When Judges Make Foreign Policy

This is a truly interesting article in the NYT magazine today. The idea, essentially, is that the US Supreme Court has become an important factor in how the United States relates to the rest of the world. The idea might displease some conservatives, and it is probably part of a wider question about the enormous power judges wield in this country. (What is it the French say about us? We have government by judge?) But whatever you think about it, it is probably a true observation. The authour breaks the battle down into the conservative "sovereignty" camp and the liberal "internationalist" camp. I belong pretty strongly to the latter and I suspect the authour does too, but he's pretty fair. There is an interesting tid bit about Medellín that I did not know:

What made this conflict between the Supreme Court and the International Court of Justice particularly stark was that the Bush administration had for once taken the side of international law. Before the Supreme Court issued its opinion, President Bush issued a memorandum advising state courts to follow the judgment of the International Court of Justice.

I would never have thought that Bush would have done something like that (though possibily he was just completely unaware).

The article also serves as a potent reminder that the next president will very likely be able to appoint more Supreme Court justices than Bush. To me at least, this argues strongly for an Obama presidency, though obviously more conservative folks may disagree.

PHILS WIN! NL EAST CHAMPS 2 YRS IN A ROW!!!

Just watched the amazing end to the Phillies game this afternoon where they clinched the NL East by defeating the Washington Nationals 4-3!

Kissinger Pt.2

The Kissinger comments Obama was referencing (almost certainly) came from a CNN forum where 5 former Secretaries of State came together to discuss what advice they would give to the next President. Among other things they discussed Iran, and here's a snippet of what I found on CNN's website:

"The former secretaries of state also focused their attention on talks with Iran. The Bush administration joined the other members of the U.N. Security Council -- Britain, France, China and Russia, along with Germany -- in offering Iran a set of political and economic incentives similar to the ones North Korea was given in exchange for suspending its uranium enrichment program.

But the United States has refused to sit down with Iran until that suspension takes place.

'When I was in office, we had a standing policy with the Iranians. We were ready to talk to them, provided it would be done at an official level, at the level of the secretary of state, and they did -- they wouldn't -- they didn't have enough domestic political support for that,' Baker said.

Kissinger added: 'Well, I am in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one utility of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East, of a stable Middle East, and our notion on nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it. And, therefore, I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level so that we -- we know we're dealing with authentic.' "

Now, perhaps Obama should have chosen someone better to quote, but I can see how it would be possible to interpret what Kissinger said here the way he did. Certainly, last night the McCain campaign saw to it that they got Henry on the record right away saying, "Oh no no no! I don't agree with Obama at all!"

Still, what is the substantive difference here that John McCain is so adamant about? He seems almost obsessed with dreaming up bizarre scenarios about Obama meeting with Iran, Cuba, Venezuela and simply letting them dance on the American flag, piss on the carpet in the oval office, and then slap around lady liberty just for effect. But when we're done indulging this interest in dreaming up unrealistic pictures, what is left that matters? Anything???

More clarity comes from fact-checking the debate at ABC News:

"While it appears Kissinger and Senator Barack Obama disagree on what level those talks should occur, they do agree talks should begin, in Kissinger's words, 'at a very high level' and without preconditions.

During the debate, McCain said that Kissinger would not endorse Obama's position that he would meet on a presidential level with leaders of enemy countries. 'I guarantee you he would not say that,' McCain said of Kissinger.

Obama took issue with McCain's characterization of the former top diplomat's position, but just last week Kissinger said that, while he broadly agrees on the need to negotiate with Iran, he 'preferred doing it at the secretary of state level.'

When asked if high level talks with Iran should begin right out of the box, Kissinger replied 'Initially, yes.'

According to Obama's official website he supports 'direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.'

On preconditions the two appear to agree. Last week Kissinger also said that 'I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations.' "

Ok... so there we have it folks, the big deal is that Obama wants to talk to Iran's leaders himself rather than sending his Sec. of State? Got it. Beyond that, Kissinger and Obama are on the same page, and there you go.

R.I.P. Paul Newman

Just a quick little tribute post here to Paul Newman, film icon, business and corporate/nonprofit partnership pioneer. I'm a fan of his dressing, the core product that his food empire was built on, and like so many I'm a fan of may of his films (Cool Hand Luke, anyone??? Badassssss).


Meanwhile I'm also a huge fan of the way his food empire was structured to move all the post-tax profits to various charities. He got into the food industry on a whim, and took his success with a grain of salt in many ways, but when it came to the windfall from the enterprise he handled it all in a very classy and dynamic way. The Hole-in-the-Wall Gang Camps are a wonderful enterprise and his giving extends way beyond this particular charity. I would love to see this model take off and more brands out there offering high quality products with proceeds being poured into building a better world.

Kissinger

I tend to be pretty sympathetic to Obama's position on Iran. I am not really sure how meeting with a head of state would legitimize them. I don't think America's blessing is necessary for a tyrant to rule their country.

However, one of the stranger moments in the debate last night was Obama's insistence that Henry Kissinger publically agreed with him on the issue. It seems fairly obvious that Kissinger would not, if only because of his closeness with McCain. As it turns, out old Henry thinks McCain is right on the subject and Obama is wrong.

It's hardly earthshaking stuff. I suspect Kissinger is as pro-McCain as, say, Hollywood movie stars are pro-Obama. But, knowing this, why on earth would Obama bring it up? There must be other foriegn-policy stalwarts who agree with him. Why not drop their name? I think it must have been a calculation that Kissinger-- who is a household name-- would carry more weight with the average viewer and that this same viewer would not bother to check the facts. It would be interesting to see if this gets much attention.

I mentioned this to a conservative friend this morning who scoffed at the idea. "The media will never ask tough questions of Obama." I'm not sure about that. I think they have asked some pretty tough questions, although I will admit that theirs is a strong pro-Obama contingent. The NY Times in particular seems to have been much tougher on McCain's campain distortions than on Obama's. But I don't think anyone would argue that the Grey Lady doesn't have a horse in this race.

Watchmen: the Movie?

Until Matt mentioned it in the comments sections, I had no idea they were making a Watchmen movie. I checked it out very briefly and it could be good. They managed to avoid casting Keanu Reeves as Doctor Manhattan. Thank all that is holy for that.

This post is actually just my appeal to anyone who loves a good story to read the book before hand. League of Extraordinary Gentlemen demonstrated how Hollywood can take a complex, morally ambiguous story and turn it into an action film. Watchmen is truly a great story. It's a comic book, sure, and it does technically feature superheroes. But these superheroes are, well, grown men and woman without powers who dress up in funny costumes and beat people up. If it sounds like they must be pretty screwed up, it's because they are. The story works on many levels: as a fun adventure of some very strange people; as a commentary on American foreign policy during the 20th century; and as a demonstration of Kantian ethics versus utilitarianism. Oh yes, and it also has pirates. Lots and lots of pirates.

In Case My Live Blogging Bored You

Just in case, you can check out some professional live blogging over at Comedy Central. Incidentally, when I voted in their poll on who won the debate, 93% of voters had chosen Obama, yet the McCain campaign purchased an advertisement on the live blogging page that proclaimed, "McCain Wins Debate!" AWESOME!

Also, if you were paying attention earlier today, apparently Wonkette discovered the McCain campaign actually started putting this ad up hours (10:30 AM today) before the debate even took place (more coverage here), back when nobody knew of Johnny Mac was even participating.

League of Extraordinary Democracies

After our play with Johnny Mac's League of Democracies during the debate this evening, I did a quick Google Image Search and came across these:

Live-Blogging(ish) the Debate

So the first Presidential debate is on, after all the strange happenings of the week, and I'm planning to jot some thoughts up here as we go... hopefully it will be somewhat coherent, maybe even interesting.

Here we go!

9:02 PM - Wow, the subjects of the questions are so secretive, Jim Lehrer's eyes so dark and mysterious!
9:07 PM - Um... speaking of eyes, John McCain's eyes (left most especially) are kinda freaking me out.
9:10 PM - Me Too! Me Too, says McCain! I warned about this too! What about responsibility? Interesting response after that, where he makes reference to WWII and then somehow he makes reference to his recent crazy headhunting where he called to firing a guy who most people that seem to know a bunch about this are saying isn't responsible for all of this.
9:13 PM - THEY WILL NOT FOLLOW DIRECTIONS! Talk to eachother? Huh? No! Neither presidential candidate knows how to do that!!! Stop trying to make them talk to anyone other than that guy with the beard behind the camera, Jim Lehrer!!!
9:20 PM - UPDATE!!!!! Obama talks to McCain! Johnny Mac still refuses to talk to Obama!
9:29 PM - Nice line, Mr. Mac, the "It's hard to reach across the isle from that far left." Even Obama chuckled at that one.
9:32 PM - Will Obama be attacked for claiming he invented Google, given that he just talked about setting up a, "Google for government"???
9:34 PM - Jim Lehrer says, "Can I possibly get either of you to answer my question"??? Tip here, Jim: No, You can't.
9:36 PM - Can someone rewind and see if John McCain's "recipe for an... er eh um stable er uh... economy" was even vaguely coherent???
9:38 PM - Why does John McCain keep taunting Sarah Palin for being elected Miss Congeniality???
9:49 PM - Why say Patraeus and Bin Laden are the same in any way? That seems warped and strange to me.
9:56 PM - Oh NOES! Obama just called out Johnny's awkward kareoke moment. We all thought that was behind us.

10:00 PM - OH NO!!!! No, Barack, "I've got a bracelet too" is such a bad line (caption: the photo above is Brian Williams sporting a Stephen Colbert 'WristSTRONG' braclet)!!
10:02 PM - Did John McCain start a war in Waziristan while I wasn't looking? Can someone comment with a link to a map of Waziristan? I'm sorry if I sound like a stupid douche asking this question.
10:04 PM - YES! CALL IN THE LEAGUE OF DEMOCRACIES!!!
10:05 PM - Distraction: just noticed: PHILLIES WIN! Go Phils!!!
10:12 PM - Wow! Obama twists the Spanish knife! Pow! Damn, that's cold, my friends. Oh, wait, "my friends" is Trade Marked by McCain. Crap.
10:15 PM - The best and testiest moment of the debate has just passed us, and it was... well... testy and... crap, I already forgot what was happening, but there was a lot of what movie makers might call, "Cross talk"
10:19 PM - Did John McCain just admit that Putin gives him halucinations? He sees letters in peoples eyes... hmm... This section of the debate is very compelling, however. I keep thinking of a movie favorite, Spies Like Us with Chevy Chase and Dan Akroid (spelling??)!
10:22 PM - Wow, based on Matt's comment, I just flipped from CBS where I've been watching the whole debate to CNN... I'm completely overstimulated by all the doohickies on CNN. Lines, score cards, Brazile, Borger, I'm literally overwhelmed. Things are "boiling over" according to Obama but I can't make sense of anything. Breathe, John, Breathe!!!! Ok, petrodollars, and we're back. Hmmmm... need to post more about petrodollars. Petrobux? Petrodollar$$$?
10:25 PM - McCain likes None Lugars... He's a big fan of the lugies.
10:26 PM - McCain talking about Liebermann, I tuned out... not a fan of Ole' Joe. While I was ignoring Libertalk I found out Waziristan is a region of Pakistan. McCain is at war with NW Pakistan.
10:29 PM - WTF? Obama is pro-missile-defense? Orly? For realz? Ayeee. Ok, over it.
10:31 PM - Damn, CNN, your lines are tantalizing.
10:32 PM - Wow, Obama is popular across the isle when he talks about how evil China is. Fascinating. Also, why does this Castellanos grade everything while nobody else seems to be using their score cards in the Analyst dept. @ CNN?
10:37 PM - Gosh, in conclusion I had almost nothing to say, until I realized it's interesting that their mics stayed on after the debate "ended" so that we heard Obama say, "Good job, John" to McCain as they shook hands, and, "How are we doing, honey" as he walked over to Michelle.

And now it's Anderson Cooper time! Or Keither Olbermann Tweety Matthews time depending on your preference... or you know... whoever the heck is on Fox, I dunno.

Nice liveblogging experience everybody. Thanks to the commentors! You both rock my friggin world!

"It's Like a Really Bad Disney Movie..." It Was Only a Matter of Time

The fine folks at College Humor have provided us with a lovely mock-up of the trailer for Matt Damon's nightmare Disney movie, "Head of Skate." It's a heart-warming story of "just your average hockey mom," unexpectedly tapped to be Vice President by an aging somewhat confused old man.

Check it out below, and tell me if this is not hilarious (and honestly if nothing else just incredibly well produced). Watching I could believe Disney is making this movie and slating it for air time right after High School Music 17. Favorite line: "I've got to pick up Algebra from hockey practice!"

hat tip: Purple State.

Wifty Week Leads to... Not-So-Strange Conclusion

So, the debate goes on, both the debate nationally and on Capitol Hill about the merits and features of our government buying $trillions in bad debt from Wall St. entities that perhaps should have known better than to take on these risks in the first place. Simultaneously a debate is going on around the subject of who has been helping or hurting the process of negotiating this whole mucky weird deal from getting done.

Somehow, out of all of that, John McCain has realized that his choice earlier this week to "suspend" campaigning in favor of working on the bailout compromise was a miscalculation. Both he and Barack Obama are headed to Mississippi, and this evening's debate will go on. Strange strange choices this week, not, to me, an entirely unexpected or surprising conclusion.

The Foreign Policies of Obama and McCain

Interesting article this morning in the LA Times, which talks about the similarity between McCain and Obama on issues of foreign policy. Not to toot my own horn, but I have felt the same way for a while. Republicans like to portray Obama as a weak-kneed sissy; Democrats like to portray McCain as Doctor Strangelove. In reality, they are both pretty well inside the American mainstream, and not only on foreign policy. Another question entirely is whether this similarity is a good thing. Should voters have more choice? But even if they did, would it make a difference? the vast majority of people would vote for Obama over Kucinich or McCain over Paul. The key insight comes at the end of the article:

"As a rule I think our presidential candidates are punished for anything that veers too far from the conventional wisdom," Saunders said.

And for better or worse, that is probably true.