Oklahoma's Anti-Shariah Law

It's possible that the term "McCarthyism" is bandied about too much. But this is stupid, ugly, McCarthyist fear-mongering, and the people who engage in it -- as well as the people who buy it -- are going to be (rightfully) judged harshly by history. New York Times:

"Mr. Williams was one of 10 Democrats who voted against putting a state constitutional amendment on the ballot that would forbid state judges from considering international or Islamic law in deciding cases. He considered the idea unnecessary, since the First Amendment already bans state-imposed religion.

His Republican challenger sent out mailers showing him next to a shadowy figure in an Arab headdress. On the other side, the flier said Mr. Williams wanted to allow “Islamic ‘Shariah’ law to be used by Oklahoma courts” and suggested that he was part of “an international movement, supported by militant Muslims and liberals,” to establish Islamic law throughout the world.

Like I said recently, though, history never pays a price. So rather than wait, it's important now to call these stupid, ugly McCarthyist fearmongers out for the stupid, ugly McCarthyist fearmongers they are.

OK, Maybe It's Time For Medical Malpractice Reform

Like a lot of people, I played the New York Times' "Fix The Deficit" game yesterday. And one of the ways I chose to fix the deficit was to agree to a law limiting medical malpractice suits. Why? Not because it would save a ton of money from the deficit -- it wouldn't -- but because I was trying to build my own particular deficit-reduction program to be somewhat politically feasible. I figured that meant throwing a few bones to the right.

Today, however, I'm starting to think there are more important reasons to enact reform. Take this New York Times story:

"Large banks, hedge funds and private investors hungry for new and lucrative opportunities are bankrolling other people’s lawsuits, pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into medical malpractice claims, divorce battles and class actions against corporations — all in the hope of sharing in the potential winnings."

Yikes! The Times' deficit game yesterday warned that enacting malpractice reform would take away an incentive for doctors to avoid critical mistakes. And I can see the benefits of getting investors in on the side of small-time plaintiffs who might otherwise be overwhelmed by the vaster legal resources of the medical establishment.

But this story makes it seem that malpractice suits are really distorting the incentives; if the money people would rather invest in a lawsuit instead of (say) a new business that makes things or serve people, then things are out of wack. Time for a reconsideration.

Karzai: Yankees Go Home

Washington Post: "KABUL- President Hamid Karzai said on Saturday that the United States must reduce the visibility and intensity of its military operations in Afghanistan and end the increased U.S. Special Operations forces night raids that aggravate Afghans and could exacerbate the Taliban insurgency."

Essentially, Karzai wants Americans to pursue a counterterrorism strategy -- focused more on the Pakistani borderlands -- than the current nation-building counterinsurgency. And if that's what he wants, that's probably what he should get: Afghanistan is a sovereign country, after all. Unless we're willing to suggest that he's implicitly sheltering terrorists by ordering a reduced American troop presence in his country -- thus making him the enemy -- we should probably start ratcheting down the war after a long and mostly failed decade.

Of course, Karzai might just be making sounds in public that his countrymen want to hear while begging Americans, behind the scenes to stay. I'm dubious his government could survive long without its American patron. But I'm not sure how long America can survive its patronage. Karzai wants us to draw down and go home. Maybe it's time to do just that.

The Government Doesn't Want You To Know What You Already Know About Nazis in America

Lots of interesting stuff in thisNew York Times report about a Justice Department report detailing the history of Nazi war criminals in the United States. The Times obtained an unedited copy after a heavily redacted copy was released to the public. So of course this is what happened in the redacting:

"Even documents that have long been available to the public are omitted, including court decisions, Congressional testimony and front-page newspaper articles from the 1970s."

I'm going to become a libertarian weirdo yet.

Defending Philly Police and Stop-and-Frisk

Temple's Jerry Ratcliffe offers a defense of stop-and-frisk today, but, well, not really:

"Much has been made of last year's increase in pedestrian stops and their disproportionate impact on minorities. However, 250 police officers were added to the force last year - the largest contingent to leave the police academy in years. Many of these new officers were posted to foot patrols in high-crime neighborhoods, many of which are predominantly African American. It is therefore hardly surprising that a majority of the citizens stopped by police were black.

Our research found that after three months, the areas with foot-patrol officers did see an increase in pedestrian stops, but they also saw a 22 percent reduction in violent crime. These results are not microscopic: They represent dozens fewer victims of homicide, robbery, and aggravated assault."

It seems to me there are two separate issues at play here: Police staffing and police tactics. And what Ratcliffe is offering here isn't really a defense of stop-and-frisk, but a defense of putting lots of officers on foot patrol in high crime areas. The second option I can get behind! It's not dissimilar from Gen. Petraeus' counterinsurgency tactics in Iraq: Putting officers on the ground (as opposed to sealed off in a squad care, talking to nobody except victims and perps at crime scenes) helps them build relationships with the community and makes them more likely to notice when something's askance. Sure it leads to more arrests -- it would, simply by virtue of having more cops around -- but it does so in the context of community.

Stop-and-frisk, on the other hand, can alienate a community by dragooning lots of innocent people: Remember, only 8 percent of stop-and-frisk encounters end in an arrest. And remember: Ratcliffe doesn't link the drop in crime to these tactics, but to improved police staffing in high-crime neighborhoods. We're supposed to bless stop-and-frisk by association, apparently.

In any case, Ratcliffe gives the game away when he makes this statement: "Of course, if the perceived level of risk is to be raised, citizens in high-crime neighborhoods are likely to be increasingly inconvenienced and to experience a ramped-up police presence. This does not necessarily mean their civil rights are being violated; nobody is above being stopped by the police."

Actually, I'll disagree with that. Lots and lots of people are above being stopped by the police -- not because they're uppity, but because they're citizens. Police don't have the right to stop and detain people without probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed; the fact that 92 percent of people walk away from these encounters without any kind of criminal charge suggests, to me at least, that the police are exceeding their rights by a considerable margin.

Philly Police Corruption Watch

Our local newspapers are now saying that "more than a dozen" officers have been arrested over the last year rather than risk losing track of the count again. Here's the latest development: "Former city Police Officer Malaika Mebane, who was caught receiving oral sex from a female prisoner in a jail cell, was sentenced yesterday to two to four years in state prison followed by seven years of probation. Mebane, 39, was arrested Oct. 16, 2009, just hours after a female police officer discovered him in a jail cell with the prisoner inside the 35th Police District, at Broad Street and Champlost Avenue."

KSM and Obama's Banana Republic

When the rule of law is completely subverted to political considerations you've pretty much lost the game: "The administration has concluded that it cannot put Mohammed on trial in federal court because of the opposition of lawmakers in Congress and in New York. There is also little internal support for resurrecting a military prosecution at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The latter option would alienate liberal supporters."

The Backlash Against Airline Security

This is a healthy development, particularly if it gets the TSA to back down: "But the new pat-downs have prompted a growing backlash among pilots and flight attendants, civil liberties groups and security-weary passengers who say the touching goes too far.'It's more than just patting you down. It's very intrusive and very insane. I wouldn't let anyone touch my daughter like that,' said Marc Moniz of Poway, Calif., who is planning to accompany his daughter's eighth-grade class from San Diego to Washington in April. 'We're not common criminals.'"

At some point, the growing intrusiveness of pre-flight security checks was bound to become more than airline passengers would tolerate, and perhaps we're getting to that point. And if we are, then the TSA should back off. Why? Because it's the passengers who are incurring the risk if they decide to live with lower levels of security screenings on flights: They're the ones who might be taken hostage, or see their plane used as a missile, or blown up in the sky. Americans are smart people: They think about these things. And if they're weighing the certain loss of dignity in a TSA patdown versus the almost-infinite odds they'll be on the plane AlQaeda attacks, perhaps the government should respect that calculation.

Related, a reader of Jim Fallows writes: "What bothers me is that I am on the verge of re-deploying from Afghanistan after a 10-month combat tour that involved having to deal with, among other things, conducting searches of local nationals when involved with security tasks within my Infantry company. At no time were we permitted or even encouraged to search children or women. In fact, this would have been considered an extreme violation of acceptable cultural practice and given the way word travels here, been a propaganda victory for the Taliban."

Unfortunately, we seem to believe that we can prevent another attack of terrorism if only we try hard enough, if only we tighten security a little more, if only we raise our defenses a little higher. That's ridiculous. It only takes one person to get through the system to be successful. It doesn't mean the system doesn't work: It means the system isn't perfect, because no system is. At some point, we're going to have to accept that's a part of life, and not worth a never-ending series of tradeoffs in which civil liberties and personal dignity always, always, always get the short end of the stick.

Obama Maybe Not Caving On Tax Cuts

Good, so far: "'Here's the right interpretation -- I want to make sure that taxes don't go up for middle class families starting on January 1st,' Obama said at a news conference at the conclusion of the G-20 Summit here. 'That is my number one priority for those families and for our economy. I also believe that it would be fiscally irresponsible for us to permanently extend the high income tax cuts. I think that would be a mistake, particularly when we've got our Republican friends saying that their number 1 priority is making sure that we are dealing with our debt and our deficit.'"

That does hint he might be amenable to a temporary extension. We can come back in two or three years and have this argument all over again?

Will Obama Give Tax Breaks To The Wealthy?

It sure looks that way: "President Obama has infuriated progressive Democrats by signaling that he's willing to compromise with John Boehner on the extension of the Bush tax cuts. Obama has long said that he wanted to extend the cuts for the middle class while letting rates rise for the wealthy, but Republicans threatened to kill any legislation that didn't preserve tax breaks for the rich."

I've said this before: Let them. It's not that difficult in the lame duck session to pass -- or try to pass -- tax cut extensions for the middle-class only. Let the Republicans kill that because they want to save tax cuts for the rich. Is the GOP that intent on saving the Rockefellers and Hiltons a few bucks that they won't let Joe Cubicle keep his paycheck if they can't get what they want? Really? If Dems can't win this political fight, there's no point having them around.

The Government Wants To Protect Your Online Privacy. Sort Of.

It would be easier for me to be more enthusiastic about this....

"The Obama administration is rolling out new policies to safeguard internet privacy, reports the Wall Street Journal. The new internet privacy strategy will be outlined in a report by the Commerce Department to be released in the next few weeks. The White House has set up a task force headed by Cameron Kerry (brother to Sen. John Kerry) to implement the strategy."

...if the administration wasn't also pursuing plans to ensure that communications providers build in back doors to let the government snoop on your web traffic. I guess, though, I'd rather not have to choose from an array of Big Brothers.

Are The Russians Sending A Contract Killer to the U.S.?

This can't be right, can it?:

"A contract killer has been dispatched to assassinate the Russian double agent who betrayed Anna Chapman and nine other spies in the United States this spring, according to reports in Moscow.

'We know who he is and where he is,' a high-ranking Kremlin source told the reputable Kommersant newspaper.

'You can have no doubt – a Mercader has already been sent after him.'"

Paul Krugman Asks A Good Question

I'm not panicking about the deficit commission, myself, for various reasons.But Paul Krugman has an interesting observation: "The goals of reform, as Mr. Bowles and Mr. Simpson see them, are presented in the form of seven bullet points. “Lower Rates” is the first point; “Reduce the Deficit” is the seventh.So how, exactly, did a deficit-cutting commission become a commission whose first priority is cutting tax rates, with deficit reduction literally at the bottom of the list?"

This Is What Authoritarian Nations Do

They treat dissent, literally, like a mental illness. Sometimes they even end up creating it:

"Xu Lindong’s confinement in a locked mental ward was all the more notable, his brother says, for one extraordinary fact: he was not the least bit deranged. Angered by a dispute over land, he had merely filed a series of complaints against the local government. The government’s response was to draw up an order to commit him to a mental hospital — and then to forge his brother’s name on the signature line.

He was finally released in April, after six and a half years in Zhumadian and a second mental institution. In an interview, he said he had endured 54 electric-shock treatments, was repeatedly roped to his bed and was routinely injected with drugs powerful enough to make him swoon. Fearing he would be left permanently disabled, he said, he attempted suicide three times."

George W. Bush: Still A Bad President

In our Scripps Howard column this week, Ben Boychuk and I examine George W. Bush's rising poll numbers as the former president goes on tour to support his new book, "Decision Points." My take:

George W. Bush is more popular than he was two years ago? Of course he is! His approval rating really had nowhere to go but up.

And since he hasn't had his hand at the wheel of government for nearly two years now -- some might argue that it's actually been longer than that -- it's easy, natural and understandable for Americans to lose some of the passion in the white-hot grudge they once deservedly held against him.

Here's what I wrote in this space in December 2008: "Consider this record: Hurricane Katrina. The financial meltdown. An explosive national debt. No WMDs in Iraq. Warrantless wiretapping.

"Torture. The list goes on and on. In most democracies, such a litany of failure and abuse would have led to the resignation of the chief executive long before now."

Nothing in that list has changed in the last two years, of course: It is history, set in concrete, impossible to undo. And none of it reflects any better on Bush now than it did then.

Bush has been fond, over the years, of saying that history will vindicate his decisions. Here's the problem, though: History never loses its job or pension. History never sacrifices its son in a war fought for a flimsy premise. History is never waterboarded, never has its phone calls and e-mails intercepted, never pays a price. It's the people who actually live through an era who must deal with the real-time consequences -- and benefits -- of a president's bad decisions.

Their judgment, expressed in the 2006 and 2008 electoral repudiation of the GOP, should count heavily in history's ledger.

Our memories of that time are already growing hazy. They can never grow hazy enough to make Bush a good president. He was one of the worst.

Can A Muslim Be A Good American? Kansas Legislator Says No

This is in the neighborhood of where I grew up:

State Rep. Joe Seiwert, R-Pretty Prairie, recently forwarded an e-mail essay titled "Can a good Muslim be a good American?" to about 40 of his e-mail contacts, including people in government and business.
The essay concluded:

"Perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. They obviously cannot be both 'good' Muslims and good Americans. Call it what you wish it's still the truth. You had better believe it. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future."

Seiwert's defense just makes it worse:

When it was pointed out that Muslims live in Reno County, Seiwert replied, "Sure, there's murderers, there's tax evasion people, there's all kinds of people live in my district.

"There are people who make negative comments about farmers all the time. I don't get upset about that," said Seiwert, a farmer.

To be fair, people rarely equate farming with murder -- PETA excepted, perhaps -- or suggest that farming in antithetical to being American. How sad.

Bush, Obama, Bipartisanship

Adam Serwer: "Bush was a more bipartisan president than Barack Obama. But that has to do less with him being ideologically heterodox than it does with the quality of his opposition. Democrats were willing to work with Bush. Republicans simply don't think anyone else should be allowed to govern and have taken to opposing Obama even when he proposes things they once supported."

Bomb Was Philly-Bound

Inky: "Philadelphia was the next destination of the plane that was carrying a toner-cartridge bomb discovered in England last month. The explosive device - which almost went undetected - was set to detonate at 5:30 a.m. on Oct. 29, when the plane could have been over the U.S. East Coast, British police announced Wednesday."

Sometimes, I wonder if it was the wisest thing to move from the Midwest to a major East Coast city that, statistically, has a much higher chance of being targeted by terrorist bombs. Mostly, I try not to think about it.

It's OK To Repeal DADT

Washington Post: "A Pentagon study group has concluded that the military can lift the ban on gays serving openly in uniform with only minimal and isolated incidents of risk to the current war efforts, according to two people familiar with a draft of the report, which is due to President Obama on Dec. 1."

The Only Thing I'll Say About the Debt Commission For Now

Everybody's already had a chance to beat their breasts about the big headline-making cuts to Social Security and Medicare. The only thing I'd add is that the cuts actually have a chance A) to undermine the economy and B) shift big costs to state governments that, for now at least, aren't really well-equipped to bear them.

On the second front, it's worth looking at the proposed $100 billion in cuts to defense spending. That's a nice, big, round number, and one I initially found encouraging. But what to cut? Well, $1.1 billion of those savings would be from getting the Department of Defense out of the business of schooling the children of our soldiers, sailors and marines and dumping those kids on local school districts where those families are based. It doesn't eliminate the cost of that education of course, but it does dump it on state taxpayers. This is a small budget item in the scheme of things, but it does hint at something pernicious about the proposed cuts.

Back to the first front: It's time we had a frank national discussion about backdoor Keynesianism, whereby our government has propped up the economy for decades by buying and maintaining equipment for a military that is twice as expensive as the rest of the world's forces combined. (It is, frankly, the way that Republicans have been able to use government for economic ends while shouting about free markets.) A substantial portion of the proposed defense cuts come from reduced contracting and procurement costs. That's going to mean less work for companies like Boeing; that in turn will mean fewer jobs in places like Seattle and Wichita; and that in turn will weaken those communities through a variety of second-order effects.

This is a pain that is probably inevitable: The U.S. really can't afford to do twice as much, defensively, as everybody else in perpetuity. But a right-sized military will mean some pain, at least in the short-term, for private-sector workers whose jobs support and supply the defense establishment. We need to be honest about that.