The Bosque Boys

From Germany: a very prominent women's rights attorney in Germany who has represented Muslim women in cases involving forced marriages, and has sought to raise awareness of the practice of honor killings, has given up her practice following attacks and death threats.

From the Telegraph: "A prominent Berlin lawyer has gone underground after receiving death threats for defending Muslim women who have been forced into marriage.

Seyran Ates, 43, a women's rights advocate, was named Germany's woman of the year in 2005 and has repeatedly spoken out against forced marriage, headscarves and honour killings. She said she had closed her practice as she could not operate safely.

Miss Ates said police had refused to protect her despite threats against her life, including a shooting incident in which a colleague was killed and she was seriously injured." Read entire article. Hat tip Jihadwatch.

This incident is one of countless inconvenient truths that challenge the naive assertion that all cultures are equal and should receive equal respect.

While Roman Catholicism is a major part of the soil from which Mexican culture grows, the relation between the Mexican government and the Roman Church has been rocky in the 20th century: anti-clericalism has been strong. Short history: an enforced separation of the church from affairs of state. Felipe Calderon, who appears to be the next president of Mexico, is an analomy: a fervent, conservative Roman Catholic in high politics. See this article from the Miami Herald. Link. What will his presidency mean for church-state relations in Mexico? Stay tuned.

Courtesy of Photognome, this study presented at USC Applied Economics Workshop.

Abstract: Corruption is believed to be a major factor impeding economic development, but the importance of legal enforcement versus cultural norms in controlling corruption is poorly understood. To disentangle these two factors, we exploit a natural experiment, the stationing of thousands of diplomats from around the world in New York City. Diplomatic immunity means there was essentially zero legal enforcement of diplomatic parking violations, allowing us to examine the role of cultural norms alone. This generates a revealed preference measure of corruption based on real-world behavior for government officials all acting in the same setting. We find tremendous persistence in corruption norms: diplomats from high corruption countries(based on existing survey-based indices) have significantly more parking violations. In a second main result, officials from countries that survey evidence indicates have less favorable popular views of the United States commit significantly more parking violations, providing nonlaboratory evidence on the role that sentiment and affinity play in economic decision-making.

Read paper. Link requires Adobe Acrobat.

Approximately a month ago, I asserted that the leadership of the Democratic party faced a choice in re the minimum wage (see this previous post for review): they could accept a "deal" in which they gave something away (permanent reduction of the "estate tax") and received in return: a 40 percent pay raise for minimum-wage workers over three years. Or they could reject the compromise and, perhaps more significantly, keep minimum wage alive as an issue for the upcoming midterm election. They chose the latter. The tragedy, of course, is that the people, for whom they "care so much," are left out in the cold. Instead of immediate relief, the action of the party is meant to force the "poorest among us" to hope for complete Democratic domination of Congress and the Executive. That may be a powerful weapon to get out the vote--but it is also a cruel calculation, which subordinates policy and humanity to electioneering. Because of this self-interested decision, we may be years away from another opportunity to raise the minimum wage.

The Republicans have a similar dilemma on immigration. They have left themselves an extremely brief window to craft an imperfect solution to a very complicated problem (and most likely face a damaging firestorm on their rightwing). Or they can bury the immigration legislation, run as hardliners on immigration in volatile districts (portraying Democrats as soft-headed multiculturalists, who advocate an open-border policy). The problem with that strategy, as in the case of the Democrats and the minimum wage, is that no one can predict what the future holds. This may be the last Congress in which a GOP majority rules both Houses and a Republican president resides at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Eschewing a thorny compromise in favor of short-term boost of political adrenaline may mean that nothing gets done on immigration, for a long time. For all of those who worry about amnesty, no policy means de facto amnesty. For all of those who think there is a problem, doing nothing insures that the problem will not be addressed in the foreseeable future.

Both of these decisions may make for good politics (although I am not convinced that is true; we'll see), but that kind of election-driven legislative strategy makes for horrible policy.

I don't always agree with Dick Morris, but he has it right in his column today: "Neither Side Deserves to be Reelected."

Defining terms (and defining the opposition) has long been a key to victory in political conflict. Just ask the Anti-Federalists or "Know-Nothings." The battle for meaning is so vital, it tends to frenzy partisans during times of a closely divided electorate and consistently razor-thin margins of victory. As we draw closer to the midterm election, this contest over language will likely grow even more overheated.

At the moment, the opponents of the President (with the complicity of the mainstream media) seem to have secured the high ground in defining the boundaries of political debate. Last week, with very little success, the President and his men attempted to push back on the war in Iraq (employing such words as "appeasement" and "fascism"). The President and his supporters attempted to label advocates of withdrawing the troops and admitting what seems obvious to them, victory in Iraq is no longer possible or worth the cost, "defeatist." The opposition cried foul: "Don't question our patriotism!" On the other hand, who says you cannot be a "defeatist" and a patriot? Perhaps caution is the better part of valor.

Other battles in the politics of meaning:

It is a long held article of faith in the mainstream media that "911 and Iraq were not connected." This is nonsense. What they mean to say is that Saddam and his regime were not complicit in the terrorist attacks of 911. Those two statements are not the same. However, there is very little patience for a nuanced discussion of Saddam and the dangers he posed in the Middle East.

Review in a nutshell: Saddam was our sworn enemy. We know that he supported terrorist networks in the Middle East, and he may or may not have been harboring al Qaeda operatives (Abu Musab al-Zarqawi); either way, his regime, inarguably, contributed to the continuing turmoil in the region. More importantly, we were in a state of war with Saddam's Iraq, and the continued vendetta with him presented an insurmountable obstacle to progress in the region.

The relationship between Saddam's Iraq and the cauldron of discontent that produced 911 was so obvious and internalized for so many of us that public opinion polls have consistently revealed a significant portion of Americans who connect Saddam and 911. Of course, many have taken those numbers as evidence that the Bush administration merely deceived the simple-minded. But that conclusion, once again, flows from the mistaken but foundational premise that 911 and Iraq cannot be connected; therefore, any person who makes that connection is: 1) wrong; 2) deficient in intelligence and 3) under the spell of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.

Another statement that has long rankled the President's opponents: "Iraq is the central front in the War on Terror."

Note: The label "war on terror" is in itself problematic (one of the many mistakes for which the President and his team deserve blame). Please see this previous post for a brief discussion concerning the lack of clarity in this terminology.

Presuming the "war on terror" has a concrete and agreed-upon meaning, identifying Iraq as the "central front" causes great consternation for many. First off, one can construe the statement as an admission that Iraq is connected to the war on terror, which some reject, preferring to cast the war as an unprovoked invasion followed by a brutal occupation, which inspired a natural and justified insurgency. While almost everyone admits that al Qaeda terrorists and other networks have played a role in the three-year post-war war, opponents of the war counter that the terrorists came as a result of the invasion and occupation and have drawn strength as a result of the American action (which is mostly true).

Are we fighting terrorists in Iraq? Was the invasion of Iraq an attack on Islamic terrorism? Does the "war on terror" hang in the balance depending on the results in Iraq? Yes and No and Yes. The answer to that set of questions is complicated. Consider the American Civil War. The North attacked the newly formed Confederacy, for the most part, to preserve the Union. While many Southerners fought to protect slavery, most Unionists took great pains initially to assert that the war had nothing to do with slavery. But by 1865, all could see that the Civil War would end forever the institution of slavery in America. To paraphrase Lincoln (and thinking in terms of Iraq), we did not expect a war of the "magnitude or the duration which it has already attained." We absolutely "looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding," but, nevertheless, here we are. If we lose in Iraq, it will be a defeat that echoes around the world. If we win, we turn a corner.

"Mission Accomplished." For many, nothing better epitomizes the putrid combination of sinister motives and naiveté within the Bush administration than the carefully choreographed incident in which the President landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln in the co-pilot's seat of a Navy S-3B Viking. After emerging from the aircraft, the President excitedly swaggered around the flight deck in his flight suit, and, later that day, dressed in civilian clothes, delivered a speech of congratulation with the famous banner displayed prominently in the background: "Mission Accomplished."

It is very easy to point to the thousands of dead Americans, killed after that celebration, and sneer at the ineptitude of the Bush gang. In truth, the more complicated explanation is that we have fought two wars. We won the first one against Saddam Hussein and his Iraqi state, in exemplary fashion. Our quick victory vindicated Donald Rumsfeld and the new lighter, more nimble army ("mission accomplished").

Of course, even as the words of self-congratulation were still lingering in the heady air of the White House and the Pentagon, the second war was already underway. A war that would take us far too long to understand, and a war in which we are still struggling to gain the initiative.

Currently, we continue our struggle to discern more than define who we are fighting: is the conflict today in Iraq against dead-enders, nationalistic insurgents or jihadists? Or are we in the middle of a sectarian civil war (low-grade or otherwise)? YES.

The battle rages in Iraq. What happens in Iraq is determinative of our future and the most important task of our generation. What we do in the next forty-eight months is incredibly significant. We need an honest and nuanced debate. I hope we get one.

Judging from the debate on Meet the Press, Rick Santorum is finished. Put PA in the Democratic column. Give Bob Casey credit for the intelligence to "go with the flow" and keep his mouth shut while Tim Russert debated Santorum. Russert successfully pinned him to George Bush and Iraq, which is not difficult and completely justified; Santorum is one of the President's most loyal friends and supporters in the Senate, and he will rightly win or lose on that association.

An aside: running for office against an unpopular incumbent seems like a lot of fun. Casey refuses to take responsibility for anything silly his party ever did. He is for a "balanced federal budget" and "killing Osama." How will he accomplish any of that? That is a discussion for another day. Mainly, he will be unlike Rick Santorum.

Undoubtedly, much ink will be spilled pointing out how Tim Russert leaned on this one--but all that is beside the point. Rick Santorum knew the rules of engagement going in. This was no surprise attack; he should have prepared for battle. If he brought his best, I must conclude, with some personal sadness, that the interesting political career of Rick Santorum is all but over.

The United States must succeed in Iraq, for failure means an unacceptable loss of prestige and freedom for us--and a much less-secure world for everybody else. Our success in Iraq will establish a foothold for modernity in the Middle East and deal a stinging defeat to Islamism, which will increase our credibility in the region (and beyond) and offer the model for improvement. It follows, ultimate success vindicates the decision to invade and remake Iraq.

Right now, if the public opinion polls are accurate, the American electorate holds President Bush in such low esteem that anyone associated with his administration seems tainted. No one is mentioning Alberto Gonzales as a potential governor and future presidential candidate. The recent boomlet for Condi Rice for 2008 has fizzled, partly as a result of her non-interest, but more importantly because the affairs of state seem so dismal. And Jeb Bush, once "the next in line" in the Bush dynasty, seems suddenly and completely finished as a prospective president. Is he really?

Maybe not. Jeb Bush continues to be an extremely popular person (and eminently electable candidate) in a very important state. Also, the death of Jeb Bush's viability assumes the permanence of disdain for Bush-43.

The only thing certain about American politics is that nothing is certain.

George Herbert Walker Bush lost in 1992 with 39 percent of the popular vote. At that point, for most Americans, Bush-41 epitomized an inept, insensitive and detached failed leader. Almost immediately, Americans felt guilty for their poor treatment of this good American.

An aside: I always get a chuckle when Democrats profess their great admiration for George Herbert Walker Bush. I suspect some of that is just talk, and some of it is a rhetoical foundation for criticizing the son, but I think to myself: we could've used some of that kind-spiritedness in '92. One possible lesson: you don't win elections extending your hand across the aisle and impressing the opposition as a decent and competent fellow.

How did guilt over handing George-41 his walking papers help the son? As more citizens came to believe that the elder Bush received a raw deal, the younger Bush grew in stature as a candidate for governor of Texas and then for president. Many Americans felt the Bushes deserved a second chance.

Assuming that the current President Bush has bottomed out in terms of public opinion (it is hard to imagine things getting worse; even in the current polls, he seems to be slightly on the upswing); assuming Iraq continues to be very bad for the foreseeable near term--but then settles finally into a lackluster stability, George Bush and his team will rebound a bit in the minds of Americans. After four (or eight) years of Clinton-44, there will be a natural reappraisal of the second Bush presidency. At that moment, Jeb may very well emerge as a familiar fresh face.

The second half-hour of "Brian Lamb Friday" on C-SPAN today featured the Washington Post editorial, "End of an Affair: It turns out that the person who exposed CIA agent Valerie Plame was not out to punish her husband." Asking the question: "Did any of this matter?" Brian read the entire piece on air (and you should read it all as well).

An excerpt:

"Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously."

A few remarks about the Post:

I continue to disagree with the Washington Post plenty. But it is increasingly clear to me that the paper is dedicated to maintaining a unique degree of objectivity in the more and more partisan climate of American journalism today. The Post is clearly the best-written, most balanced and most centrist of the great national newspapers.

Moreover, I suspect that very soon we will begin to hear the charge that the Post has "sold out" in order to curry favor with, and tap into, the increasingly important conservative consumer economy. When that happens, Americans should rally around the Post.

In today's Opinion Journal lead editorial, "Back to the Congressional Future: Let's think about how the Democrats would govern," the WSJ braintrust argues that the prospect of losing the House of Representatives to the Democrats augurs a return to the old "tax and spend" days.

Consider this excerpt:

"If you think Republicans have been spendthrift, don't expect much change from Wisconsin's David Obey (class of 1969) at Appropriations. Mr. Obey was one of those Democrats who ripped Mr. Clinton for endorsing a balanced budget in 1995. Rather than cut spending, his goal would be to spend less on defense and more on domestic programs and entitlements."

In reality, a change in majority would not mean a drastic change in policy. The Democrats might want to spend big and raise taxes, but that would never fly. Because the Democratic-controlled House and the Republican-controlled Senate would have different spending priorities, the most likely result would be deadlock. Which would be GREAT! The GOP would lose their unlimited credit card. I am convinced that the Republicans are incapable of disciplining themselves; therefore, some tough love from the American people might be a blessing.

The Journal tacks on this disclaimer at the end of the piece:

"The House is only one half of Capitol Hill, and Republicans stand a better chance of holding the Senate, albeit with some losses there too. Mr. Bush will also retain his veto power, and he would finally have to use it. So the amount of liberal legislation that actually became law might not be all that extensive. But the national debate would nonetheless shift notably left. Voters looking to send a message to Republicans this fall may be surprised at their return mail from Washington."

But it is too little too late. Shame on the Journal.