Christopher Hitchens

Let me say that I have just read "Love, Poverty, and War" by Christopher Hitchens and my esteem for him as an essayist and thinker has risen quite a bit. Hitchens is so interesting precisely becuase he doesn't fit into any comfortable ideological category, as he started out as part of the radical left, and even now says that Trotsky is the inspiration for much of his thinking. Even in the time that he was part of the radical left, he refused to defend communist states as "worker's states" and believed that there should be a third way between capitalism and the communism as practiced by the Soviet Union. This is of course a radical left position as he believed in international socialism and considered the United States and the Soviet Union to be equal in many respects, but he did not believe that the Soviet Union was superior. I vociferously disagree with this opinion but it shows that even early on perhaps a break with the radical left was inevitable.

His early disagreements with the left were caused by Islamic fundamentalism, particularly when a fatwa was issued against one of his friends. I think that one of the most admirable things about Hitchens is that he is opposed to all religious fundamentalism, and his secular and atheist views (he would say antitheist) lead him to believe that we must oppose islamic fundamentalism.

What makes Hitchens really interesting is that he has convictions that lead him oftentimes to exactly the opposite conclusion as those who also hold, or profess to hold, the same convictions. During Bill Clinton's presidency, when most people on the left (and he was definately still on the left at that time) were zealous defenders, Hitchens saw the hypocrisy and wrote a book attacking Clinton, and even calling him a "covert ambassador from the enemy camp." He also believed that the intervention in Kosovo was necessary (despite having little admiration for Clinton himself) and thought that the hard left was wrong to oppose the intervention. Keep in mind that I disagree with him on a lot of things, its just that his willingness to stand up for what he believes in is quite good. You also know that when he speaks, and whatever point of view he takes, that you are going to hear the best arguments that point of view has to offer, and that whoever he is debating had better be prepared with a rebuttal.

All the while, Hitchens seems to have moved more neoconward, and after September 11th he has strongly supported both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even so, he allies himself more with neocons like Paul Wolfowitz, the current chairman of the World bank than with many people currently in the administration. What makes him interesting here is that his support is not unconditional for the Iraq war, as he believes that the administration should not be shielding Henry Kissinger, and he also filed suit against the administration, alledging that he was being wiretapped under the domestic spying program. Why they would want to wiretap one of their strongest supporters on Iraq? I don't know. However, this has not changed his views on the Iraq war in the least. Its so interesting, I think, and if you like reading essays that are invariably good whether they are going to make you angry or make you nod your head in agreement, then you should definately read a copy of "Love, Poverty, and War."

Buon Giorno

Buon Giorno!

Mi Chiamo Basileus. Sono studente d'italiano. Sono di New York.

See, I have learned something during the first week of Italian class!

That means "My name is Basileus. I am an Italian student, and I am from New York." I didn't study that hard when I took German but I am going to do things differently this time around in Italian.

Just a little aside...

Lieberman's Revenge?

Well, its been almost a week and a half since the Democratic Primary in Connecticut, when Senator Joe Lieberman was denied renomination but vowed to continue his campaign as an independent. The latest poll by Quinnipiac has him ahead with 53 percent of the vote, compared to 41 percent for Lamont, and 4 percent for Alan Schleisinger, the Republican nominee, a political unknown and former state representative.

We will all be watching this closely, I am sure.

The True Evil of Racial Profiling

Originally I was going to write this post about my views on felons being able to vote, but I started thinking about racism and racial profiling and that's what this post is going to be on.

I think the issue of race and crime is not one that is understood by either liberals or conservatives, or really by those who are involved in committing it.

The problem that no one seems to want to address is the fact that there is unintentional racial profiling that is more common than believed, with a vicious cycle wherein law enforcement officers (and many other white people) believe based initially on stereotypes that minorities "look like criminals" sometimes or fit the stereotypical depiction of a criminal, and cultural perceptions that minorities commit more crime. It therein follows that the stereotypical criminal to them is a minority, and they are "on the lookout" for criminals who meet their description. Statistics do show that there are more minorities in prison then there are whites, at least as a proportion of the prison population, even though minorities aren't any more likely to be criminals than whites. Therefore, when someone of a minority is stopped by the police and questioned or searched, the police believe (based on cultural perceptions and statistics, not inherent racism) that minorities seem more likely to be criminals because statistics (that are skewed) show that they are convicted of crimes more than whites. The person who is stopped believes (rightfully) that they are being targeted for questioning or search because of their race.

This bears no relationship to whether someone is guilty of the crimes the police suspect them of or not. Its indeed possible for someone to be both a target of racial profiling and guilty of a serious crime at the same time. These are what I shall call "reinforcement" cases, because they reinforce the perceptions that many whites have that minorities are more likely to be criminals. Then, when those very same whites (and some minorities have these same perceptions also) serve on a jury, and the defendant is of a minority, they believe (based on cultural perceptions) that the person seems guilty because they look like their stereotype of a criminal and therefore are more likely to convict the defendant if the case is very close. Judges are not immune to this either, and they are likely to believe that the defendant, when found guilty (and in many cases they are guilty) should be given a very severe sentence. Meanwhile, a defendant who is white and does not look like the stereotypical criminal is more likely to be given a less severe sentence. This doesn't mean that jurors are not going to rationally think about the case, nor does it mean that the judge is going to not think about the sentence, and indeed, they are quite open to the possibility that the defendant might be innocent. However, it means that the defense has to show that the defendant is innocent and is not the stereotypical criminal that they may resemble. The same thing happens with the sentencing phase. Meanwhile, the opposite things often happen for whites.

Its not that people are convicted solely because of their race, or that those who are stopped largely (but not entirely, as circumstances might otherwise be suspicious whatever the race of the suspect) because of their race are not guilty. Many of the people who are stopped are guilty, and this reinforces the cultural perceptions and makes being objective more difficult for law enforcement officers.

Let me say here that I think that law enforcement officers (whether local police, state police, FBI, ATF, or any other agency) are (the vast vast majority anyway) extremely dedicated to fairly enforcing the law, and that I have nothing against law enforcement officers at all whatsoever provided that they do their jobs correctly, which the vast majority of them do.

The results of racial profiling are tragic for all involved. Because of racial profiling, many minorities become suspicious of law enforcement officers when they shouldn't be. They could become less likely to call the police when they should, less likely to report a crime, and more likely to believe other minorities who say that they are being accused because of racial profiling, even if they are guilty and should be convicted and duly sentenced. They do this because they believe rightfully that minorities are often unfairly targeted, and they are unfairly targeted because of the cultural stereotypes. Therefore, society becomes balkanized and there is more racism and more bias than there has been before. Also, it creates the belief (correct) for minorities that the law and the legal system are biased against them, and there is still plenty of subtle (and largely though not entirely unintentional) discrimination.

There is another tragic consequence of racial profiling that is not widely considered: it means that white criminals are more likely to get away with crimes because they are less likely to be caught, and it means that those white criminals who are caught and deserve the full sentence get let off more easily. This is not a guaranteed result, but they start out in court in many cases with something of an advantage due to the cultural perception. The cultural stereotype that whites are less likely to commit crime means that crime in white neighborhoods, particularly drug use and sales, as well as other more serious offenses, are underinvestigated and underprosecuted. This means that criminals who are guilty of serious crimes are not caught and are free to commit crime again. When they are caught and convicted they are given a lighter sentence and are out of prison sooner, or sometimes they don't get prison sentences at all.


Here is the vicious cycle of racial profiling--

1. Cultural perceptions from long ago that were racist in nature indicated that minorities were more likely to be criminals than whites.

2. Law Enforcement Officers share the stereotypical view of criminals in many cases and are more likely to stop or question minorities because they suspect more of them of committing crimes because they meet the stereotypical definition of criminals.

3. Because many of the people they arrest even due to racial profiling are guilty, it reinforces the perception that minorities are more likely to be criminals.

4. Some minorities (justifiably) lose trust in the laws, white criminals get lesser sentences for the same crime, and crime among whites is underinvestigated and underprosecuted, reinforcing the cultural perception even more.

Steps two through four are often repeated.

We have come a long way both with reducing discrimination and improving race relations, but in order to achieve a truly colorblind society we must, among other things, get rid of racial profiling wherever it can be found.

Lieberman's Loss

The results of the Connecticut Democratic Senate Primary are in--

Ned Lamont 146,587 51.79%
Joe Lieberman 136,468 48.21%

Senator Lieberman failed to win the nomination of his party for the Senate in November, as he -as everyone I am sure knows- came under attack from anti-war Democrats who believed he had been too close to President Bush. Ned Lamont, a wealthy businessman was able to capitalize on this and now has his party's nomination for the Senate this November. Lieberman had said before the primary that he would proceed with or without his party's nomination, although many Democrats have tried to get him to withdraw from the race and support Lamont. First of all, reports of Lieberman's political demise have been greatly exhaggerated, especially because of the fact that while he lost the primary, the 3 point margin was closer than any poll, and indeed Lieberman entered into the final days with momentum. Seemingly, Lamont peaked near the end of July and the polls narrowed since then, although none of them predicted the closeness of the final result. The Democrats had said before the primary that they would be supportive of their party's nominee, and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton was one of the first major party leaders to give money to Lamont's campaign. She also said that she might campaign with him this November. The other Senator from Connecticut, Christopher Dodd, has also said that he will endorse Lieberman. Senator Charles Schumer, Chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Commitee, has issued a statement saying that the result "bodes well for the Democrats in the fall since the race was a referendum on the President."

They are deluding themselves if they think that Lieberman can be persuaded to withdraw from this race if he is ahead in the polls and there is no Republican nominee with any chance of winning this seat in November. Former State Representative Alan Schleisinger is not going to have any real chance of winning if he remains the Republican nominee, particularly after the revalations about his major gambling debts.

The main reason why the Democrats have been so quick to rally around Lamont is because of political necessity and a desire not to offend their base. In order to win control of congress this November they are going to have to have an enthusiastic turnout from liberal antiwar voters, the same voters who turned out to vote against Senator Lieberman on Tuesday. If the party establishment were to say that they were supporting Lieberman regardless of what happens, then it would get these voters into an open revolt. The reason why Hillary Clinton contributed to Lamont's campaign so early is because she likely plans to run for President and therefore cannot waste any opportunity to pacify the liberal wing of party, or at least make it so that they can tolerate her if she is the general election nominee in 2008. She's not going to be the one to commit political suicide by endorsing Lieberman. The support of the party is going to get Lamont a great deal of money for the general election campaign over the next three months that is going to help close the gap. Lieberman doesn't have access to those donors now, and he is going to need an alternative source of funds. What he does have is a political patron in President Bush, who even at 39 percent approval is still the President of the United States and still has the ability that Presidents have to raise money for candidates. It was no accident that Karl Rove called Joe Lieberman after the result was announced. Its a marriage of convenience: Lieberman needs Bush so that he can get funds from traditionally Republican donors, and Bush needs Lieberman so that he can say that he has bipartisan support for his policies in Iraq. Bush is not going to endorse Lieberman publicly, because that would do more harm than good and would confirm the accusations made by Lamont's campaign, and he won't do that because he isn't that stupid. However, he can do a lot of things to help Lieberman surreptitiously. There is nothing like a unanticipated call from the President to persuade a Republican nominee with no chance of winning to drop out of the race and endorse Lieberman a few days before the elections. As I said above, Bush needs Lieberman and Lieberman needs Bush, so its the perfect political marriage of convenience. Ambition has strange bedfellows.

Right now for the general election it looks like Lieberman is leading, although I have not seen any polling recently. The only exception to this is a Rasmussen poll that showed Lieberman and Lamont tied at 40 percent of the vote, with Republican Alan Schleisinger at 13 percent. I will comment more on this race as it unfolds.

2008 Democratic Nomination

The 2008 Democratic Nomination contest is really between Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and the reasons why she should not be the party's nominee in 2008. The reasons are many and sometimes contradictory, but her strengths could very well outweigh them, as could her talents as a politician. She is not to be underestimated by either Democrats or Republicans and she would be a formidable general election candidate no matter who she was running against. She seems likely to beat many of the Republican contenders in a general election campaign save for either McCain or Giuliani and its not at all clear that either one of them is going to be nominated. Of the Democrats challenging her, Former Virginia Governor Mark Warner is very likely the strongest alternative, and I say that as someone who lives in Virginia and was here during his entire term as governor. He was a great politician and was able to get things done and outmaneuver his opponents in the legislature which is no easy feat for any governor. After he signed a tax increase into law in 2004 his approval ratings greatly improved and he was able to take credit as someone willing to engage in bipartisan compromise. The downside is that he is not well-known to the public at large and is going to have to introduce himself to voters if he hopes to have a chance in the nomination contest. He does have money from his cell-phone business and that should help him in this regard but he must overcome the name recognition, or lack thereof if he wants to pose a credible threat to Senator Clinton.

Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico is another potentially strong candidate for the Presidency in 2008, since as a hispanic he can win that crucial constituency, and as a moderate who has reduced income taxes in his state as governor he can work to convince people that their taxes won't greatly rise if he is elected President. Former Senator John Edwards could make another run for the Presidency, and he has the name recognition from being nominated for Vice President in 2004, though being part of a losing ticket could work against him. Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack has extremely negative ratings nationally for some reason (that I don't quite understand) and this could be a hinderance to his campaign for President should he decide to run.

The most erratic candidate is Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware because from listening to his speeches I can say that he moves between spellbinding oratory to simply below average public speaking for no apparent reason. He has the experience from over 30 years in the Senate but he has run before and was forced out of the race for stealing parts of a speech from British Labour Party Leader Neil Kinnock. Not exactly the man one wants to emulate if they want to become President of the United States. I do applaud him though for knowing who Kinnock is, as this demonstrates a grasp of foreign policy that is important for any President of any party.

Senator John Kerry might make another run for the Presidency but he is going to have to convince voters that he has learned from his defeat. Right now it seems that the only thing he learned is to take a liberal line almost all the time, which is not going to be the way to win with the public at large. Also, its telling that even though Kerry would win if the election had been held today instead of 2004, he would not win by an overwhelming margin despite the President's low approval ratings. This says that he is just unable to close the deal with voters and that there is not much that can be improved upon if he is nominated again.