A Short History of Byzantium

A Short History of Byzantium was a logical follow-up to the books I’ve been reading about ancient Rome. John Julius Norwich covers a lot ground, summarizing the 1,123 years from the time Constantine the Great made Constantinople into a Roman capital until the capture of the city by the Ottomans in 1453. It’s my favorite kind of narrative history, involving wars, palace intrigue, geopolitical power struggles, and religious schisms. Norwich has his biases, respecting Christianity more than paganism or Islam, and he has a soft spot for the Byzantine Empire. Despite its scope, the book is quite readable to someone with minimal knowledge of the Dark Ages; its maps and family trees of the imperial dynasties were quite helpful. It’s one of the better history books I’ve read.

Post-blog reading patterns

As I explained here, I won't be reading any blogs or online forums until after Election Day. Instead, I've been reading the main news section of the San Jose Mercury News each day, along with a few random online articles. That helps me keep up with current events, while taking a break from blog-induced adrenaline rushes.

Here's my plan for after the election. At work, I'll participate in the Three Way Action politics forum. I'll only read political blogs at home, after reading the newspaper. It seems like a reasonable balance, once I escape my current addictive behavior.

What's the Matter with Kansas?

In What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America, Thomas Frank explores why so many Americans vote for Republicans, even though Democrats would better server their economic interests. Frank, who grew up in Kansas, focuses on that state, which was full of radical populist sentiment a century ago but is now solidly Republican. Unlike most liberals pondering these questions, Frank actually spoke with many conservatives to understand their motivations and beliefs.

In their worldview, liberal elites are a threatening force that controls the nation and violates their morals. The obsession with liberal elitism always struck me as bizarre, considering the massive power of corporations with close ties to the Republicans, and this book provides the first explanation I’ve seen of that mindset. Obviously, abortion was a galvanizing factor among the fundamentalist crowd, along with concerns about school prayer and homosexuality. However, cultural issues play center stage: offensive TV shows and movies, changing gender roles, political correctness, gun control, and drinking latte instead of beer.

Meanwhile, economic issues are off the table as “class warfare”. Unemployment rises, farming gets more and more difficult, corporate scandals emerge, and so on. However, liberals are viewed as the oppressors, instead of the corporate Republicans. People get worked up over cultural issues and disregard economic concerns. Prominent conservative Republicans, even those with modest incomes, support tax cuts and oppose government intervention and unions.

What's the Matter with Kansas? provides nuanced insights into why so many Americans, in the heartland and elsewhere, tend to vote for Republicans. It’s well-written and one of the best books I’ve read about the current political situation.

Kerry as flip-flopper

It’s so damn depressing to read stories like this Washington Post-ABC News poll about Bush having a solid lead over Kerry. As awful as the Bush Presidency has been, why are so many people planning on voting for him?

It looks like the “Kerry is a flip-flopper” meme has taken root. That idea has a germ of truth, since Kerry, like all successful politicians, has altered his positions in response to the political currents. However, it’s ridiculous to view those alterations as a major character flaw. Members of Congress routinely oppose bills they generally agree with to push for revisions, such as Kerry’s desire to rescind some Bush tax cuts to pay for the Iraqi war. Having a nuanced viewpoint of complex issues reflects Kerry’s intelligence, not his indecisiveness.

Besides, Kerry’s decision-making process is vastly superior to Bush’s, even if you put aside the destructive consequences of W’s policies. Ideally, a leader is an intelligent, well-informed person who seeks out a wide assortment of expert advice become making a major decision. Bush decided to invade Iraq without even asking the opinion of Colin Powell, who was better qualified than almost anyone to weigh in on that topic. Incidents like that demonstrate that Bush is one of the worst decision makers in US history.

It’s a shame that so many Americans only care about the “strong and decisive” image and downplay the god-awful results of those decisions.

A Thousand Acres

Jane Smiley’s A Thousand Acres is a retelling of the Shakespeare’s King Lear, set on an American farm in the late 1970’s. Since I haven’t read or seen Lear, I approached A Thousand Acres on its own terms. An aging farmer transfers his farm to two of his three daughters and gradually becomes insane. Various conflicts arise between the family members and their neighbors. Smiley does a good job of fleshing out the characters and capturing the atmosphere of the rural society. However, the story flow consists of a gradual emotional buildup juxtaposed with abrupt events, and the psychological motivations behind some of the characters’ actions don’t quite add up. Of course, Shakespearian plays generally suffer from those same faults. The book was all right, though I might have a higher opinion once I read all of King Lear instead of just a summary.

Cheap online political thrills

I just got back from a week in Vermont, and for most of that time I avoided the Internet. I ended up being more relaxed, reading more, and sleeping more. Though hanging out in a cabin in the woods was the main reason why, I suspect that the absence of political blogs was also a factor.

Over the last several months, I’ve been compulsively reading the liberal blogs, such as Atrios and Daily Kos, as a cheap emotional thrill. Those blogs highlight the latest outrage from the Bush White House, telling you what to feel outraged about and why. They bring forth a cathartic reaction, which is energizing in the short term and has motivated me to donate a lot more money to Democratic campaigns. However, that online political high has become a net negative, intellectually and emotionally.

For example, I spend much more time on political blogs and an online politics forum than I do reading news stories about current events. That ratio should really be reversed, since a journalistic account provides so much more substance than what most bloggers have to say. Plus, I’d rather form my own opinions from direct reports, instead of soaking in pre-digested formulations from someone reading the same news stories.

To break my current pattern, I’ll stop reading blogs and online forums until Election Day. Instead, I’ll rely on books, newspapers, magazines, and other published media as information sources. Or I’ll find other ways to occupy my time. After that hiatus, I’ll figure out a healthier balance between blogs, forums, and other media.

Dubious Gallup polls

The latest Gallup polls, which gave Bush a large lead, have ridiculously biased polling samples (from Atrios).

Likely Voter Sample Party IDs – Poll of September 13-15
Reflected Bush Winning by 55%-42%

Total Sample: 767
GOP: 305 (40%)
Dem: 253 (33%)
Ind: 208 (28%)

Registered Voter Sample Party IDs – Same Poll
Reflected Bush Winning by 52%-44%

Total Sample: 1022
GOP: 381 (38%)
Dem: 336 (33%)
Ind: 298 (30%)

For context, in the 2000 elections the voters were 39% Democrats, 35% Republicans and 26% Independents. Democrats comprised 4% more of the voters than Republicans did, while in the Gallup polls they were 5% or 7% less. And considering current attitudes towards Bush, it seems likely that the 2004 voters will be even more Democratic.

Iraq: The Bungled Transition

Peter Galbraith wrote an excellent article, Iraq: The Bungled Transition, explaining what happened in Iraq and the current situation (as mentioned by Paul Glastris). He starts by describing the gross incompetence of the political appointees that the Bush administration selected to manage Iraq and how they bungled the job.

Next, he describes where things are now. Prime Minister Iyad Allawi is unpopular, Shiite and Sunni insurgents control much of the country, and the Kurds seek independence. He sees a breakup of Iraq as likely, a scenario he advocated before. The prognosis seems rather bleak.

The United States faces a near-impossible dilemma in Iraq. If it withdraws prematurely, it risks leaving behind a weak government unable to cope with the chaos that is the breeding ground of terrorism. By staying in Iraq, the United States undermines the legitimacy of the Iraqi government it wants to support, while US military action produces more recruits for its enemies.

Though others have presented a similar big picture, the article supplies a broader context and the supporting background more clearly than anything else I've read about Iraq.

How would Dean be doing?

As a thought experiment, I'm wondering how the general election campaign would have proceeded had Howard Dean won the Democratic nomination. Would he be more successful running against Bush, or less so? Considering Kerry's current difficulties, and the fact the Kerry won the nomination in part because primary voters though he was the most electable, it's an interesting subject to ponder.

Dean brings out stronger feelings, for and against him, than Kerry does. Dean would obviously have many more enthusiastic supporters. The conventional wisdom was that Dean fans would vote for Kerry anyway, but on the other hand it's hard to pull in undecided voters for a candidate who diehard Democrats aren't excited about. The Kerry campaign lacks real energy, besides a strong yearning to kick Bush out of office.

Meanwhile, there were a lot of people who didn't like care for Dean's personality, as reflected in pundits fretting over whether Dean was stable enough to be President. However, the mass media seems to diagnose psychological problems in every Democratic Presidential nominee, such as Kerry's flip-flopping or Gore's lying. It's not clear that Dean's personality would have appeared any worse than Kerry's after being distorted by the media kaleidoscope. (Kerry came across better during the primaries because the media didn't subject him to the psychoanalysis treatment.)

Dean could emphasise the Iraqi war and the Patriot Act as campaign issues, unlike Kerry who has to contend with his Senate votes for both measures. The mess in Iraq, which continues to worsen, would make Dean's case. Plus, Dean could constrast the massive Bush deficits with Vermont's balanced budgets. Dean would be accused of being too liberal and too eager to raise taxes, but every Democrat faces those charges.

Kerry's military service is definitely an advantage for him. However, Kerry's anti-war activities, which I view as one of the best things about him, did piss off a lot of right wingers, such as the Swift Boat Liars. Considering that veterans lost the last three elections, I'm not sure how essential military service is, though national security concerns are much greater now than they were in past years.

You can never know, but my gut reaction is that Dean would have done at least as well as Kerry, mainly because Dean has more charisma and a stronger message. It definitely would have been a more fun campaign.

Why isn't Iraq an issue?

I've wondered why Iraq isn't more of a campaign issue. Joshua Marshall, Legal Fiction, and others have claimed that Kerry needs better rhetoric to highlight Bush's failures in Iraq. However, in my mind something more fundamental is involved: people just don't want to think about Iraq.

Even as a news junkie who strongly opposed the Iraq war from the beginning, I have to force myself to keep up with the Iraq situation. It's depressing to hear about the continual stream of American war dead, not to mention the larger numbers of wounded Americans and dead Iraqis. And despite that human cost, the situation over there continues to worsen. Plus, Abu Ghraib and other injustices present an uncomfortable view of America. For many people, it's tempting to push Iraq out of their thoughts.

Similarly, there isn't a compelling narrative that supplies an emotional context for the war. Bush's mantra of freedom, democracy, self-defense, fighting terror, etc., may be factually challenged, but it's something people can relate to. An anti-war credo only appeals to people who will vote for Kerry anyway. Also, since nobody can suggest a strategy for addressing the problems in Iraq, we end up with a hopeless situation that nobody wants to think about.

An issue needs a solid emotional core that everyone can grasp, such as Bush fighting terror or Clinton caring about our economic struggles. The situation in Iraq, despite its importance, is too messy to be reduced to such a message. Everyone just wants the problems there to fade away.

Iraq deteriorating

According to Newsweek, the Iraq insurgency is growing stronger (from Daily Kos).

It's not only that U.S. casualty figures keep climbing. American counterinsurgency experts are noticing some disturbing trends in those statistics. The Defense Department counted 87 attacks per day on U.S. forces in August—the worst monthly average since Bush's flight-suited visit to the USS Abraham Lincoln in May 2003. Preliminary analysis of the July and August numbers also suggests that U.S. troops are being attacked across a wider area of Iraq than ever before. And the number of gunshot casualties apparently took a huge jump in August. Until then, explosive devices and shrapnel were the primary cause of combat injuries, typical of a "phase two" insurgency, where sudden ambushes are the rule. (Phase one is the recruitment phase, with most actions confined to sabotage. That's how things started in Iraq.) Bullet wounds would mean the insurgents are standing and fighting—a step up to phase three.

And historically, insurgencies tend to get worse over time. Even though a Kerry administration would be vastly more capable than the Bush White House has been, there's no reasonable solution to the Iraqi mess. There was a window of opportunity, for about a year after Saddam fell, to get things on the right track. Now that the Iraqi people have lost confidence with the Americans and are angry with us, there's no chance for US-lead troops to restore order.

Robert Novak's principles

Remember how Robert Novak refuses to reveal who outed CIA operative Valerie Plame? Well, his journalistic principles seem rather fluid (from Atrios).

Fellow panelist, Al Hunt, from the Wall Street Journal, then replied: "Robert Novak, you're saying CBS should reveal its source?"

The transcript continues:

NOVAK: Yes.

HUNT: You do? You think reporters ought to reveal sources?

NOVAK: No, no. Wait a minute.

It's rather funny how lame Novak is.

And the Band Played On

And the Band Played On: Politics, People, and the AIDS Epidemic is the definitive book about the early years of the AIDS epidemic. Randy Shilts, the author, was a journalist at the San Francisco Chronicle who subsequently died of AIDS. It starts with patients suffering from a strange new ailment, and ends with the July 1985 announcement that Rock Hudson has AIDS.

As a whole, American society did an awful job of researching AIDS, blocking its spread, and treating the sufferers. The Reagan administration wanted to keep health costs down and prevented health officials from spending funds that Congress had allocated for AIDS. Gay groups were more concerned with individual rights and keeping the sex-filled bathhouses open than with facing a deadly epidemic. Blood banks refused to acknowledge the dangers of blood transfusions, since they didn't want to pay testing costs or discourage donors. Some scientists fixated on receiving credit for their discoveries, to the detriment of the general research. New York City, which had the most AIDS cases, refused to spend public funds fighting AIDS, in part because Mayor Ed Koch didn't want to foster rumors that he was gay.

The book focuses on a few dozen central people: AIDS victims and their families, doctors, public health officials, gay activists, and scientists. Shilts interviewed most of these people and reveals the cultures and bureaucracies they were immersed in. A few heroic individuals struggled to contend with a horrible problem that America refused to take seriously.

My only complaint about the book is its length; half of its 600 pages could be cut without losing much. Still, it's a story well worth reading, in its own right and as a reminder of the life-and-death consequences of the decisions that our leaders make.

The Roman Empire Divided

John Moorhead's The Roman Empire Divided: 400 - 700 describes the aftermath of the collapse of the western Roman Empire. It discusses what happened in each region of the fragmented empire: Italy, northern Africa, Spain, France, England, the Balkans, and the Middle East. The transition wasn't as abrupt as I had pictured it, because of the chaos of the late Roman Empire, Roman influences on surrounding people, and the emergence of governments to replace the Romans. I learned a lot about the impact of the Germans, Slavs, Byzantium (who recaptured part of the western empire), and Muslims. Portions of the book were compelling, while at other times Moorhead dwelled on less interesting details. Still, it probably does a better job than any other book at presenting an overview of that eta.

9/11 anniversary

With September 11 drawing to close, I'll collect a few thoughts about the 3rd anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

Even though I was 3000 miles from the attacks and I don't know anyone who was involved, the terrorist attacks remain unsettling. That kind of thing just isn't supposed to happen in America. I've read various books and articles about what drove al Qaeda and why the US government didn't prevent them from happening. Still, an intellectual understanding doesn't make them any easier to accept.

Of course, I'm angry at Bush's response to the attacks: squandering the world's goodwill, starting unnecessary wars, taking away civil liberties, and exploiting the attacks for political gain. But that anger shouldn't distract us from remembering the suffering that occurred on 9/11, for the people who died, their loved ones, and the world as a whole.

I never bought the claim that 9/11 changed everything, since the problems that were around previously didn't disappear, and many of those issues are at least as important as fighting terrorism. And most days I don't think about 9/11 at all. Still, all those deaths, deliberately orchestrated from afar, had a permanent impact on the American psyche.

Back to Blogger

I've decided to return to Blogger. I started Julian's Jabberings on Blogger, but gave up on it when Blogger became flaky. However, those stability problems seem to have been resolved, and Blogger has added a lot of new features.

Maybe I'll be more motivated to blog, now that I no longer have to edit my HTML in Mozilla's Composer and post stuff by manual FTP. I meant to investigate Movable Type or some other mechanism to automate the process, but doing that seemed too much like my software development day job.

Now I'll start tweaking the Blogger template and settings, to fine tune the new-and-improved Julian's Jabberings.