The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

I think 99% is about 49 pct points high on 1, 3, 4, and 5. Little support for elimination of social safety net, plenty of people want more interference--that is, telling others how to behave. Less taxes, perhaps, but not if coupled with less spending on 1, and abortion--don't even start.

My crazy theory...
 

You see, I think they are undermining chances of democracy by insisting on a single state. It will be easier for democracy to develop in more unified, single-ethnicity states.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Lots of people might agree in theory but not in practice.

For example, I'd love less regulation, but understand that in the wake of a series of corporate scandals, Congress had to do something - and so Sarbanes-Oxley was born, with widespread popular support. I was talking the other day with European counsel, who told me there will be very few European countries seeking listing on US exchanges in the future because of Sarbox, so the regulation is having an economic downside for us.

My proposal, unabashedly based on Gramm-Rudman: for every new regulatory scheme put in place, Congress should have to eliminate one old scheme. Just so we keep trimming the deadwood as we address the issue du jour.

What to do
 

I heard that interview too, and was reminded of it with this discussion. I think the guy was the former US Ambassador to Yugoslavia, saw how things went down there, and has been involved on the ground in Iraq in some capacity. Interesting stuff.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

The better question is what wasn't I smoking, at least through 1997.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

If this refers to your contention that Clinton got a free ride from the press prior to 1997, I'd respond with Whitewater, Whitewater, and Whitewater (seriously -- the NYT started pounding him on it in 1992 before he even won the nomination). Oh, plus Somalia, gays in the military, Hillary and health care reform, and the flip/flop on the middle class tax cut promised in the campaign.

Oh, and the whole "I am Not Irrelevant" pout after the 1994 elections.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Um, I'm thinking that club meant he was smoking everything.

"Smoking? What WASN'T I smoking?"

Government is not the solution it is the problem.
 

Maybe the Captain will have the conversation with me. I quite agree, and it seems to me that it's one of the problems with the CPB. Karl Rove figured out a way to install Tomlinson and other political hacks. And they're always worrying about their budget, resulting in political pressure. Hence my proposal to try to get fiscal independence and consensus directors.

What to do
 

How long have cons been saying that the Sunnis are going to have to get over losing their power in Iraq? 'Cause that hasn't been working so well.

What to do
 

Galbraith also writes about Iraq fairly regularly for the New York Review of Books.

eta: Here is the last piece he wrote there, I think, from early October.

What to do
 

I think there is a big difference between saying that Turkey needs to accept that the Kurds have a voice and saying that the Sunnis must accept being silenced. Everyone should have a voice. So I do not think the analogy is useful.

Government is not the solution it is the problem.
 

I am going to admit that I wasn't up to speed on what you were talking about with Dr. Spanks and was merely reacting to his post.

CPB in my mind is a potential first amendment danger to the extent the government can assert some level of control over a major media outlet. I would put the Voice of America in the same camp, though traditionally CPB has had a liberal leaning and VoA has had a conservative leaning.

At the same time, I think CPB has added a lot to public discussion (and has te best kids television on television, too - and disenchantment with violent kids show is I think something both the left and right will often agree on, Tinky Winky aside). So I would like to see a way to insulate CPB. Maybe you could link back to your proposal or briefly summarize it, as I couldn't find it quickly and do not know what to search on.

Run properly, CPB ought to be functioning like institutions of higher learning that rely on government funding, which still have considerable independence.

What to do
 

That is because the outside intervention, for good or ill, destroys or alters the existing power structure and patterns of interaction.

Depending on the nature of the intervention, the outside force either imposes a new structure (Balkans 1990s) or leaves it to the natives to work out a new system. The Brits tried to do the former in Palestine pre-WWII, but were never completely successful. The intervention of WWII and the resulting formation of Israel left the locals to work out a new system (with the added bonus of outside tampering). They have been "negotiating" the new structure of relationships for the past sixty years.

In Iraq, it seems to me that we have made some stabs at the former (i.e. we have in many ways imposed certain guidelines at least and enforced a new power structure) -- but given that our presence is inherently temporary, it will end up being the latter.

I would be surprised if a unified Iraq emerged and lasted, say, 30 years. I think it likely that the ethnic, religious, and resource divisions are too strong.

S_A_M

My uninformed Opinion........
 

The presence of the oilfields in the North Central portion of Iraq complicates the analysis.

The Kirkuk area used to be Kurdish, was resettled with Sunni Arabs by Saddam, and the Kurds are now flooding back in droves.

The Kurds want that oil, and the Arabs don't want to give it up. That -- and the likelihood of serious bloodshed in the civil war -- may keep a loosely unified Iraq within some kind of federal or confederal structure.

S_A_M
[efs]

There is No Joy In Podunkville, For The Mighty Not Bob Has Struck Out.
 

Oh. Uh, sorry, Club.