed in the WMD and Al-Qaida-link intelligence when they put these justifications for war in front of us.

So assuming the best of our leaders and that today's stated strategy was always the policy, here is what must be the timeline:

• Early on in the administration there was a recognition that the key to security and stability in the Middle East was a democratic Iraq.
  
  
• Knowing these lofty justifications would be a difficult "sell" to Congress and the American people, Bush focused on the WMDs as the key argument (believing it true and thus highlighting only one in the most urgent of his many reasons for removing Saddam).
  
  
• Bush assumed that political stability in post-war Iraq would come quickly and the longer-term goals of democracy would be attainable with minimal additional cost.
  
  
• Since things didn't work out with minimal additional cost, the administration is now forced to bring those longer-term, loftier goals to the forefront of the stated policy.

Therefore, regime change was on the agenda from the beginning. The difficulty would be convincing the American people to "get behind" such an effort. 9-11 provided a convenient way to do just that. This is consistent with Richard Clarke's claim that Bush pulled him aside on September 12th asking him to search for a linkage between 9-11 and Saddam.

When a direct linkage was not found, WMDs, paired with intelligence "linking" Saddam to Al-Qaida provided the most effective argument. Recognizing this as the best way to get the Congress and the rest of America behind the war, the administration focused on this argument almost exclusively at the time.

At the same time, again assuming the best of intentions, the administration severely underestimated the scope of the aftermath. The insurgency was unanticipated and security turned out to be far more difficult than anyone predicted. Also unanticipated were the political difficulties in creating a government and the infrastructure challenges in re-establishing basic services in support of the economy. The administration assumed that we would be welcomed as liberators and that it would be "easy" (relative to what we are experiencing) to accomplish the longer term goals now explicitly stated in our National Strategy.

Since the short-term approach didn't work quickly enough to establish the democratic beacon of hope, the administration is now forced to either change or fully publicize this as the central pillar of our strategy there. Now that the WMD threat is clearly gone, we need a new justification.

In almost no scenario do I believe the Bush administration felt that WMDs were the only justification for war. In truth, it would be naive for any of us to think there is only one reason. We've heard many reasons floated (oil, Bush Sr. assasination-attempt payback, WMDs, freedom and democracy, Al-Qaida linkages, moral outrage at Saddam, etc.) all of which make sense and probably combined to influence the final decision.

In this "best-intentions to the administration" theory, the key undoing of the plan was underestimating the post-war time it would take to establish a stable government. This critical error was avoidable and was predicted by many (I remember at least reading Thomas Friedman detailing these kinds of difficulties before the invasion). Nonetheless, we assume the best of intentions and an honest miscalculation.

However, the real mistake was focusing America and the international community on WMDs as the primary justification for war. The American people should have been told the real goals, which would have fueled public debate on how to accomplish those objectives. This could have led to:

• Realistic expectations of ordinary Americans with the commitments and sacrifices necessary to achieve the goals--and therefore--longer-term support for the war.
  
  
• Recognition of the potential post-war issues. My assumption is that had our true objectives been exposed, public debate would have uncovered the post-war risks far better than they did and better prepared us for them.
  
  
• More international support for the war effort, so we could share the load and better establish a new government in Iraq.
  
  
• The real possibility that none of this would have "flown" with the public and America would not have supported a decision to go to war. This is a better option than fighting a war we don't end up having the stomach to finish.
  

I'd hope we'd have recognized the risks of not fighting this war and moved forward removing Saddam. But we're doomed to fail in an effort that is undermined by political spin and expediency.

Wouldn't it have been better to have been told the truth from the beginning?

President Bush - How Can I Dissent?

Dear President Bush,

In your recent Veteran's Day speech you say something almost off-hand during your appeal not to "rewrite history" on the possibility of intelligence manipulations. You said:

"While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began."

While I respectfully disagree that the Democrats are trying to rewrite history, I'd like to focus on the first half of the sentence. I'd hope that all Americans can agree that it is legitimate to criticize the conduct of the war: the freedom to express one's opinion is a lynchpin in the democratic society we're fighting to protect!

So my question, Mr. President, is how can I dissent? I spent 2 hours last night listening to members of your party telling me how irresponsible the Democrats are for calling the conduct of the war into question. Any criticism of the conduct or reasoning for going to war is portrayed as:

• encouragement to our enemy
  
• discouragement to our troops

Is it fair to use these two criticism criticisms to quell dissent? What kind of dissenting voice is allowed?

Encouraging the Enemy

I do not think it is possible to publicly criticize your decision to go to war or your conduct of the war without encouraging the enemy to some degree. So we have a choice to make: temporarily encourage the enemy or undermine our democratic ideals. Given that choice, I certainly prefer that we permit Americans to speak their minds without fear of being labeled treasonous.

I used the phrase "temporarily encourage" deliberately in the previous paragraph. I believe that the only way we can succeed in Iraq is to do so unified as a country, and the only way to unify is to allow dissenting voices to be heard so that we can move forward together toward our goals. A divided America cannot unite Iraq!

While criticizing an "inability to dissent" in this letter, you may be surprised to hear that I sincerely hope that we keep to our goal and succeed in establishing an Islamic Alternative to extremism in Iraq. It is my personal belief that a stable and democratic Iraq is the best way to fight terrorism at its source. But we will fail unless America is united in our aim and is willing to make the significant sacrifices needed to succeed.

Discouraging Our Troops

On this point I truly believe that we can publicly dissent and still support the brave men and women in uniform that sacrifice so much for us. In fact, as Representative Murtha has pointed out: the best way we can encourage our troops is to make sure they know we're trying to unite as a country around a plan that will succeed.

Never having been in the military I cannot be certain how I would react if I were stationed in Iraq and heard my Congress calling my mission into question. Therefore, I recognize that my opinion here is speculation. However, if:

• the criticisms were leveled at the plan and the strategy,
  
• with the goal to make sure that my sacrifice would either be successful (or if success is not possible, shortened)...
  

...then I don't believe I'd be upset. And, if I was myself questioning the progress of the war I'd be downright grateful. I hope that you will ask active military personnel and their families for their reactions. Based on Representative Murtha's reading of letters from military families on the Floor last night, it sounds as though many in the military are pleased that someone is speaking up with another view.

What is the Answer?

Can you provide a process that allows for reasonable men and women to discuss, criticize and make their voices heard? If so, please help create that process. The resolution of that public debate is absolutely necessary in order to bring this country together so that we can complete the important work that we've begun in Iraq.

Sincerely,

A Reasonable American

An Islamic Alternative

The Iraq War has been a mess. In a future post I'll explain how and where our country went wrong to get us into this quagmire. That said, we need to be there and we need to be trying to do what we finally seem focused upon doing: supporting the creation of an Islamic Alternative to extremism.

Our efforts in Iraq are a critical step in the "global war on terror;" but not for the reasons so often given by the president and members of the Bush administration. Saddam Hussein did not have direct links to Al Qaeda.

However, Saddam Hussein was undoubtedly a monster and any government would have been justified in intervention. His regime was brutal to his neighbors and his own people. While Iraq was not the only government against which we could morally and ethically justify intervention, it was certainly on the list.

At the same time, America was (and is) in the throes of a huge battle with Islamic extremism. I believe the roots of this battle lie in one problem: the economic stagnation and political oppression under which much of the Islamic world suffers. This oppression is imposed by many of the goverments the United States supports. The environment is a breeding ground for scapegoating, hatred and extremism. Many of these governments tolerate (and even support) Islamic extremism as it effectively reflects blame from their own policies.

For the downdrotten masses of Muslims in the Middle East, there is no ideological alternative to extremism. The schools and mosques too often preach a version of Islam that leaves no room for tolerance. The dangers of permitting this kind of ideology to be the primary message heard by young Muslims were demonstrated clearly on 9/11.

The only solution is the creation of an Islamic Alternative in the Middle East. Young Muslims must have somewhere to turn that demonstrates that tolerance of others is not a weakness; that hard work can bring personal and community prosperity; that the rule of law need not be synonymous with fear; that their efforts can help their causes and that their voices can make a difference.

The Alternative must be viewed as "homegrown" in order to be successful. Anything viewed as having been imposed from the non-Islamic West is doomed to failure for the same reason that moderates have had such a hard time gaining ground in the Middle East up to now: their messages of tolerance are twisted by extremists to paint reformers as supporters of the West. Only if the government is widely viewed as independent from the West can it be a viable, trusted Islamic Alternative.

Iraq, teasingly taunting the U.S. with violations of Security Council resolutions provided the perfect opportunity to create this Alternative. We needed a country large enough to affect many people, and evil enough to allow the regime "changers" to be viewed as liberators: morally driven supporters able to give Iraqis a chance to set up their own moderate (homegrown) government.

Of course, the mistakes we've made in prosecuting the war and the peace may have undermined this great opporunity (though I'm not ready to give up on this yet). In my next post I'll summarize how I think the Bush administration has misled the American people and the rest of the world in a way that can only endanger the long-term success of this critical project.

In the meantime, I remain hopeful that the continued sacrifices of more and more American lives truly pay off to create an alternative so that the children growing up in the Middle East today can choose to respect and tolerate their neighbors. I also remain hopeful that my goals for Iraq actually do bear some resemblence to what President Bush would like to see happen in there.

About This Blog

This is my first blog posting. I wanted to create a blog about two separate things, and see where the blog takes me:

• Personalization: I work for a company called ChoiceStream that creates personalization software, so I end up spending a lot of time thinking about and theorizing on the power and dangers of personalization, collection of profiles and recommendations. The blog is a chance to create a record of those thoughts.
  
• Politics: I think of myself as a rare breed: an ardent supporter for regime change in Iraq who just as ardently stands in opposition to the methods and messages of our President. It seems to me that President Bush often tries to do the right things in such incredibly wrong and dangerous ways that I am literally frightened for my freedom. Of course, I'd be just as frightened in a world that wasn't helping solve the issues of islamic extremism in the only way that will ever work: by helping create a cultural alternative to that extremist way of life.

So I'll look forward to more posts as a way to "let it out" when I'm frustrated, excited or perplexed about the personalization or political issues of the day. Perhaps the two topics will someday even come together: a recommendation engine that tells you who to vote for? Hmm.