A Plague On Both Your Houses

Obama’s Critical Strategic Mistake – Libya

Ineffective, indecisive, lacking leadership, cowardly.  These are words I never thought to use to describe the President of the United States.  Yet they are descriptive of his failure in the Middle East and North Africa.  Many people (including myself) can talk of morality and the terrible horror that Gadhafi continues to visit upon his own people.  We can draw comparisons dating back almost 80 years where we have dithered while people in foreign lands were massacred for having the temerity to stand for what they believed.   We can talk about being caring human beings and concerned and “on their side.”  But talk is cheap and for Obama it seems to be free.  Even today in his press conference (was he expecting the first question to be about Libya? I was happy about that) he danced around the facts.  He mentioned that “if” Gadhafi were to go door to door rooting out protesters he (Obama) would see that as an “overreaction.”  Well, Mr. President, in Zawia yesterday it is reported that he was doing just that, going door to door and grabbing young men and hauling them off to unknown, and unseen, places.  What will you do?  Why did you not even acknowledge that he is attacking innocent civilians brutally and without mercy?  Why didn’t you acknowledge reports of massacres already happening?  Why didn’t you acknowledge that in the last 24 hours he has attacked his own cities with tanks, artillery and aircraft?  In my own view it is because you have no passion, no knowledge and no guts.

But, if we step back from all the empty rhetoric, and from the personal tragedy, the central issue from a strategic and diplomatic perspective is that by our indecision, inaction and failure to lead, we are losing the youth of the Middle East.  Which means we are losing the Middle East.  Now, many would say that the Middle East hates us anyway.  True, in some sense, but only because we have supported and continue to support oppressive, outmoded and stifling regimes.  With the recent uprisings has come a unique, possibly once in a lifetime, opportunity to not only get on the right side of history but to endear ourselves to an entire generation of Middle Eastern, moderate, democratic, youth.  And we are squandering it.  Obama is not leading, he is trying to reach consensus.  He is making a fundamental strategic mistake.

The Middle East is a developing part of the world, rich in oil reserves and not much else.  It is also dominated by youth.  It is predominantly Muslim and, as the idiotic hearings being held by Congressman King demonstrate, our relationship with Muslims at home, in the Middle East and throughout the world is at best strained.  America has significant long term strategic interests in the region and in peace in the region and therefore in our relationship with Muslim youth.  We also have a long term strategic interest in combating terrorism and hatred of the US. 

Supporting these uprisings is one strategic opportunity we have to help ourselves with Muslim youth and to enhance our power in the region. We are squandering it by sending the message we are sending in Libya.  Hosni Mubarak is probably sitting in his hotel room saying “Damn, why didn’t I just crush the protesters? The US wouldn’t have done anything and I could be sitting pretty.” That is certainly how Asad and Ahmadinejad will think and frankly that is probably similar to what the Saudis are thinking. Therein lies the rub.  If we do nothing or if we do to little to late, we will have not only squandered the opportunity but emboldened our enemies.  Gadhafi is a relatively easy target.  Ahmadinejad is not and if he becomes emboldened he will not only crush his own opposition, he may become adventurous.  Oman, Iraq could be targets.  Is that the position we want – being forced to fight Iran, when we could have prevented the venture by defeating Gadhafi?  That is just stupid.  Another word I never thought I would call Obama.

del.icio.us Tags: Obama,President,Middle East,North Africa,Gaddafi,Gadhafi,Zawia,King Hearings,Muslim,Mubarak,Youth,Asad,Ahmadinejad,uprising,Arab,protest,Libya,diplomacy,International,strategic,democratic

Libya, Failed Policies, Morality and Foreign Relations

The measure of success of the nation in international affairs is in our ability to change with the times and by doing so protect our own interests.  In this I agree with many conservatives that say we must treat differently each country in the Middle East that is exploding.  On the other hand I find it highly hypocritical that conservatives supported our invasion in Iraq by resorting to the old “make the world safe for democracy” rhetoric, but in the same breath say that we should support oppressive regimes and worry about Al Qaeda emerging in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain or Yemen.  On the other hand I have little to no sympathy for the the view that we should be withdrawing our support from any oppressive regime and support the right of the people no matter what.  This has been a democratic refrain, never a realistic policy, for ages.  The fact that at certain times each side happens to be right comes under the heading of “even a blind squirrel can find some nuts.”

United States policy in the Middle East needs to change and become less myopic regarding the relationship between Islam, Al Qaeda, terrorism, Israel and the popular views of the largely youthful population there.  The instant information age has changed, for the better, the equation.  The anti-American, anti-Israel violence in the Middle East stems from a number of factors 1) History – violence begets violence, 2) Ignorance – information and education about the outside world uncolored by local prejudice (or at least where an alternative view is considered) was non-existent even 5 years ago, 3) Prejudice – stemming from history and ignorance and fostered by the older generation and by the oppressive regimes of the past.  The information age can take all of these issues out of the equation if we let it.  Young people can understand, not just rant about, the history and all of its nuances.  Young people can gain knowledge that was inaccessible to their elders and to them a few short years ago.  Young people can rebel against prejudice and celebrate learning.  All of this will help destroy the foundations on which our terrorist enemies have built their houses of cards.  Fundamentalism, extremism and prejudice are less likely to take hold if people who want information have access to it and if we support governments that grant such access.

Does that mean we should support the overthrow of all oppressive regimes on the basis of moral imperative.  No.  It means we should adjust failing policies to take into account new realities.  Smart (yet oppressive) regimes will provide a carrot and stick (as Saudi Arabia seems to be doing).  They won’t shut off the internet, they will spend money on their people and they will provide them with education and opportunity.  History demonstrates that such “benevolent” monarchies are very successful despite their dark side and as long as they are willing to make minor adjustments in their treatment of people, they can maintain their security apparatus and their rulers’ positions of power.  The truth is that such regimes tend to be stable for long periods of time, but must be wary of the corruption that can infiltrate their benevolence and destroy it and its benefits.

The liberals would tell you that we have a moral imperative to take down such oppressive, dictatorial or monarchist regimes throughout the world.  Why?  Foreign Relations is not about what is morally correct.  It is, should be, and must only be about what is good for the United States.  The President is not bound to support moral goodness throughout the world.  He is bound to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.  It turns out that what is best for the United States in the Middle East is to support transition to more open and democratic governments (or at least more open ones).  It is not bad to side with regimes who understand how to maintain their power and stability by giving the people much of what they want.  But, just because we are afraid of what changes may come, we need not show loyalty to oppressive regimes merely because we supported them in the past, if they are now not acting in our best interests and opening up their countries.  Openness and free expression cuts off the life blood of ignorance and frustration on which terrorist, fundamentalists and oppressive enemies thrive.

del.icio.us Tags: Libya,Middle East,Tunisia,Egypt,Bahrain,liberals,conservatives,Regime Change,Foreign Relations,President,Terrorism,Political

Al Qaeda is a Loser in the Recent Middle East Uprisings - Foreign Policy

One of al Qaeda's standard talking points is its insistence that terrorist violence is the only way to bring about change in the Arab world. It also likes to rail against U.S. support for authoritarian regimes in the Islamic world. By driving Mubarak from office through largely peaceful demonstrations, the Egyptian people have demolished the first claim. And despite some occasional wobbles, Barack Obama's administration ultimately came down on the side of the demonstrators. By helping nudge Mubarak from power and declaring its general support for the reform movement, the Obama administration has undercut al Qaeda's second line of argument too. And in the best case -- a genuine democratic reform movement that leads to significant improvements in Egyptian society -- al Qaeda's appeal will be reduced even further. All in all, this was not a good month for Osama bin Laden, wherever he is.

Winners and Losers of the Revolution | Foreign Policy

The problem with Terrorists is that they depend on violence, chaos, discontent and failure.  A peaceful revolution with participation from the people and victory is exactly what they do not want.  This was a revolt by people who decided in favor of peaceful protest, not terror and violence and they succeeded.  They decided not to succumb to the temptation for violence given them by the regime.  They let their anger speak through assembly and resistance, not violence and chaos.  They did exactly what the devil does not want, they were, for the greater part of their 18 days, responsible, orderly and peaceful.  That is not to say that violence didn’t break out, but what became clear is that the violence was inspired and initiated by the Government not the protesters.

The futility of terrorism's promotion of chaos has been widely demonstrated in the modern age.  Peace (which is the desire of most ordinary people) and accomplishment come quickly through peace and negotiation, not shooting and bombing and chaos.  How effective has 60 years of violence been for the Palestinians?  How effective has Al Qaeda been in implementing any semblance of their “goals” over the last 15 years (or even getting anyone to understand what they are)?  Tunisia and Egypt accomplished more in three weeks than Al Qaeda has accomplished in 15 years of violence.  What would happen if the Palestinians decided to take a different tack with Israel and engaged in peaceful demonstrations?  What would happen if they laid down their weapons and took up their voice and their pen and their video camera and engaged in peaceful resistance?  The truth about peaceful resistance is that you take away the ability of your opponent to oppose you with violence and maintain credibility.  It is easy for a dictator to violently oppose demonstrators who are bombing and rioting and shooting.  It is much harder to be violent, in this age of media attention and the need for credibility, if the demonstrators are joining together and speaking and chanting and praying.

del.icio.us Tags: Egypt,Terrorism,Al Qaeda,Revolution,Peace,Israel,Palestine,Tunisia

Egypt – Another in a Long Line of Failed US Support for Dictators

We do it all the time.  Historically, for around 60 years, the United States has pursued, and continues to pursue, a strategy of supporting oppressive dictators around the world who mistreat and are thrown out by their own people, all in the name of “stability” and their “friendship” to us.  Also historically, this strategy has largely failed.  Yet we continue to pursue it.  Like an insane person banging his head against a wall, the geniuses in Washington continue to tell us that “stability” and “historically close ties” and “friendship” are reasons to pursue this policy.  Mubarak is just one in a long line of failures.

How has this strategy worked out for us?  Lets take a quick look at the rundown of the historical justifications and “success” of this strategy.  Castro would have gladly been our friend if we had given him support and money.  Some say he might not have pursued communism, at least not as stridently.  Instead we supported the outgoing dictator.  The result - 60 years of oppression, a hostile neighbor, a mercenary force sent all over the world to support our enemies, and a suffering populace willing to risk everything to emigrate.  Or how about Vietnam? Enough said.  And then of course there was Iran. We supported the Shah, with his dreaded secret police, and we got Ahmedinijad.  Then there was our support for Sadam Hussein in the eighties.  Ooops.  And of course, in order to defeat communism we supported Osama Bin Laden.  Good job guys.  And which was better embracing China or ignoring her and supporting Taiwan?

We consistently fail, as we have in Egypt, to see and understand the long term consequences of expediency, but more importantly we fail to see the “writing on the wall” and don’t want to drop failed regimes.  The geniuses in the CIA and the politicians would say that we can’t drop them because then no one would trust  us.  What an idiotic position.  First, they don’t trust us to begin with and, as we have seen they will throw us under the bus at any opportunity (see Mubarak speak out of both sides of his mouth about stability and US instigation).  Second, the message we send is not that we are untrustworthy, but that we will stick by you, unless you start to terribly mistreat your people.  Finally, we fail to use any leverage we may have.  We tend to speak loudly and carry no stick instead of speaking softly and carrying a big stick as we used to espouse.  We back down when threats don’t work so our threats are treated with disdain.

Our policy and our strategy should take a different turn.  We should recognize that democracy is in our best interest and is much more sustainable and hence worthy of our support than a brittle dictatorship that is bound to ultimately fail.  We should support democracy, not out of moral conviction (morality and international relations do not go together), but because such regimes are more robust, more stable and more economically friendly than their brittle alternative that is generally, among other faults, against free enterprise.

del.icio.us Tags: Egypt,Mubarak,International,politics,Foreign Relations

Republicans question birthright citizenship, but Dems question their motivations - Yahoo! News

Republicans question birthright citizenship, but Dems question their motivations - Yahoo! News

Yet again we are distracted by idiocy from the real issue.  Yet again we are trying to fit immigration policy into a pandering 30 second sound bite.  Yet again both sides of the aisle are ranting.  The truth is that Phil Dobbs is right, revoking the protections of the 14th Amendment is not the answer.  How many immigrants are we going to stop?  What happens if you come illegally, are never found out.  Your children grow up here, they have social security numbers and pay taxes and are productive members of society.  Do we deport them in 25 years when somebody finds out?  Stupid, stupid.

This country attracts productive members of society from all over the world – some of whom come illegally because our immigration laws are so screwy.  They contribute, they don’t detract.  How many people want to immigrate to China? Brazil? India? Mexico? England? Germany? Ireland? Russia? Poland?  People come here because it is the land of opportunity.  Now you want to tell the world, not really?  Now you want to tell the world we were the land of opportunity, but no more?

How about protecting the borders, creating paths to citizenship that are legal and helpful, ways to work here legally.  How about immigration reform, not immigration insanity.

And by the way, the democrats have nobody but themselves to blame for this craziness.  They’ve done nothing about immigration except react to the Arizona law, which was a reaction to Federal ineptitude and confusion.

Technorati Tags: Democrats,Republicans,immigration,citizenship,politics,Arizona

del.icio.us Tags: Democrats,Republicans,immigration,citizenship,politics,Arizona

An Interesting line in a BP Story

BP: Upcoming kill attempt might do the trick alone - Yahoo! News

The Environmental Protection Agency released a study Monday concluding that when mixed with oil, chemical dispersants used to break up the crude in the Gulf are no more toxic to aquatic life than oil alone.

BP: Upcoming kill attempt might do the trick alone - Yahoo! News

 

Which, if you read between the lines, or have any sense of logic, means they shouldn’t be using the dispersants.  This says the dispersants used to break up the oil are no more toxic (not that they are any less toxic) than oil alone.  If that is what the study says, then the chemicals are just adding toxicity and making it more difficult to find, and get rid of the oil.  Of course, what we don’t know, I haven’t found the study, is whether it actually said that or (more likely) this is just an AP writer’s summary of a study they didn’t really understand.  In my experience the papers usually get wrong the details of things like studies and research.  In this regard journalists are much more akin to lay people than they are to the scientists and engineers who do these studies.

Technorati Tags: BP,Oil Spill,Environment,politics,EPA,Gulf

What Can the Oil Companies Do to Regain Trust?

We can’t trust the Oil Companies.  Surprise, surprise.  BP has lied to us throughout the current crisis and before.  The other Oil Companies according to Congressional Testimony today have spill response plans that are not only remarkably similar, but discuss Walruses in the Gulf and provide contact information for consultants who are long dead.  They have demonstrated themselves to be completely untrustworthy. Their credibility is in the toilet.

So what can they do:

1. They need to provide, within 30 days, independent and substantive response plans incorporating the information currently available and committing to revise them every six months as more information about damage, and risk becomes available.  They should be fined say $50 million a day for missing the deadline.  The plans should eliminate dead consultants and Walruses.
2. They should within the next 30 days provide a collectively funded and independently managed cleanup response fund to which they all contribute and which is substantial (say $10 billion) and which is intended fund any catastrophic spill cleanup and also continuously conducts independent research into spill response and prevention.  The fund should be independently operated under regulations set by the EPA.
3. They each need to commission and conduct independent safety audits within the next 30 days on all their US properties, the results of which will be provided to the government and the public (via a website) and commit to implementing any recommendations under government oversight.
4. BP needs to set up the much talked about escrow account that should be at least $20 billion.
5. BP needs to pay all claims.  BP needs to accept and engage all volunteers with expertise in both cleanup and wildlife rescue.  BP needs to turn the locals loose and stop putting extremely bureaucratic controls on the cleanup effort.
6. BP and Transocean need to pay the 11 families of the victims of the explosion, with no strings (but not admitting fault or liability, cause their lawyers wouldn’t want that, but similarly without requiring a release from the families) not less than $1 million per family.  Just because its the right thing to do.

All this could happen relatively quickly.  It won’t.  But it would go a long way toward restoring some measure of faith.

Technorati Tags: oil,oil spill,Gulf coast,BP,environment,politics,Congress,spill response,oil company

Zakaria: Obama caves in to media frenzy over BP - CNN.com

 

Zakaria told CNN, "I think that what he's been doing in recent days has been caving in to this media outcry that he show more emotion and anger and energy in dealing with the problem. And I think the result of it is that you're getting government as theater rather than government that is actually doing something effective.

Zakaria: Obama caves in to media frenzy over BP - CNN.com

I enjoy Fareed Zakaria’s show and I think he is an interesting person with much to say.  That said, he is simply wrong here on two levels.  First, leaders need to lead and often leading can be, and should be, quiet.  Leaders as Colin Powell has said need followers.  When the followers are frustrated leaders need to demonstrate, through word and deed that they understand that frustration, not merely sympathy, not merely an ability to solve the problem in time, but action and understanding and empathy.  They need to say I’m angry too.  They need to say I’m frustrated and I’m doing something about it.  Calm rationality has its place, but as a corporate lawyer I can tell you that often in an interaction there is a need to pound the table and walk out of the room.

With BP, the frustration has been BPs arrogant disregard for the truth, the consequences to those affected, BP’s own failings in safety and disclosure, and finally the very real possibility that no matter what they do this spill could destroy a way of life for an entire region of the United States.  What if BP sprayed the French wine country with a nice coating of oil?  What if they drenched Tuscanny in oil?  How about if they saturated the Serengeti?  How about if they dumped a million barrels of oil on the Alps.  Would people be calm and rational then?

Obama needs to be vocal, angry and frustrated as a demonstration of his understanding of the American People’s reaction to a Company that seems incapable of admitting its wrongdoing, allowing us to see it or taking real steps to fix it, but seems to be very capable of lying, obfuscating, hiding, impeding and generally treating everyone from the government to the families of the 11 men who died to the media with disdain, disrespect and arrogance.

Second, there seems on many people’s part to be a complete lack of appreciation for BP’s active role in this and the dangers it poses for safety and regulation in the future.  What has come out is that basically BP is a scoff-law.  They have lied repeatedly to regulators.  They have admitted to criminal violations.  They have ignored safety for expediency and they have harassed workers who are whistleblowers.   Basically they say, we are big and powerful and nobody will do anything to us.  So they are a repeat offender without a care in the world.  Their total punishment for this in the last several years appears to amount to a little less than two weeks net income after taxes.

That is completely unacceptable.  That should be punished.  The government and the President should be extremely angry about it and he should make it clear in no uncertain terms that the time of no consequences is over. 

Technorati Tags: President,oil,politics,Oil Spill,BP,Zakaria,Obama,energy,government,leaders,Powell,Serengeti,American

Technorati Tags: Cnn

The Oil Spill

 

The U.K. government continues to keep a low profile on the issue, despite increased calls from business to intervene on BP's behalf. This included a call in a report by U.S. investment bank J.P. Morgan for Britain to raise a "diplomatic red flag" on BP's behalf. Trade group the Institute of Directors said that aggressive U.S. political rhetoric was "inappropriate" and could prejudice other U.K. business abroad. Prime Minister David Cameron is set to raise the issue in a call to President Barack Obama on Saturday, but the call was scheduled a long time ago and was described as routine by Downing Street.

BP on the Defensive as Shares Drop - WSJ.com

Could BP be any bigger morons?  The truth is that American anger is directed at BP not because of the “accident,” but because of their arrogant and shoddy treatment of its victims, the north Gulf Coast and the American public.  The political rhetoric is not “inappropriate” in any way other than it is fairly restrained given the popular sentiment.  Americans don’t think that rhetoric is close to sufficiently hostile, and that is because BP has acted in the most arrogant “everything-is-a-negotiation” fashion without recognition of the general American public’s connection with the people of the Gulf coast since Katrina.  Comedian Lewis Black said it best last night on the Joy Behar show when he said BP has treated us as if they were a separate country not subject to our laws, regulations, rules or power, so we should treat them the same and just invade BP, have the military take them over.  That is how America feels.

What kind of idiotic company (or the lawyers in that company) treats victims so badly?  Are they stupid? Do they think that the publicity won’t catch up with them?  Did they have no inkling of the way in which the American public would react to a) a large powerful and very wealthy oil company, b) killing 11 people, c) in and around New Orleans, d) destroying a coastline, e) treating people with economic and moral arrogance, f) slow to react, g) denying things are as bad as they are and apparently lying about their role, h) trying to stifle the press, and i) coating wildlife with sludge?

This isn’t the third world.  This isn’t a place where the press can be muzzled or avoided.  This America, home of “Day 50” of whatever the latest catastrophe is splashed all over CNN and therefore all over the world.  This is America, who just torched the careers of executives who fly private jets to testify at congress and is in the midst of a terrible recession.  This is America where the populace is desperate for a large, wealthy, arrogant target on which to vent all their pent up frustration and anger.  This is America where we care about the underdog and the victim of power and corruption more than we care about anything.  This is the Gulf Coast, home of Jazz and Mardi Gras and Bourbon Street and vacation spots and fishing and the Gulf Shrimp on the menu of every Steak or Seafood restaurant in the United States.  These are the battered and bruised victims of Katrina, you morons.  The fact that all I have to say is “Katrina” and everyone in this country knows of what and about whom I am speaking, should tell you something about Americans connection to this region.  And you want to treat it as “business as usual”? And you want to lie, obfuscate, delay, diminish and hide?  This from one of the largest corporate organizations on the planet? What the f--- planet are you from?

If the Brits try to think about asking us to not treat BP so badly, people will start treating them like Iran.  Instead the Brits might want to tell the Oil Company that bears their name to wake up and smell the coffee.  And banks like J.P. Morgan might want to keep their yap shut.  They aren’t exactly on the most favored list at the moment. 

Technorati Tags: BP,oil spill,business,British,Oil Company,Katrina,CNN,Lewis Black,Joy Behar,Gulf,politics,oil,gulf coast,New Orleans,Louisiana

The New Arizona Immigration Law

To anybody interested in the Arizona immigration law, I highly recommend the Cato Institute blog entitled A Legal Analysis of the New Arizona Immigration Law | Cato @ Liberty. People, however, seem to be missing an important point that  Erwin Chemerinsky raised with the New York Times:

“The law is clearly pre-empted by federal law under Supreme Court precedents,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, an expert in constitutional law and the dean of the University of California, Irvine, School of Law.”

Preemption is not unconstitutionality.  It merely means that there is a Federal Law on the books and generally the Federal Law trumps the State Law.  Now, far be it from me to say that the guy who taught me civil procedure, is a nationally recognized expert in constitutional law and is the dean of the University of California at Irvine Law School, might be wrong.  Let’s just say he overstates the case.  Parts of the law are clearly subject to pre-emption and frankly are just silly.  The trespassing part of the law is just silly.  It just creates a new State Law violation out of a federal law violation.  But parts of the law are neither silly, preempted, ill-advised or unconstitutional.

That includes the most controversial portion of the Law:

For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency…of this state where reasonable suspicion exists the the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.  The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the Federal Government pursuant to 8 United States Code Section 1373(c).”

This merely establishes a procedure for police to follow, similar to many procedures already followed and perfectly allowable under State and Federal law.  Basically it says that if you make a traffic stop and have reasonable suspicion that the people in the vehicle have committed a federal crime (in this case violation of the immigration laws) you can arrest them and turn them over to the feds.  Just as you can with a drug dealer, a kidnapper, or any other type of criminal.

Whether or not one believes the immigration laws in this country make sense (they clearly do not), Arizona has simply made it part of the law that you can arrest people, who you have otherwise lawfully stopped, for suspicion of illegal immigration.  The mere fact that a facially constitutional law might be enforced in an unconstitutional or discriminatory manner does not make that law unconstitutional.  Most of our criminal laws suffer the same defect, such is the power of the police and prosecutors.  Many a police department and many an officer have be brought to task for unconstitutional enforcement.  They were doing bad things, but the laws they used to do them were not bad laws.

Technorati Tags: law,Arizona,immigration,politics,constitution,criminal,discrimination,illegal alien,immigrant,illegal immigrant

Is anyone really surprised by the election results?

It reminds me of the oft quoted statement from Casablanca “I’m shocked, shocked, that there is gambling in this establishment.”  Or in this case that people are pissed off at the incumbents.  Hello!  Is anyone home?! Have you been listening? You’re surprised?  What planet are you from?

The truth is Obama was elected because people wanted change in Washington and he has given them more of the same.  He has let Pelosi and Reid run the political ship and they have done so in typical we-have-the-power-now fashion.  Americans dislike polarization.  Americans dislike arrogance.  Americans dislike it when the party in power rides roughshod over everyone and ignores the voice of the minority, whomever they may be.  That was the message when they brought the democratic congress and Senate in and that was the message when they voted for “change you can believe in.”  Unfortunately its turned out to be “change that doesn’t exist” and the electorate is angry.  The truth is the emperor has no clothes no matter what his advisors tell us about all the “changes” that have occurred.

Democrats have shown their arrogance by ignoring these facts, and the political climate will punish them like the desert sun punishes a traveler with no water.  Obama and his posse believe that “getting things done” is all that is required.  Pass the health care legislation, pass financial reform and that shows that we can get things done.  Uh…hey…Pres…guess what, if my party was in power with an unassailable majority, I could “get things done” too.  Especially if I let the congressional leadership dictate what gets done.

The dems need to realize they are going to get crushed in the election in November.  And its their own fault.  All Obama had to do was show some leadership, rein in his own party, make some compromises from the very beginning to unify the country by getting things done on a consensus basis.  It would have been harder and there would have been a lot of whining from the extremes, but his popularity would have endured and congress would have been much better regarded.  He would have strengthened his power and widened his base.  Instead he chose the easy way – the usual political way – the way of the Washington status quo – the way its always been done.  He chose political expediency over the good of the country.  And now he’s surprised that the country is pissed off?  He’ll probably blame it on Wall Street or the media or bloggers or anything but his own ineptitude where the blame truly lies, just as it did with his predecessor who made all the same moves.  The country didn’t like George Bush and they don’t like Barack Obama, for the exact same reasons.  People believed and are now disappointed.  The emperor had no clothes when Bush was in office, and Obama has the same tailor.

Technorati Tags: politics,Democrats,Republicans,Obama,Bush,Election,primary,political Parties,administration,Pelosi,Reid,congress,senate,Wall Street,change,president,polarization

I Wonder How Much Mr. Obama Took From Working American's 401(K)s when he berated Goldman and Trashed Wall Street?

Punitive political populist pronouncements may be politically popular but they aren't good policy. 

I am no fan of Goldman Sachs or the excesses of risk Wall Street predictably brought on, and I think that imposing and modernizing financial reform and regulation is necessary, but this bank bashing has gotten out of hand and has cost the American worker, the American Economy and the World Economy, billions.  It is another example of the political democratic mantra that rich is bad and that’s all that matters.  It matters not that the rich pay much of the taxes that support the programs that benefit others.  It matters not that dumping on the rich hurts us all.  Trashing Wall Street is the political sport du jour. It’s fun and it’s easy and many of their attitudes and actions are indefensible (and frankly stupid), but you had better watch out, because losing billions for sport is also stupid and hurtful to the very people the populist promises and punitive policies are supposed to protect.

Technorati Tags: politics,economics,political,democrats,republicans,liberal,conservative,business,Wall Street,banks,Goldman,obama,main street

Taxes and Why we Hate to Pay Them

Technorati Tags: taxes,government,political,politics,republicans,democrats,liberal,conservative,charity,corrupt

People hate taxes. Rich people, poor people, republicans and democrats all hate taxes. For political reasons some blame it on greed and for political reasons some say it makes economic sense to hate taxes. The truth is that taxes are the only way we have to pay our government debts as they exist today. They ultimately pay for the borrowing required to fund all government programs. The more we borrow the more taxes will have to be raised to pay for the borrowing.

But if we want or need the government programs like stimulus and environmental regulation or cleanup or road building or unemployment compensation and all the other programs we crave, why is there such a political hatred for taxes? It isn't that the rich are greedy (those same people happily contribute billions to charity each year). And it isn’t really that we hate the concept of the programs those taxes support.  For political reasons Democrats will say Republicans hate funding programs on education and for the poor, and for those same political reasons Republicans will say Democrats don’t want to pay for Defense programs or investment tax credits to help fund growth. But we all know that, but for the real reason we hate taxes, we would favor many, if not most, government programs.

The real reason we hate taxes so much is because government is so damn inefficient. We wouldn't contribute to government if it were a charity. Its administrative costs would boarder on criminal if it were a charity. A charity like habitat for humanity can buy land, build houses and provide them to deserving poor families in the time it takes for the government to get approval to put together a plan to potentially buy the same land that they then would give to a contractor who had political connection and who would build low quality houses and give them to people who were trying to cheat the system. And the charity can do it better for about one tenth the cost.

Government is also corrupt. This may be shocking to some and the corruption is certainly less obvious here than in many third world developing countries, but the idea that politics, relationships, contributions to political parties, and lobbyists have no bearing on the award of contracts or the distribution of benefits, is politically naive. They do and they always have. At the same time because of the inefficient and bureaucratic way Government acts, the best, highest quality contractors, goods and services are almost never chosen for any reason other than pure luck.

I live in California. That means my taxes border on 50% of my annual income if I am in the highest tax bracket. In other words the government complains and punishes me for "being rich" while at the same time it is my 50% silent partner siphoning off my money. Would anyone in their right mind give a partner 50% when the partner used about half of the money on itself and used the other half to inefficiently provide the services you thought you were going to get when you took them on at exorbitant, self serving prices, that are paid on the basis of political favors, nepotism and relationships without regard for quality? Of course not. That's why we hate taxes. I would gladly take that 50% and pay it to a number of charities across as many issues as necessary covering the poor, health care, environmental issues, labor, agriculture, education, you name it, if they were normal relatively efficient charities. Let's outsource the functions of government and mandate contributions to the outsourced charities. Get rid of big bloated inefficient inept government. I really resent working 25-30 or more hours a weak for the crap the government is giving me.

Why Are We in the Business of Mercenaries?

Study: More Contractors In Afghanistan Than Military Personnel -- Highest Ratio Ever | TPMMuckraker.

It used to be that hiring Mercenaries was distasteful.  We frowned upon it. Now it turns out we have a mostly Mercenary force in Afghanistan. This isn’t cheaper.  It isn’t more cost efficient.  It just means different budgets can be used.  These people aren’t better trained or more effective.  They are just arrogant and outside of Military justice and control.  They don’t have the same chain of command and as we have seen with the various Blackwater scandals, can be completely uncontrolled.  Why do we have them? 

Tags: politics, mercenaries, Afghanistan, War+in+Afghanistan

Ted Kennedy

Ted Kennedy was a lot of things.  He was human, he had his failings like all humans have.  Like a long line of old style Irish politicians from Massachusetts those failings and that humanity defined him and made him truly superb at the business of legislation and politics.  He treated others like human beings and in that he was able to deal with them, listen to them and concede to them when necessary as human beings, not as the evil representatives of an opposing ideology.  So many people do not treat their opponents, behind the closed doors where deal-making is done, with that humanity and respect.  So many are not able to make compromises because they do not see people as people.  They only see them as competitors, opponents, and ultimately enemies.  Kennedy was not like that.  Possibly because of his own humanity, his own tragedies and his own failings, he did not judge others harshly.  He recognized that treating the opposition with respect, making deals, creating compromises, being a friend to the people with whom he dealt, and getting things done, were not signs of weakness or a signs that he lacked toughness.  He wanted to get things done.  His life as a public servant was not defined by high principal and lofty ideals, although he certainly espoused and fought for them.  In the end his public service and his life was defined, as ultimately all of ours are defined, by his accomplishments.  No matter what you say about him, you can not deny his accomplishments.  As many have said, he accomplished more for the elderly, the poor and the infirm in the United States than probably any other person, ever.  That is his legacy and our politicians and pundits and bloggers and all the ranters and ravers about principal and ideals should take a step back and say to themselves, “With all of my anger and vitriol and animosity, what am I accomplishing?”  What they will find is that they are no Ted Kennedy.

Barack Obama Needs to Step Up.

President Obama needs to be a leader, not a rationalizing academic.  We need it now.  And that doesn’t mean just slamming Health Care reform through the legislature without a care for the Republican side. That means sitting down with both sides, playing James Madison, and hammering out a compromise that, although it may not be exciting to either side, is acceptable to both.

Many Democrats, the administration included will ask why.  Why should they compromise when they are able to push through the legislation they want?  The answer, for the good of the country.

We are tired of polarization Americans can see that it permeates all aspects of our lives.  People no longer listen, they scream.  People no longer attempt to understand other views or even allow them to be given, they shout them down.  Young people seem to believe there are only two ways to view the world – as us or them.  Gone are the days when people said “Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me.”  Now all words are fighting words, unless they are our words.

Why is this insidious?  We are becoming a great big Jonestown (or should I say two Jonestowns).  Drink the cool aide or you are an outcast.  Drink the cool aide or no one will love you.  Drink the cool aide or you are evil and won’t make it to heaven.  Drink the cool aide or you are a traitor to everything for which we stand.

I am no Cool Aide drinker.  I want to hear what “they” have to say.  I will shout till I am blue in the face that the Emperor has no clothes, no matter the prevailing “wisdom” that says its a “new outfit.” President Obama, you need to lead us back to a better place, and you need to do it by defying your own party as well as the opposition.

Technorati Tags: Politics,Republicans,Democrats,Obama,Health Care,Health Care Reform,Congress,Administration,Liberals,Conservatives,Political Parties,James Madison,President

Squeaky Fromme Should not be Released

Manson follower 'Squeaky' Fromme out of prison - washingtonpost.com

The consequence for attempting to assasinate the President is life in Prison, pure and simple.  You do the crime, you do the time.  It is not an outrageous punishment, there is no sense of injustice or outrage had she remained behind bars.  So why release her? Our justice system may be a mess and overtaxed, but this makes no sense.

Health-Care Reform

Paul Begala - A Health-Care Goal for Progressives: Progress Not Perfection - washingtonpost.com .

I commented on this post as follows:

You say you don't think bipartisanship should be so lauded, yet isn't that term just another term for compromise? You cite the Constitutuion's phrase "more perfect union" in recognition that we are not perfect, yet you use the Social Security Act as an example of imperfection. Why not use the Constitution itself as your example? One of the more eloquent explanations of the merits of compromise comes in fact from Ben Franklin in his address to the Constitutional Convention:

"I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong….. In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such…. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected?... Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good."

The problem with the far right and the far left in the debate over health care and other debates is that they are like the Catholic Church and the Church of England. One is infallible and the other is never wrong. The truth is that nobody has perfection on their side and neither is right absolutely all the time. The Republicans' return to their roots of Anti-Big Government and reduced spending follows eight years of Republican increases in the size and intrusiveness of Government and huge spending deficits. On the flip side the Democrats/Progressives have whined for the last eight years about profligacy, earmarks and outrageous republican spending only to turn around and throw money at problems as if they could print it from no until kingdom come and in the mean time do arrogant and insensitively idiotic things like attempt to buy extra private jets for a Pentagon that said they didn't need them (when was the last time that happened?).

I believe that bipartisanship is and was something very important to the American people. "Change You Can Believe In" was a slogan based on reforming the way Washington worked. Obama had opportunities to take leadership on bipartisanship and failed. Now, "Progressives" (democrats, liberals, whatever you want to call the democratic party base) like Begala are minimizing bipartisanship and compromise. Why? Because they have the power, just like the Republicans had the power when they ruled the Senate not too long ago. Same arrogance, different party. I now have no faith that the democratic party will change the the way Washington works, just like their counterparts didn't change it. Politicians are all the same and they wonder why we have no faith in Government.

Which brings us to the current debate. Americans of whatever stripe are passionate and angry about health care. It costs too much. The care is not that good. There is fraud and waste at all levels. People pay for health insurance and find they are not covered. People pay for health insurance and then, if they have the misfortune to need it, must spend three quarters of their waking hours dealing with the Insurance beauraucracy. And you wonder why they are worried that the Government will be involved?

The fact is that the system needs a complete and total overhaul. Regulation, payment, tort reform, information gathering and dissemination, costs and delivery systems are all in need of fixing. The Republican idea of "free enterprise" doing the job is as silly as the Democrats' idea that the government can fix it. Free enterprise, in the form of a bunch of bookies, now runs the Healthcare system in America for all intents and purposes. Since when did your bookie have your best interests at heart?

Why bookies? Because that is what an Insurance company is. Insurance was invented at a Coffee House on the docks of London. The name of that Coffee House was Lloyd's and Ship owners would go down to the docks to have coffee and watch the ships come in. They would bet on whether particular ships would come in and they came up with the great idea of betting against themselves to "insure" that they would not lose too much if their ship didn't make it. Insurance companies for everything from cars to Healthcare are the same. You are betting against yourself. They calculate the odds, they take your bets, they lay them off (no called re-insurance) and they figure out ways to make sure that if you "win" you don't win too much or too often. Those are the people in charge of the Health Care industry and we have handed them the keys. Obama's solution is to make the Government and competitive bookie. Wow, there's change we can believe in.

Clearly this is not the answer, but at this point it may be the best we get. The bookies want the system not to change (obviously) and they are mostly behind the anti-reform rhetoric. For that reason alone I will have to take Ben Franklin's approach. I consent to this Health Care reform bill because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good.

Tags: Politics, Healthcare+reform, Healthcare, Constitution, Ben+Franklin, Democrats, Republicans, Begala, Washington+Post, Progressives, Conservative, Liberal, bipartisanship, Obama, Washington, Progressive, Insurance, Change

The Death of Privacy

Science fiction with a smile | Salon Arts & Entertainment.

Heather Havrilesky may be writing in this article about a show on the Science Fiction Channel, but her opening paragraphs speak to the idea that privacy is dead, a current cultural phenomenon (accepted as gospel) that is, I believe, really really bad.

“Mystery is a dying art. Holding on to your secrets during the digital revolution feels as antiquated and prudish as holding on to your virginity during the sexual revolution.

Not only is trying to keep your personal life private nearly impossible, but the whole concept of being a "private person" is patently outdated. What does it even mean? Not mentioning your tubal ligation on your Facebook page? Not tweeting about your disintegrating marriage?

Nothing is confidential anymore; those who'd like to pretend otherwise are greeted with suspicion and raised hackles. In an age when "community building" seems indelibly linked to casting your secrets into an unfathomable digital void, self-censorship can strike people as downright unneighborly. Information wants to be free, and no doubt about it, it's prepared to break your kneecaps and make a run for it if necessary.”

First, the obvious flaw with the analogy (and its not a bad one) as an argument in favor of giving up your privacy is that there are many people who either died of AIDS or live with HIV who wish they had remained virgins during the sexual revolution.  There are probably a whole slew of others who wish they had (or had not) participated in the sexual revolution for a variety of reasons.  Merely having a trend is not a reason to conform to it.  Following lemmings off a cliff, no matter how many there are is not a recipe for success or survival.

Second, isn’t privacy to be valued?  Does the Big Brother of the social networking universe need to know everything?  Should everyone know everything?  Does this breed responsibility or just fear?  The problem with the cacophony of the Internet is that people might not speak for fear that what they say might not be popular.  They might not do for fear that what they do might not be favored by the loudest and most vocal.  Yet it is those who speak up, who do not fear to say the emporer has no clothes, who insist the earth is round and it revolves around the sun who may be drowned out by the masses and the lack of privacy.

As history would have it, those who berated and despised privacy, those who argued that your private thoughts and actions should be exposed (possibly to ridicule), those who live by the phrase “if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear,” are not exactly those whom I would characterize as the “good guys.”  Nazi Germany, Stalin’s Soviet Union, the Inquisition, Senator Joseph McCarthy, to name a few of the rogues gallery. 

The mob does not like privacy.  Lemmings do not like privacy.  For now, I will try to keep what I have and fight for people’s rights to have theirs. 

 

Why do I find myself agreeing with Orrin Hatch and Ann Coulter?

I nearly fainted the other day while watching Ann Coulter on Larry King (Joy Behar subbing in).  I found myself actually agreeing with Coulter.  I think she is one of the most despicable human beings on the planet.  She is intellectually dishonest.  She is mean.  Nothing matters to her but herself, her agenda, and generating money and publicity for herself and her agenda.  Reason and evidence mean nothing to her.  Kindness, decency, integrity and humanity are not words in her vocabulary, or things about which she cares.  When I say I find her despicable, I don’t mean that in a good way.  I would never purchase one of her novels, not because I think they are bad, but because, like not spending money in South Africa during apartheid, I wouldn’t want to put a dime in her pocket.  So the fact that I found myself agreeing with her made me nauseous.

I do not find Orrin Hatch despicable.  I mostly don’t agree with him but I have no doubt he is a good and decent person.  There are people I respect who are friendly with him and politically close to him.

I agree with both of them because I too feel this “empathy” idea for judges is wrong.  A judge should be independent and aloof.  Would you want someone who is empathetic with the victims of crime to decide 4^th amendment issues? Not if you were the criminal and not if you believe the 4^th amendment must protect everyone from unreasonable searches and seizures.  Would you want someone empathetic to the plight or background of the criminal if you were advocating the death penalty in a case? No.  Would you want a judge empathetic with the victims plight in the same case? Not if you were the criminal or a person advocating against the death penalty.  Empathy is very much a double edged sword and has no place in judicial determination.  Justice is blind.  The law is blind and has to do with the law not justice.  If the legislature has failed to correctly draft a statute a judge can not substitute his/her judgment on any side, wherever their empathy lies.

Think of this.  A 21 year old man savagely rapes and murders an 18 month old baby.  He is tried and convicted and sentenced to death.  Where would you have the judges empathy lie?  With the baby and his family?  How about with the man who himself was a victim of repeated sexual abuse as a child?  How about with the fact that the man was black, grew up in a terrible environment and was never given the chance to gain any sense of morality, when it comes to abuse?  Should empathy dictate whether the punishment fits the crime?  As tragic as this case was (it is a real case), should not the punishment fit the crime not the criminal?  Can society be seen to be empathetic to a child molester and murderer?  Empathy does have its place.  But the judiciary is not where it belongs.

Tags: Law, Politics, Republicans, Ann+Coulter, Orrin+Hatch, Obama, Judges, Supreme+Court