Letters from the Center

Docket-No.DHS-2006-0030-Comments

2007-05-08T16:33:00.001-07:00

I’m opposed to the national ID on the grounds that it enables new capabilities for citizen monitoring to the federal government when it has persistently abused and misused its existing capabilities.

I would support a national ID if it were introduced in conjunction with effective legislation to create additional congressional oversight of existing citizen-monitoring programs (eg, the anti-terrorist do-not-fly list) to require that these programs operate with increased transparency. Specifically, I would like this increased oversight and transparency to focus on increasing the accuracy and effectiveness of these programs, such as by publishing detailed reviews of all “false positives” created by the program and requiring that whatever flaw in the process that enabled that mistake be corrected.

However, given the current state of these programs, and their lack of oversight, accountability, and transparency, I feel that might be too much to ask at this point and thus instead simply oppose the introduction of a national ID at this time.

The problem that the national ID is meant to solve will only get easier over time, so I see no need to hurry.

-david

Is Estate Tax Reform Dead?

2006-08-04T18:35:00.000-07:00

In: http://www.forbes.com/business/2006/08/04/estate-tax-reform-senate-cx_jh_0804estatetax.html

You said:

With the old rates slated to return in 2011, it won't be long before the need for reform becomes urgent. The Senate leadership would be wise to not put off making a genuine stab at reform, as eventually it will become a consumer issue rather than just an irritant to small-business owners and the wealthy, warns Bass.

How will it eventually become a consumer issue, and when?

-david

RE: U.S. choices in Iraq civil war

2006-04-02T18:23:00.000-07:00

I entirely agree; it's almost impossibly difficult. But I'm eager to hear
your thoughts on this regardless.

I think it's especially important for those like yourself to attempt the
exercise, otherwise we just leave it to those not like yourself.

-david

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mkatz@gmu.edu [mailto:mkatz@gmu.edu]
> Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 8:20 PM
> To: David Barrett
> Subject: Re: U.S. choices in Iraq civil war
>
> Dear Mr. Barrett:
>
> Thanks for your message. I shall try to think of something along the
> lines you suggest. It is, however, very difficult to know what to do
> about this awful situation.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Mark N. Katz
> Professor of Government and Politics
> Department of Public and International Affairs
> MSN 3F4
> George Mason University
> Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
> (703) 993-1420
> http://www.gmu.edu/departments/pia/facultypages/katz.html
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: David Barrett <dbarrett@quinthar.com>
> Date: Saturday, April 1, 2006 6:48 pm
> Subject: U.S. choices in Iraq civil war
>
> > http://news.monstersandcritics.com/northamerica/article_1151761.php
> >
> > Thank you for your excellent summary of options up on Monsters and
> > Critics.You do a wonderful job accentuating the delicate balance
> > the US must
> > maintain to succeed.
> >
> > However, what you don't do is make any actual recommendations.
> > Perhaps you
> > believe it's not your place, but I ask: who is better qualified?
> > What I'd
> > really like to hear from you (and from others who have studied the
> > regionsuch as yourself) is clear advice to the government, a clear
> > proposal for
> > action.
> >
> > Because the crowd of people who do sideline analyses is large
> > enough; we
> > need more people who leverage these analyses to actually put
> > forward their
> > own plans. Else we continue to defer planning to the same people, and
> > should only expect to get the same results.
> >
> > -david
> >
> >

U.S. choices in Iraq civil war

2006-04-01T15:50:00.000-08:00

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/northamerica/article_1151761.php

Thank you for your excellent summary of options up on Monsters and Critics.
You do a wonderful job accentuating the delicate balance the US must
maintain to succeed.

However, what you don't do is make any actual recommendations. Perhaps you
believe it's not your place, but I ask: who is better qualified? What I'd
really like to hear from you (and from others who have studied the region
such as yourself) is clear advice to the government, a clear proposal for
action.

Because the crowd of people who do sideline analyses is large enough; we
need more people who leverage these analyses to actually put forward their
own plans. Else we continue to defer planning to the same people, and
should only expect to get the same results.

-david

The Guardian -- When the cheerleaders admit they were wrong, we'll move on

2006-03-12T22:11:00.000-08:00

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1729399,00.html

Madeleine,

Thanks for your great article in the Guardian. I entirely agree that our leaders are at fault for manipulating intelligence to justify these wars, and then failing spectacularly in their execution.

However, that story is well understood. What investigations into the matter have mostly concluded, and there seems little interest in taking them back up. The “truth” might never be known, like in countless other episodes throughout history.

I can understand (and share) your frustration in this. But I don’t share your apparent willingness to rehash and re-vent this frustration endlessly.

I could understand (and would support) you calling for more investigation into these topics. I’d enthusiastically endorse holding the Blair and Bush administration responsible for their many abject failures. I’d eagerly welcome a plan to bring heretofore information to light and to gain insight into the murky debate that is fading ino obscurity.

But you’re calling for none of this. You’re not calling for *anything* (except maybe an apology from Bush and Blair, for whatever that’s worth). Rather, you’re just complaining.

Furthermore, you seem eager to draw energy *away* from the practical debate of what to do today (a debate in which you seem entirely disinterested) and focus it on... nothing that I can discern.

It’s great that you’re smart enough to see the big problem. But it’s sad that you’re not smart enough to do anything about it. There were thousands of people just like you who complained in the lead up to the war, who complained during the height of the war, and who now complain throughout the ongoing occupation. When will you learn that your complaints are meaningless without a call to act on some concrete alternative proposals?

In the meantime, you (and the countless others just like you) are a minor nuisance to Bush, but nothing more. If you ever got around to actually *doing* something, then maybe you’d matter. Because today you, and the myriad whiners like you, simply don’t.

-david

Daily Kos - The Many Democratic Parties

2005-08-14T12:29:00.000-07:00

<http://feeds.dailykos.com/dailykos/index.xml?m=412>
> The point is Mark, we can win in PURPLE states. We can find a message
> that works in purple AND blue. And, to be frank, it is basically a
> negative message about the extremists that run the GOP. It is Lincoln
> 1860.

This is interesting -- I've been long complaining about a lack of
specific counter-proposals or clear message for the Democratic party.
And I've thought this is a weakness; I figured it was a necessary
characteristic for a leader to have a plan B if they disagree with plan A.

However, it seems you're proposing quite the opposite, that a necessary
and sufficient reason to be a Democrat is to simply not be a Republican.

Surely I'm over-simplifying things. I desperately hope I am. But I
don't see how. I'm no historian, so I don't know what your "Lincoln
1860" codeword means. But to me it sounds like your strategy is "if we
whine loud enough, they will come".

Is that what we've become? And is that the grandest to which you can
aspire?

-david

Daily Kos - Extremist Conservative Legal Reasoning on Abortion Rights

2005-08-08T16:33:00.000-07:00

<http://feeds.dailykos.com/dailykos/index.xml?m=363>
> A few weeks ago I skewered NRO's legal analyst Ed Whelan for trying
> to spin Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas as being "neutral" on the right
> to choose.

You "skewered" them? Is this your objective, unbiased view? Or your
self-promoting, overconfident view?

I know you think you're great; please try to leave it to the reader to
decide if they think so too. Otherwise you just sound lame, to your
supporters and detractors alike.

Again, I generally agree with your views. I just generally disagree
with how you communicate them.

-david

Daily Kos -- Military Performance in Iraq

2005-08-06T17:17:00.000-07:00

<http://feeds.dailykos.com/dailykos/index.xml?m=346>
> We understand that it is not the fault of our troops that they have
> been sent to this Debacle. It is Bush's fault, to his everlasting and
> historic disgrace. He misled us to this war and critically damaged
> the global alliance against terrorism, causing mayhem, death and
> chaos. He has made us less safe, less prosperous, and less secure in
> our future. He is the worst President in the history of the nation.

Ok, this starts out a little over the top (Worst President in the
history of the nation? At best this seems premature; but at worst it
seems downright whiny), but I think the rest of the article is excellent.

I totally agree with that the insurgent force appears to be improving in
effectiveness. Whether it's due to growing numbers, increasing
sophistication, or some weakening on our part -- I have no idea. But it
does seem like they're getting more deadly, and that our words are
ringing increasingly hollow.

I'd love to hear more analysis of why you believe this is the case, and
what we can encourage our representatives to do about it. Most
importantly, I'd love to hear your overall plan -- repeated again and
again on a daily basis -- for what we should be doing differently.

It's old news to hear yet more ways that we're screwing up. What I want
to hear are specific proposals that will enable us to do better.

-david

Daily Kos - Fighting Dems

2005-08-05T17:54:00.000-07:00

<http://feeds.dailykos.com/dailykos/index.xml?m=341>
> Ed, this is simply not true. And once you realize that, you will see
> why we are right and you are wrong.

Sigh... Do you even realize how petulant and arrogant you sound? Do you
understand that the one uniting theme across Bush critics is his
righteous arrogance? If so, why do you follow his example?

If I could summarize the Daily Kos voice, it would be "whine". Billmon
would be "despair". Power Line would be "confuse". Why can't any of
you guys just talk? Like real people do? Like adults do around a
dinner table?

It sounds like you're using the same tactics of the brat kid who yells
until his parents buy him a candy bar. Yes, the tactics work in some
circumstances. But don't you see the long term damage you do to your
position to ostracize centrist, moderate voices with such bullshit? I
mean, you're treating one of your fellow Democrats like an idiot; what
hope can I have that you'll even remain coherent when in the same room
as an actual Republican?

For many people, it's not about the issues. There are simply too many
of them, and they are all too complicated. It's about trust. And
whining doesn't engender trust.

I agree with much that you say. I just disagree, vehemently, with how
you say it.

I heard it said once that "The only people who Kos despises more than
Republicans are centrists." At first I thought it was silly. After
all, where do you think you'll get your votes if not from us? But I
can't help but see this statement echoed in your posts, and it depresses
me. You're the best liberal voice on the web. Why can't you do better?

-david

In the Red Zone - Steven Vincent RIP

2005-08-03T12:40:00.000-07:00

http://spencepublishing.typepad.com/in_the_red_zone/

I'm horribly saddened to hear about Steven's murder. Steven was an
incredible journalist and his writings have had a powerful effect on my
understanding of Iraq. There is simply no replacement.

Furthermore, I've read that Layla was injured, but thankfully not
killed. I earnestly hope she recovers quick and well, and finds some
way to press on in Iraq.

-david

Chrenkoff - Fighting words from a German

2005-08-01T14:52:00.000-07:00

Arthur wrote:
http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2005/08/fighting-words-from-german.html
>
> As I've written many times before, at the root this attitude is the
> belief that Al Qaeda is essentially a reactive force, with no agenda of
> its own, except to oppose certain Western actions (if, among other
> things, the existence of the state of Israel can be termed a "Western
> action") - hence, if only we did, or stopped doing, X or Y, everything
> would be fine, since "these people" have no quarrel with us per se ,
> just with some of our policies.

I'm frustrated by your selective interpretation of the opposing
position. Yes, there are certainly those who fit into the
isolationist/appeasement category you paint above. But the degree to
which you focus on them -- in near exclusion of all others -- frustrates
me as so far as I can tell, numerically and politically, that category
is a minority.

It's my impression that most centrist and liberal folks recognize
extremist terrorism is a real problem and needs dealing with, and not
hiding from. But there are many ways to deal with it other than (or in
addition to) the current approach. And thus rather than rehashing why
we shouldn't put our head in the sand (a position that few actually
take), I'd like to hear your views on what we *should* do differently
than right now.

- For example, I'd like to hear more about how *you* propose we deal
with military recruitment problems, or your theories as to why we're
having them in the first place.

- Likewise, liberals believe the perception of America as a nice guy is
a strategic asset -- accumulated over generations -- that we're spending
at a frantic pace. Do you disagree with this? Do you think we're
spending that currency wisely? How could we spend it better, or even
earn more?

Neither of these complaints equate to "pull the troops now!" or "appease
the terrorists!" Rather, it's "let's do a better job fighting
terrorism!" If you want them (ie, us) to listen to your reassurances,
it'd be a huge help if you took seriously our concerns.

What I'd like to hear more about from you is less how the small minority
of stupid people truly are stupid, and more about how the large majority
of concerned citizens are legitimately concerned, and what we can do
about it.

-david

Daily Kos - Followup

2005-07-12T22:44:00.000-07:00

Ok, so I read now on FoxNews that John Gibson is saying Rove should get
a medal for outing Plume *especially* if he's guilty (of treason,
effectively). So I'd go so far as to agree that Gibson agrees with the
Plume outing. But I'd still ask that you avoid categorically accusing
Republicans as a whole of such insanity until a few less extreme voices
take up the chorus. Or if they have already, show who and where.

-david

And now I see there's an argument in favor of her outing (albeit a
bizarre one),

Daily Kos - Out of Practice

2005-07-12T20:33:00.000-07:00

<http://feeds.dailykos.com/dailykos/index.xml?m=68>

This article, on the other hand, is quite good. For example, I
appreciate this statement:

> That's the story now. The law will take care of itself. The Plame
> prosecutor will tell us about that if and when he hands down
> indictments.
>
> But the White House has been lying to the American People about the
> fact that Rove leaked Plame's identity and about the fact that the
> President would fire whoever leaked this information.

I like how you state your opinion (that the evidence points to Rove
being guilty) and then assert your confidence in the justice system to
come to the correct conclusion. Furthermore, I like how you direct the
reader to the *real* story (in my opinion) that the White House covered
all this up for so long.

I'd like to see more articles written in this more respectful, less
frantic tone.

-david

Daily Kos - Republican Leaders: We Support Plame's Outing

2005-07-12T20:11:00.000-07:00

<http://feeds.dailykos.com/dailykos/index.xml?m=64>

I'm terribly disappointed with the headline of this article as nowhere
has any Republican official that I've seen -- nor that you cite -- said
anything even remotely close to this. Is this your notion of objective
analysis and reporting?

Overall, I'm disappointed by your mischaracterization of the Republican
position. Granted, they are eager to shut up on the issue, and yes,
they're interpreting everything in the best possible light. But in the
same vein, you appear to be interpeting their every statement in the
worst possible light, too. Take, for example, the RNC quote and your
response. You quoted Ken Mehlman (Chairman of the RNC) in saying:

"It's disappointing that once again, so many Democrat leaders are taking
their political cues from the far-left, Moveon wing of the party. *The
bottom line is Karl Rove was discouraging a reporter from writing a
false story based on a false premise and the Democrats are engaging in
blatant partisan political attacks.*" (Emphasis yours.)

While he is obviously minimizing the importance of the charages against
Rove, this statement on its face isn't demonstrably false. They believe
Rove cited Plume -- indirectly, and without knowledge that she was a
covert agent -- in order to "prove" the Nigerian cake story was false.
They further believe that there is some doubt whether Plume is in fact
covert, and whether any law was actually broken. From this perspective,
the story is a non-event, and the Democrats are over-hyping the issue as
a "blatant partisan political attack". In short, it's possible to
honestly believe the statement simply through a willingness to interpret
all the evidence in favor of Rove.

In the same sense, it's entirely possible to honestly believe Rove is
guilty, lying through his teeth, a brilliant mastermind of the Plume
outing, and a honest-to-God traitor. All you have to do is interpret
all the evidence against Rove, and it's quite easy.

But the key thing is that neither view is "correct", and neither is more
"honest" than the other.

It's no surprise that the far-right ignores anything slightly damaging
to "their man" when the far-left ignores anything potentially
reassuring. Please try to be more accepting of alternate
interpretations of the evidence and at least acknowledge the limits of
our, and your, understanding. If you truly believe in the truth, be
confident you'll be vindicated in the end. But don't muddy the waters
so that it never becomes clear.

-david

Power Line - London calling

2005-07-12T17:18:00.001-07:00

<http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010985.php>

You wrote: "I wonder what it would take for Mr. Blair (and President
Bush) to entertain second thoughts about the wisdom of supporting the
savages who do to Israelis what al Qaeda has just done to our British
friends."

I agree, the Palestinian terrorists have been as bad as they get. And I
certainly agree with the danger of including Hamas in the political
process (to the small degree they include themselves). However, I don't
see what alternative you are proposing. It would help me as a reader if
every time you said what *not* to do (in this case, not give the
Palestinian Authority $8B), you highlight what you think *should* be done.

So in the case of Isreal and the Palestinian Authority, if you don't
recommend us working with them or helping them rebuild the Palestinian
infrastructure (as we did for the former Nazis), what do you suggest we
do otherwise?

-david

Power Line - Closing in on Karl

2005-07-12T17:18:00.000-07:00

<http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010989.php>

I think your summary of the Rove/Plume affair was quite good. I tend to
agree: at worst it appears that Rove accidentally revealed Plume's
covert identity due to a slip of the tongue. Indeed, I see no evidence
that this was some intentional act to punsh Plume's husband, as was
originally suggested.

However, I'd like to hear your comments about the apparent coverup of
this mistake. Had he acknowledged the mistake honestly and immediately,
I think it'd be easy for most people to forgive him. But if it's true
that he both personally covered up his involvement, and caused others to
cover up his involvement, over a period of years -- that's hard to
stomach from one of our President's closest and most trusted aides.

Would you agree that *if* Rove did accidentally and indirectly reveal
Plume's covert relationship to the CIA, and *if* Rove did engage in a
pattern of coverup -- neither of which has been definitively decided --
would you agee that this is a serious matter for which Rove should answer?

-david

Power Line - More "heads I win, tails let's call it even" thinking from a partisan Democrat

2005-07-10T00:01:00.000-07:00

<http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010982.php>

This was an excellent post. I really appreciated how you positioned the
debate as a choice between two competing methods of appointing judges:

"There are two plausible ways our democratic society can go about
selecting Supreme Court Justices. Under one approach, the party in power
is able to place Justices on the Court who are in tune with its general
philosophy about judging. ... The other model is to make the selection
of Justices a truly collaborative effort between the two parties, in
some fashion."

I really like how you state your view while acknowledging the
alternative in a fair way. We need more of this type of writing. Thank
you.

-david

Power Line - How Democrats and Frenchmen Think (Follow up)

2005-07-09T14:13:00.000-07:00

Power Line wrote:
> Deciding cases.

Ok, this is indeed succinct, but so much so it's lost all meaning. Yes
the point of the Supreme Court is to decide cases, just as the point of
Congress is to vote on legislation. But I believe this is missing the
forest for the trees.

You've stated that "contemporary liberal" thought has wrongly attributed
to the supreme court the role of "final arbiter of all the great issues
of US society", and wrongly claimed that its rulings have "long-term
impact on the life of society in general". What part of these statement
do you dispute?

I'd grant its rulings aren't "final" in an absolute sense, because
nothing in the US government is final (by design). The Supreme Court
can change its members, change its interpretation of the Constitution,
and the Constitution itself can change. But would you grant that in a
practical sense, controverisal and complex issues are often lent closure
by the unique responsibilities of the Supreme Court, typically for a
generation or more? Indeed, decisions by the Supreme Court are more
"final" than any other aspect of the US government, and that *is* by
design. Would you disagree with this?

-david

Power Line - How Democrats and Frenchmen Think

2005-07-08T18:53:00.000-07:00

<http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010975.php>

You gave a quote listing the effct of the Supreme Court as:
- "long-term impact on the lift of society in general"
- "*At the very heart of American political life, the Court is the final
arbiter of all the great issues of U.S. society*" [emphasis yours]

About these statements you said:

"That wasn't, of course, the role envisioned for the Court by the
Founders, but it certainly is the one favored by contemporary liberals"

Perhaps I'm one of the "contemporary liberals" that you cite, but I
always assumed these statements were essentially true. Could you please
clarify what you believe the role of the Supreme Court to be, in as
succinct a fashion?

-david

Power Line - A blast from the past and an omen for the future?

2005-07-06T22:18:00.000-07:00

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: A blast from the past and an omen for the future?
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 22:18:36 -0700
From: David Barrett <dbarrett@quinthar.com>
To: Power Line <powerlinefeedback@gmail.com>

I agree with you the democrats haven't made a clear case for Bush's
supposed "incompetency" in Iraq. I find that people very confidently
and casually assert this "fact" and then find themselves unable to
justify it when pressed.

However, I hope you agree that to a casual observer, based on the news
we receive from mainstream sources, it's not hard to come to this
conclusion -- even if not true. I think the general assertions of
incompetence come down to:

1) Disbanding the Iraqi army. Personally, I think this was a hard call,
seemed like a good idea at the time, and might even have been the right
decision. It's impossible to tell, even with hindsight. But there's no
denying that the downside of this move is suddenly unemploying a huge
volume of armed soldiers, and this is unfortunate at best, or some might
say "incompetent" at worst.

2) Calling "Mission Accomplished" well before the mission was anywhere
near accomplished. Now I suppose you could argue the "mission" was
merely toppling Saddam, and thus this was legit. But to many observers,
this was a sign of absurd overconfidence, and signalled an "incompetent"
presumption that it would be smooth sailing henceforth.

3) Trusting the Nigerian uranium cake stories. This went to the highest
levels of the Bush administration -- including Colin Powell's address to
the United Nations -- and now it appears that the documents are obvious
forgeries. Though some might claim this was part of a campaign to "fix"
the evidence (to use the terminology of the "Downing Sreet Memos"),
others might merely assert this fits a pattern of incompetence.

4) The armor-for-troops issue. It's hard for me to understand why we've
had such trouble outfitting our troops and equipment with decent armor
when we're spending such enormous sums of money on the war. This is
further complicated by assertions (at the time) by the manufacturers of
the armor that they have extra capacity that the Pentagon hasn't
requested. If this is true, it could be a sign that the Pentagon and
its civilian leadership were incompetent in the logistics of equipping
our troops.

And these are only the first four that came to mind. I don't mean to
defend the assertions of incompetence. But I do mean to counter your
blaise response to such assertions. I'd prefer that you (and frankly,
the Bush administration) recognize that mistakes have been made, and
counter that these mistakes were simply unavoidable. Facing up to the
bad news builds our confidence when you assert there is good news --
especially good news that is too secret or complicated to detail.

But by categorically denying or ignoring accusations of mistakes, and
then attacking anyone that suggests such a thing, you contribute to an
overall perception that you (and by extension, the Bush administration)
are out of touch with reality.

Strong leaders don't hide from the truth, because they know that on
balance, the truth is on their side.

-david

Power Line - Biden rules

2005-07-05T21:38:00.000-07:00

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Biden rules
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 21:38:27 -0700
From: David Barrett <dbarrett@quinthar.com>
To: Power Line <powerlinefeedback@gmail.com>

If possible, please clarify the following questions:

1) What is "judicial activism"?
2) Would you endorse a "judicial activist" for the Supreme Court?
3) Is it possible to be a "solid liberal" or "solid conservative" judge
without simultaneously being a "liberal/conservative activist judge"?

My confusion is that one one hand, everyone seems to be against judicial
activism. But on the other hand, everyone seems to be in favor of
having "their guy" on the Supreme Court. Isn't this a direct contradiction?

It seems to me that the *only* way you fight against "judicial activism"
is to explicitly denounce any judge who is "solid" in any ideological
respect.

Naturally, everyone has baises -- and judges are human. But there's an
enormous difference between someone who votes 60/40 conservative, and
90/10 conservative, wouldn't you agree? And the nearer you are to the
90/10 side, the more accurate the label is "judicial activism", correct?

So with this in mind, how can we so casually call for/against a
political political/ideological bias in the judges we recommend, while
simultaneously lambast the the political/ideological bias of the judges
who are currently seated?

If you could address this point in one of your posts, I'd greatly
appreciate it. Thanks!

-david

Please recommend a moderate supreme court choice to your readers

2005-07-02T01:23:00.000-07:00

(Sent to a list of perhaps a hundred journalists around the world.)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Please recommend a moderate supreme court choice to your readers
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005 18:35:14 -0700
From: David Barrett <dbarrett@quinthar.com>

Hello, I'm writing to ask you to endorse a moderate supreme court
candidate to replace Justice O'Connor. Personally, I believe it's
reprehensible for anyone to recommend a politically biased judge
(whether liberal or conservative) as doing so effectively negates the
value of the judiciary. I'm not so naive as to believe this isn't or
hasn't always been the case, but I am sufficiently idealistic to believe
that we should at least strive for improvement.

Anyway, I merely ask that rather than you recommend a judge based on how
that judge would likely favor your views, consider whether that is the
right metric, and ask your fans to consider this as well. Thanks!

-david

Power Line - Unreal

2005-06-13T16:06:00.000-07:00

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Unreal
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 16:06:59 -0700
From: David Barrett <dbarrett@quinthar.com>
To: Power Line <powerlinefeedback@gmail.com>

Interesting post on Clinton. I never really grasped the reasoning
behind the intense hatred of the man, and I appreciate you laying out
the pillars: health care, welfare reform, etc.

That said, I was a bit surprised at how spiteful your tone was. Is it
really so hard to find anything positive to say other than "Clinton's
1992 campaign themes sounded good"?

In order to really communicate with "the other side" I'd recommend
reaching out a bit more. Acknowledge the good and people will listen to
the bad. Else they might continue to tune you out entirely.

-david

<http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010715.php>

Power Line - Some perspective, please

2005-06-05T07:17:00.000-07:00

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Some perspective, please
Date: Sun, 05 Jun 2005 19:17:10 -0700
From: David Barrett <dbarrett@quinthar.com>
To: power Line <powerlinefeedback@gmail.com>

<http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010636.php>

Excellent summary of the Koran report.

Power Line - Better than an apology

2005-06-04T19:59:00.000-07:00

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Better than an apology
Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2005 19:59:27 -0700
From: David Barrett <dbarrett@quinthar.com>
To: Power Line <powerlinefeedback@gmail.com>

<http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010632.php>

I agree entirely. It's frustrating to no end that the MSM devotes no
inches to the "good news" in Iraq. I'd love to have a better sense of
reconstruction progress -- just a weekly update would be great. Do you
have a source for where I can get this sort of summary?

-david

Power Line - Blame America first

2005-06-04T19:54:00.000-07:00

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Blame America first
Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2005 19:54:20 -0700
From: David Barrett <dbarrett@quinthar.com>
To: Power Line <powerlinefeedback@gmail.com>

<http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010630.php>

Hi, I enjoyed your article today. I agree, the whole Koran issue has
been shocking, not in its content, but in the hoopla of its telling.

However, I disagree with your "generous" assumption that the only reason
one could accept allegations of abuse is a hatred of President Bush.
In my case it's more a matter of erring on the side of safety.

When criticized, I'll generally accept it at face value until I can
prove (to myself) otherwise. I believe this is healthier than the
alternative, which is to ignore criticism until it is unavoidable.

In our case, I love America, warts and all. If the allegations are true
(and would you at least grant they possibly are?), we need to deal with
them. (Even if they're not shocking to you or I, they are shocking to
others, and thus deserve treatment.) Thus if someone -- even the enemy
-- accuses us of something, I'd rather err on the side of safety and
take it seriously, than simply hope they're lying.

Because frankly, our enemies have the upper hand here. We're the good
guys, and thus we are vulnerable to these allegations -- true or not.
And given the recent (and acknowledged) reports of abuse elsewhere, it's
even harder to ignore these.

Ignoring the allegations only hurts us more, and that is true *whether
or not* the allegations are fiction. Furthermore, there is *no way* to
prove to our enemies that it is a fiction. We have *no defense* against
this sort of attack, and wishing we did doesn't help. The best we can
do is controlling the damage by ask that they trust us, and the only way
we can do that is to take the allegations seriously, even if we think
they're bogus.

Thus I believe a more sensible reaction to these (and other allegations,
such as the shameful Amnesty International report) would be to say "I am
terribly sorry if these alegations are true, but I don't know that they
are, and please hold off judgement until our open inquiry into the
subject -- involving <trusted third party> -- is complete."

Not everything is about hatred of Bush. But because Bush is so wildly
hated, we need to be even more careful of giving the enemy mud to sling
at us while our reputation is so weak.

-david

Power Line - The world may be flat, but it's not one-dimensional

2005-05-31T16:37:00.000-07:00

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: The world may be flat, but it's not one-dimensional
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 16:37:16 -0700
From: David Barrett <dbarrett@quinthar.com>
To: Power Line <powerlinefeedback@gmail.com>

<http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010601.php>

Hi, I liked your response to Thomas Friedman's call to abandon "Gitmo".

While I agree with you that the base takes a bad rap, and is seen as
everything that is wrong with US military detention, I disagree wiht the
tone of your article that suggests that we need (and in fact, should) do
nothing different.

Thomas reflects a common anger, that US military detention is above the
law, inhumane, and -- at best -- a massive PR liability, if not totally
counterproductive to its efforts. This overall sentiment is focused on
that base, rightly or wrongly.

I think Thomas was arguing no so much that military detention as a whole
should be undone. Rather, I think he's arguing that the practical value
of the detainees at *that specific base* is outweighed by the practical
damage it's doing to our reputation. I think Thomas isn't alone in this
view, and I think his view is impossible to reject entirely.

You present the alternative case (some might say the "best case"
scenario) that pays little attention to the costs, while accentuating
the potential value. You might be right. But your evidence is no more
"solid" than the evidence Thomas presents.

The fact is, nobody knows what value we're getting from the detainees
(though the steady stream of releases without charge after years of
detention is disheartening). I, like you, hope we're getting something.
But I can't claim we are any more than you can.

Furthermore, the fact is nobody knows the true damage its doing to our
reputation (though the constant negative attention drawn to the topic is
disheartening). I, like you, hope the damage is minimal and justified.
But I can't claim it is any more than you can.

The fact is, you don't know, any more than Thomas does. And your
argument for discrediting Thomas is no more compelling than the argument
he uses to discredit you.

So, I write this to suggest that you might use an alternate approach.
Rather than just painting him and all his supporters as naive, I suggest
you acknowledge the limits of our information, and ask him to give the
government the benefit of the doubt, as you do. You do provide some
great links -- how nobody's died at Gitmo, how terrorists are trained to
report abuse, and so on. But those gems are lost in the overall denial.

Basically, if you stop pretending that you have all the answers (just as
he does), you can start getting to the real issues. As for what the
"real issues" are it's sadly hard to say, because people like you and
Thomas spend so much time on slinging mud in a never-ending, futile war
of words that it's not clear what either of you stand for either than
"Bush rocks!" and "Bush sucks!".

-david

Power Line - Puzzlement (Followup)

2005-05-28T22:03:00.000-07:00

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Puzzlement
Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 22:03:02 -0700
From: David Barrett <dbarrett@quinthar.com>
To: Power Line <powerlinefeedback@gmail.com>

You bring up an excellent point, and by doing it demonstrates you agree
with the heart of the original artist's complaint -- that the United
States has been stuck in the unfortunate position of supporting Middle
Eastern dictators against the people's will. I believe this is the
"abuse" to which he refers.

As for who is responsible for this abuse, I personally believe it's more
than any single party or industry. However, the artist is pinning the
blame on the oil industry, which I hope you agree shares at least some
of the blame due to their overwhelming interest in (and effort put into)
maintaining the current, disfavorable status quo in order to maximize
oil extraction at the lowest possible price.

Where you probably disagree with the artist is in Bush's share of the
blame. Obviously he's associating Bush with this abuse; you clearly
disagree. But whether or not you agree that Bush is to blame, you
should at least acknowledge that the abuse has occured (and is still
occuring). And you could have also turned this opportunity to your
advantage by highlighting to the reader (and to the artist, indirectly)
why those who share this anger should further support Bush. After all,
the artist is surely not alone in this view, and some of your readers
might share it.

So with the benefit of hindsight, I'd have preferred that you said in
your original post something like:

"I agree with the artist in that historically -- such as under the
Clinton administration -- we have been abused by our relationship by
Middle Eastern dictators. But the artist seems to blame Bush for this,
despite Bush working hard to roll back 50 years of this abuse. And the
artist further blames the oil companies in isolation, when in fact they
are just one of many parties involved -- and not all for bad reasons."

What you actually wrote was:

"I'm a little puzzled, though, by what the show's organizers considered
to be a "relevant political message," i.e., how the oil companies
"abuse" the United States. That would be, I suppose, by providing
petroleum products that allow us to go places, heat our homes, have
offices and factories in which to work, and operate equipment so that,
instead of living like the ancient Egyptians, hauling blocks of stone
around with ropes, we can sit at desks and do things like operate
computers. Is that how the oil companies "abuse" Americans? I suppose
the idea is that without the oil companies, oil and gasoline would
spring magically out of the ground (pollution-free, of course), and into
our gas tanks and furnaces. For free."

This seems to imply that no only does the artist have bad tastes (which
I'm sure we can all agree upon), but that you see no merit whatsoever to
his linking oil and American abuse, and no legitimate political
overtones to the art itself.

My reason for pressing on this is to challenge your tactics, not your
message. I agree the painting sounds stupid and tasteless. And I agree
his anger is misdirected. But I'm asking that you confront his anger
and tell the reader why his anger is misdirected, rather feigning total
unawareness of the anger's source.

By pretending you have utterly no clue why the artist is angry, you
encourage your supporters to completely disregard the artist as a whole
(even though in reality, you partially agree with him), just as you
reinforce to your detractors an image of either stupidity or deviousness
(neither of which serve your interests).

My goal in this discussion is to encourage you to use tactics that
actually get to the heart of the debate so as to inform the reader and
contribute to the debate, rather than manipulate the reader and cloud
the debate.

Thanks for responding!

-david

Power Line wrote:
> David, I find your email mystifying. You appear not to have noticed
> that the central feature of the administration's policy in the Middle
> East is abandoning the 50-year-old policy of supporting tyrants for
> the sake of stability, and, instead, taking the risk of supporting
> freedom and democracy. That's what the war in Iraq is all about.
>
> The scenario you lay out is a reasonably accurate critique of the
> Clinton administration, but I stiill don't see what the oil companies
> have to do with it.
>
> Thanks for writing.
>
> John H.
>
> On 5/28/05, David Barrett <dbarrett@quinthar.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi there. You said: "I'm a little puzzled, though, by what the show's
>>organizers considered to be a "relevant political message," i.e., how
>>the oil companies "abuse" the United States."
>>
>>I doubt you are truly as puzzled as you state (feigning ignorance is a
>>powerful, albeit deceptive tactic), but in case you are I think their
>>basic argument goes as such:
>>
>>
>>1) Oil companies are very reliant upon stability in the Middle East for
>>business.
>>
>>2) Middle-eastern stability is currently maintained only through harsh
>>authoritarian governments.
>>
>>3) These authoritarian governments remain in power due to a combination
>>of the US turning a "blind eye" to their tactics, or even through direct
>>US military aid.
>>
>>4) The "abuse" the author might have been referring to is forcing the US
>>to support governments that violate the core tenets that the US holds
>>dear. In other words, the American people are abused because their
>>money funds people who violate their principles.
>>
>>5) The US endures this abuse because (ie, supports these governments
>>against the principles of the American people) because if it didn't, at
>>the very least oil prices would suffer, and at worst there would be
>>chaos caused by the region imploding.
>>
>>
>>Now, you could argue that it's not the oil companies who are abusing the
>>US people, but the authoritarian governments in the middle east. But
>>given the tight relationships between those governments and the oil
>>companies, it's not wholly unreasonable to associate the two.
>>
>>
>>Incidentally, I'd like to ask you the favor of trying to give the
>>"childish leftists" a bit more professional treatment. Even if you
>>think they are stupid -- and even if they are -- it's your
>>responsibility to go learn why they think the way they think. Touting
>>your ignorance only highlights your unwillingness to learn the opposing
>>position or, even worse, your inability to debate in a rational fashion
>>(which involves understanding both sides of the argument).
>>
>>-david
>>
>
>
>

Power Line - Puzzlement

2005-05-28T19:43:00.000-07:00

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Puzzlement
Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 19:43:54 -0700
From: David Barrett <dbarrett@quinthar.com>
To: powerlinefeedback@gmail.com

Hi there. You said: "I'm a little puzzled, though, by what the show's
organizers considered to be a "relevant political message," i.e., how
the oil companies "abuse" the United States."

I doubt you are truly as puzzled as you state (feigning ignorance is a
powerful, albeit deceptive tactic), but in case you are I think their
basic argument goes as such:

1) Oil companies are very reliant upon stability in the Middle East for
business.

2) Middle-eastern stability is currently maintained only through harsh
authoritarian governments.

3) These authoritarian governments remain in power due to a combination
of the US turning a "blind eye" to their tactics, or even through direct
US military aid.

4) The "abuse" the author might have been referring to is forcing the US
to support governments that violate the core tenets that the US holds
dear. In other words, the American people are abused because their
money funds people who violate their principles.

5) The US endures this abuse because (ie, supports these governments
against the principles of the American people) because if it didn't, at
the very least oil prices would suffer, and at worst there would be
chaos caused by the region imploding.

Now, you could argue that it's not the oil companies who are abusing the
US people, but the authoritarian governments in the middle east. But
given the tight relationships between those governments and the oil
companies, it's not wholly unreasonable to associate the two.

Incidentally, I'd like to ask you the favor of trying to give the
"childish leftists" a bit more professional treatment. Even if you
think they are stupid -- and even if they are -- it's your
responsibility to go learn why they think the way they think. Touting
your ignorance only highlights your unwillingness to learn the opposing
position or, even worse, your inability to debate in a rational fashion
(which involves understanding both sides of the argument).

-david