In non-political news...

Don't be a drag, just be born in America, or Democracy vs. Republic

First of all, Donald Trump is not actually running for president, and anyone who thinks he's serious about this is being delusional. He's just getting publicity (and more power to him for that!).

But his spokesman did say something today that is a pretty common fallacy among politicians. He's lately "discovered" (i.e., learned that he can get lots of publicity for discussing) that many people think Obama wasn't born in America. Since Trump's "campaign" is all about publicity, he has of course aligned with these crazy folks -- birtherism is a great way to get publicity. So don't take what he has to say all that seriously. Anyway, his spokesman just said that one of the reasons he is raising the birth certificate issue is that "A solid plurality of Republican primary voters AGREE with Trump [that Obama wasn't born in America]."

Now, c'mon. Living in a democracy does not mean that the people are always right. Just because a lot of Republicans think that Obama wasn't born in America doesn't in any way make this a valid point, any more than the fact that a lot of Republicans don't believe in climate change, despite the fact that 99% of scientists think it is real. We live in a republic, which means that we elect the best and most wise among us to be our leaders. Anyone who justifies a policy solely because lots of "the people" think it's true, even in the absence of any factual basis, is being disingenuous and dangerously demagogic.

Willard & Cornelius Harvey McGillicuddy IV

Did you know that Mitt Romney's actual first name is Willard? I really don't want to have a president named Willard in my lifetime. That would be embarrassing.

Also, did you know that today Obama would beat Willard Romney in ole Mitt's homestate of Michigan? Maybe we'll avoid President Willard Romney after all.

Lastly, did you know that Florida Republican kind-of-up-and-comer Connie Mac's real name is Cornelius Harvey McGillicuddy IV? That is fantastic!

Birth Certificates & Strategy, a.k.a. Born This Way

Just a reminder, but Barack Obama HAS released his birth certificate. Here's a picture. It's everywhere. Republicans are so good at just trumpeting lies that they even convince liberals that he hasn't. Even some of my liberal pals who know Obama was born here still say "Why doesn't he just release his birth certificate?" Well, he has.

Still, I really think Obama has intentionally kept the issue somewhat alive. He released the birth certificate way back in 2008 and has said it's a moot point since then. That's smart! Even though a lot of conservatives don't think Obama was born here, they are, not to mince words, nuts. They represent a long line of relatively deranged conspiracy theorists on the right -- the same people that thought Bill Clinton killed Vince Foster and was brainwashed by the KGB.

Obama and his people know this -- and they know that most Americans think this line of questioning the validity of Obama as a person is relatively radioactive to Republicans. Most Americans either think that's crazytalk or just don't care -- and the ones who believe he isn't an American wouldn't vote for him anyway. I doubt there's a single person who would've voted for Obama but now isn't because they think he is not a citizen.

Obama's strategy going into the reelection campaign is that he is the serious, mature figure and that the Republicans are crazy nincompoops. Exhibit A will be that they don't even believe he's a citizen. It's a good strategy!

Why Libya and not Sudan/Ivory Coast/North Korea/Iran/Syria/Congo/etc.

There are a lot of valid arguments for and against the military intervention in Libya. That's what makes Obama's decision to use US forces there so difficult, and why anyone who comes down as an absolutist on this issue ("We should definitely intervene" / "War in Libya is horrible") are both flawed premises. Everyone should concede that this is a complicated issue.

But one argument against intervention that I find utterly invalid is that we shouldn't intervene in Libya because we haven't intervened in other places with equally or greater humanitarian concerns. For example, Congo presently has a massive human rights catastrophe where civilians are "killed, raped, arbitrarily arrested, pressed into forced labor, and looted, with nearly 2 million people displaced and a further 145,000 as refugees in neighboring countries." Some say that it is inconsistent to intervene in Libya when we refuse to take action in places like Congo.

This is a false dichotomy. Think of a doctor who has dozens of patients with a variety of serious ailments, some of whom were terminal - but who could only save some of the lives. Of course, the doctor would choose to help the patients that had the greatest chance of survival, and in a way best targeted to help them. Libya, Obama has I think correctly calculated, represents the humanitarian that America can best help, with the least harm to American interests. It's a weighing of interests, and it means taking action in some places and standing idly by in others. But it is not inconsistent.