Victory in Iowa

Rock on!

Short-term memory

Occasionally when I read the news I come across something which reminds me that principles in politics are rarely to be taken seriously: governance is more often about accumulating power than ensuring the rule of law. Rarely is this more blatant than this story from the New York Times.

Normally I would shrug this kind of thing off as the usual partisan bickering and conservatives complaining that they haven't yet become Masters of the Universe. But is there no one who can remember as far back as 2004?! Because as usual, Republicans are either too stupid or simply don't care. Let's reminisce together...

It's post-election, 2004. The right wing is on a serious power trip after re-electing Bush, expanding their majority in the legislative branch, and seeming on the brink of swaying the judicial. All that remains is for the emboldened commander-in-chief to appoint lots of conservative justices, and the ever-present dream of a single-party country will finally become reality.

But wait! The democratic minority in the Senate just won't die! Instead, they begin blocking Bush's judicial appointments with the power of the filibuster, which requires a larger majority to override. A principled politician might concede that political opposition is healthy in the long run and that the use of the filibuster has been respected and valued for 200 years. On the other hand, what will the GOP's response be? Of course: just change the Constitution!

So out came all the headlines about forcing "up-or-down votes" and "the nuclear option," remember those? If you really weren't paying attention, here's an article to prove I'm not lying, and that Republicans really did try to force their agenda by taking the Constitution hostage, putting a gun to its head, and demanding the confirmation of justices as ransom. I honestly don't remember how many of the nominees eventually were confirmed, but at least we were spared a nuclear attack on the Constitution (does that count as negotiating with terrorists?).

And now, here we are in late 2007 and, well, things have changed. Actually, the only thing that has changed is that Republicans no longer control the Senate. One might hope that Republicans would allow Democrats the same leverage that they enforced when they were in the majority, or at least disguise their actions to avoid exposing their double-standard, but that would only be necessary in the rare case of voter intelligence. Where have the up-or-down votes gone? How did the filibuster magically rise from disgrace to be used a record levels? Frankly, if I was the filibuster, I'd be pretty pissed off.

In 2004, the Democrats used the filibuster to put the brakes on a radical agenda and were demonised for it. In 2007, because they have the backing of the President, Republicans are quite literally ruling from the minority. Whether voters will call them on this in 2008 is anyone's guess.

I am always on the lookout for real, substantial differences between political parties, beyond the caricatures (Republicans are cold-hearted bastards, Democrats are wimps). In this case I don't think the contrast could be more clear: both parties whine when they don't get their way, but only one is prepared to sacrifice the common good and the rule of law for the sake of eliminating opposition. I certainly hope that people of conscience in both parties recommit to abiding by the principles of the Constitution and moral behaviour in general; but until Republicans show some glimmer of revival, I can say with confidence where my votes are going...

Can you taste it?

I mentioned that there were several reasons I've been blogging less frequently (excuses, really!) Here's another:



Mmm, home-brewed beer. I have to say, it's one of my more successful experiments, winning over even the harshest of critics (Melissa!). And there's plenty to go around...



Brewing is a lot of fun. Besides the satisfaction of drinking it, it's great to hear it blurbling in the fermenter, knowing that billions of yeast are at work... kind of like having an art farm, but tastier.

This one is a mild ale, crisp and clean but still flavourful, low-alcohol and medium hoppy-ness. Next up will hopefully be a honey ale and/or a Belgian-style trippel. It's safe to say I'm hooked...

Baby Attack!

Several things have been going on which have kept me from blogging. This is only one of them!

Let the hair-pulling begin...

Well, it's 97 days and counting until the good people of Iowa single-handedly decide which presidential candidates will get the chance to (mis)lead the US for the next few years. On the other side of the pond, Gordon Brown has officially wimped out of calling an election, so it will be a little while before we see his slug-fest with David Cameron.

But hey, everyone knows US politics are so much more exciting anyway ;)

This is the first time, by the way, that I've bothered to follow primary race campaigns. Even in '04 I was still recovering from Democratophobia (yes, it's a real condition) to pay attention until Kerry had already won... *sigh*

And now, though I attempt to discern the real differences between Obama and Hillary, and try to find any signs of intelligent life from the GOP (ok, I actually gave up on that months ago), what interests me most is not the minutiae, but the larger picture: the relationship between the US and Europe, between them and the Middle East, and again with Russia, India, and China.

I don't have anything worthwhile to say about these things, except this: the United States had better realize that it no longer owns the world; and it had better realize that fast, because everyone else already has. The government and its people need to understand that civil liberty and justice are not "Made in America," but a universal standard to which all people have an equal obligation to submit and enforce.

This means that US interests must take a back seat to human interests. If the government feels it necessary to take an active role in the welfare of other nations, then it must do so under the authority of the international community: to do otherwise is not just unwise, it's immoral.

It also means that whatever standards the government holds other nations to, it must also apply to itself. Forbidding Iran to build nuclear weapons, while sitting on your own stockpile of Hiroshima-dwarfing bombs, is morally unacceptable. So is justifying your own regime-changing in practice while condemning others in principle.

In summary, the rest of the world has already rejected the tired line that the US is authorized to dictate global politics. It's only a matter of time (and maybe not that much of it) that the US will no longer be able to reach its arms that long. What then? If America ignores that reality it could lead to destruction, and the rise of another superpower. But if it works now to establish the international authority that will outlast it, we could see the establishment of the rule of law and of justice, which allows for peace.

If time permitted I would write a (lengthy) post titled "Why I'm not a Republican." It's something I feel the need to justify, because the Democratic position on abortion grieves me, and is not something to be put aside lightly. However, to vote Republican because of that one issue would be to neglect the larger issues at that I mentioned above. Abortion represents one life destroying another for its own supposed benefit. What Bush and his potential sucessors describe as "security" is the equivalent on a global scale. And, like many women who have abortions testify, when immoral means are justified to acheive desired ends, much is lost, and very little is gained.