Content by Smerd
Posted at 1:11pm on Feb. 5, 2007 New York Times: Violent Super Bowl Ads Reflect Iraq War Bloodshed?!!
By Smerd
I know simplistic blog posts with little commentary are frowned upon, but I can't just ignore this and I don't know that any comment on the inanity is really necessary.
Look Here to see the New York Times article that is currently on the front page of the website.
Comments (2) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 7:12pm on Oct. 25, 2005 Why Bother Voting Socially Conservative?
By Smerd
Despite being mildly socially conservative, I've never let my views on social issues much influence my voting or support of political candidates in NATIONAL elections. I believe that a candidate's views on social issues rarely translate into actually policy changes. Hence, it's best to vote based on other issues like fiscal policy or foreign policy that actually matter in terms of policy outcomes.
If social issues actually do translate well into policy outcomes, I need to change my voting habits. So, can someone please demonstrate to me that social issues actually matter in terms of politics? If not, I will continue to believe that voting socially conservative comes with high opportunity costs (namely, every other issue) and that it is unwise, even if one is conservative on social issues.
In support of my case, I'll use the case study of the abortion debate in presidential elections. I don't think I need any evidence to support the claim that many, even on this site, voted a particular way last election almost solely because of the abortion issue.
In order for abortion to be eliminated, two things need to happen.
(1) Presidents need to appoint enough Supreme Court justices, who would vote to overturn Roe V. Wade, to win a 5-4 decision.
(2) A substantial number of states then need to vote to make abortion illegal.
I've heard some talk about a federal ban on abortions via a particular Supreme Court decision or via a constitutional amendment. Both seem to me to be pipe dreams.
It's possible that Roe V. Wade will be overturned, but I don't think it very likely at all. It seems very difficult to get judges confirmed that would vote accordingly. Republicans have appointed 7 of the 9 justices and the votes to overturn are still lacking. Even when people like Bush, a candidate reliant on the support of social conservatives, are elected you get judges that probably won't vote to overturn it. John Roberts may be personally socially conservative, but even he seems to consider Roe settled law. A number of commentators have predicted that he won't vote to overturn the decision, including Charles Krauthammer. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/15/AR200509150
2141.html
What are the chances that there will ever be enough votes on the court to change Roe? Especially now when legal opinions must take into account respect for precedent in addition to opinion on the original case.
Second, even if Roe V. Wade is overturned, how many states will actually outlaw abortion? I only spent a few minutes on google, but it seems to me that less than 1/3rd of states would ever outlaw it. In this poll
http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2005/50StateAbortion0805SortedbyProLife.htm
pro-lifers only outnumber pro-choicers in 13 states. Abortions would be just as frequent in the pro-choice states, and many people in the pro-life states would just drive to pro-choice states. Of course, some abortions would be prevented, though. If I'm right, abortion activists should admit then, the debate is only relevant to 13 states or so.
So that's where I stand. The views of socially conservative leaders don't lead to much change on the ground. Therefore, you should vote based on other issues that actually matter in terms of policy outcomes.
I don't follow social issues in politics much, so it's very possible I'm missing something. If I am, please explain to me why I'm wrong and I'll gladly admit I was wrong. Additionally, I didn't spend much time looking for data, so I'd be interested in links to different polls that contradict the results of mine.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (19) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 2:13pm on Aug. 8, 2005 Social Conservative Retreat on Stem Cell Research
By Smerd
Why have social conservatives been content to retreat and argue from the edge of the cliff?
The current stem-cell issue debate, on this site, in Congress, and in the media, centers on whether or not to allow federal funds to be used for a process that involves the destruction of a human embryos.
What EXACTLY is the argument about? FEDERAL funding. It isn't about public funding, private funding, or most importantly, THE PROCESS ITSELF and whether it should be made illegal or not.
Even if social conservatives were to win the debate soundly, the result would be that the destruction of embryos for stem cell research would continue in the public sector at the state level and in the private sector across America and the globe. Preventing federal funding does not stop the destruction of embryos in America, it only eliminates in one sector of research.
The situation is akin to prolife activists arguing only that abortions should not be paid for by the federal government, but acquiescing to legality of the process itself and even allowing local tax dollars to be used for the operation.
If abortion, the destruction of a human embryo is wrong and should be made illegal, why isn't destroying an embryo for stem cell research wrong and worthy of illegality. Logical consistency demands that if one is going to argue for making abortion illegal one should also argue the same for stem cell research involving the destruction of embryos.
I've heard very little from conservatives in Congress, the White House, or even on this site concerning a full ban on the destruction of human embryos. Instead, there is rigorous debate on the very narrow issues of federal funding. This makes little sense.
Editors at this site have not been timid about condemning Bill Frist for his position on stem cell research. Why not call out Bush on his weak position as well?
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (8) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 11:40am on Jun. 24, 2005 After the Insurgency
By Smerd
Suppose the Iraqi government defeats the insurgency, crafts a viable political system, and avoids a civil war or national break up. Will the Iraq venture have been a success? What will the Middle East look like?
While it's pure speculation, I think the result will be a mixed bag for the US and the region.
Iraq's relationship with Iran is the biggest unknown, but probably the most important. With any luck, the demonstration effect of Iraqis freely choosing their leaders will embarrass the Iranian regime whose Mullahs vet candidates and intervene in the democratic process when they are not happy with the will of the people. Such a clear juxtaposition would create enormous pressure for reform in Iran and could inspire the populace to push for change. If this pressure resulted in true democracy in Iran, the very heart of the Middle East would be democratic and two of its most powerful states would be exemplars to the region.
On the other hand, Iran could be the one exerting pressure on Iraq. Many of Iraq's political and religious leaders lived in Iran for long periods of time and still have strong ties there. Iraq could end up as an Iran Jr. --- eschewing the full theocratic government, but generally following its bigger, more stable neighbor's lead. An alliance of sorts would terrify the Sunni led governments, particularly Saudi Arabia who might be motivated to replay its response to the Iranian Revolution by stepping up its efforts to exports radical forms of Sunni Islam to check the power of the new Shiite power-bloc.
There really is no way to know, but I guess that the final result will be, of course, in between these two scenarios. I doubt Iraq's stabilization will set off a wave of democracy across the region, and I doubt Iraq would ally closely with Iran when that would jeopardize US aid and technical and military assistance which will be important to them.
The other big question is terrorism. Here I think I can speak with more confidence, but sadly, more pessimism. A lot of damage has already been done because of Iraq. According to a recent CIA report discussed in the New York Times, "Iraq may prove to be an even more effective training ground for Islamic extremists than Afghanistan was in Al Qaeda's early days, because it is serving as a real-world laboratory for urban combat." A CIA official also commented that war was likely to produce a dangerous legacy by dispersing to other countries Iraqi and foreign combatants more adept and better organized than they were before the conflict. In short, Iraq is playing the role Afghanistan played before it. It's the rallying point for anyone who wants to damage the US, and anyone who wants training or contacts, or seeks to form a new terror network. After the conflict ends in Iraq, terrorists will spread out elsewhere with destabilizing effects.
Whether Iraq will cause a net gain or a net loss on terrorism depends on whether or not the effects of political and economic reform can spread to other nations, particularly Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and dry up the roots of terrorism in the long term. While this may happen, it may not as well. So we are left with the certainty of increased terrorism in the short and medium term, and uncertainty about the long term effects.