A Plague On Both Your Houses

State Dept. Investigates Hillary Aides (again and again)

In virtually all of the cases, potentially sensitive information, now recategorized as “classified,” was sent to Clinton’s unsecure inbox.

via www.washingtonpost.com

Of course they are.  Anybody with one brain cell could have predicted this.  Trump, as usual lashes out and blames others for the things he does.  The truth is, Hillary's misdeeds are so 2016.  Who cares? Is she President? No. Is she in government? No. Does she have any real power? No.  Trump just can't stand being blamed so he plays the "Whatabout" game and gives us an investigation into yesterdays news, which was already investigated for years by a republican congress and a republican Senate.  What a surprise! Donald wants to distract us from the things he did wrong. Alert the media!

GOP Defense of Trump Tepid

GOP battens down the hatches after release of Trump whistleblower complaint

The GOP Senators need to be a little less trusting that somehow Trump is going to act like a normal President would. They have already abdicated their power to him, now they want him to act like he cares.

Guys, I hate to break it to you, he doesn't. Not about you, not about the Country and not about anybody not named Trump.

Trump the Politician and the Whistleblower Crisis

Donald Trump has always been a masterful politician. In fact the biggest lie he has told his supporters is “I am not a politician.” Now, don’t get me wrong. He isn’t a politician like Nancy Pelosi or Mitch McConnell. He is a corporate politician. Pelosi and McConnell, for all their faults, actually believe in something outside their own self interest. Trump believes in nothing but his own prosperity and self interest. Like any good corporate politician he blames others for mistakes he makes, he criticizes others preemptively for things he is doing or is about to do himself and he takes credit for others’ accomplishments. In the current “crisis” Trump will do one or more of the following and those that are opposed to the way he is destroying American democracy and American interests throughout the world, should be prepared:

1. He will no doubt blame countless others across the board. Biden, of course. Hillary, just because. The Democrats, the deep state, the intelligence community, the Ukrainian President. I think he will also blame Bolton and possibly other former “friends.” He may even let Rudy take the fall. That’s just who he is. No matter what he will maintain that he is blameless completely;
2. He will obfuscate, delay and create distractions of all kinds. He will wind down or gear up the China trade war. He will go to North Korea or have Kim come here. He will come up with anything to distract from his guilt or draw media attention away from the investigation and his guilt. He will create slogans that any number of supporters at rallies can chant and that supporters on twitter and in the media can repeat ad nauseam. Similar to “No collusion.” They will be simple, straightforward and repeatable in all contexts. He already started by trying out “No quid pro quo” but that isn’t catchy enough;
3. He will give clues to what he has done, or will do, by what he accuses others of doing. In my view the first such “admission” is the recent accusation of “spying.” It truly makes one wonder if he is in fact the Manchurian candidate. In any event he will accuse Democrats of a cover up and he will no doubt reference much covering up by the Clintons, because they are his go-to foils. This will come as he destroys or hides evidence;
4. His people will pull Lewandoskis at every hearing and every opportunity. He will sue and he will resist and delay. His supporters in Congress will take every opportunity to cast blame on others and delay and destroy the hearings.

All in all he will preserve himself without a care in the world about what that will do to the country. He will not do what’s best. He will not give up or give in like Nixon, because he knows the Country needs it. He cares not a bit about America or it’s greatness. He will not behave “normally” and anybody who is shocked or dismayed by that is just an idiot.

A short Essay on depression inspired by the deaths of Anthony Bourdain and Kate Spade

I am not a psychologist, but in dealing with, reading about and thinking about the problems of depression that have been close to me I have come to realize that personal demons are real and personal. They have little if anything to do with the outside world or “reality” as most of us think about it. Depression is a “thing” as far as I can tell. A physical, palpable, oppressive, real thing. Holding it at bay is a constant, exhausting and sometimes overwhelming struggle. It is incredibly unkind, naive, stupid and damaging to call suicide “selfish” or “cowardly.” As if that will somehow deter someone else, through guilt, from committing suicide. In all likelihood, such statements exacerbate the depression of those already battling it.

Those who battle depression are incredibly intrepid and courageous. They fight a battle they see as without end and without hope, yet they keep on fighting day after day, week after week, year after year until they finally can fight no more. That is the reality of depression.

Anthony Bourdain’s girlfriend said “only the best, funniest, loveliest, most empathetic, wonderful, talented people have depression.” She’s right and I have a theory that they are so, because they know the opposite. They know what a dark and dull and lonely and uncaring and loveless world looks like. They think they see it every day, so they try their hardest to be the opposite and they care deeply about those who suffer, because they see the big bad world every single day.
I have described my thoughts on suicidal depression to someone who has attempted suicide twice. The first time, she had second thoughts and called the paramedics herself just before the booze and sleeping pills took her under, they had to revive her on the way to the hospital. The second time, I found her. She was in ICU for two days. My description was as follows:

A person travels through a bleak desert. The sun bakes down on them. They can’t seem to get out of the desert yet they struggle forward in an attempt to get across it. Day by day they struggle. They have no food nor water yet they carry on. Occasionally, they think they see an end, but it is only a mirage. Occasionally they find a drop of moisture but it evaporates quickly. Onward they go. Soon they are on their hands and knees still struggling, still pushing, inching forward, clawing and crawling. Finally they can not do it anymore. Finally they give up. They feel terrible about giving up. Their dying thoughts are of their friends and family and the life they loved and lived, but they can go no further, struggle no more, they are just too tired. They are in too much pain.

Would you call such a person “selfish?” Would you say they were a “coward?” Of course not. They did the best they could through pain and suffering that we could not see or understand, we don’t see the world as hopeless and painful, they do.

Some make it through the desert. Some, with the help and support of family and friends, good doctors and good medicine can come out the other side or at least make the pain bearable, the struggle easier. To help them and others we need more understanding and compassion, not judgment.

Democrats Failed

On CNN a week or two ago I heard a familiar refrain from a Hillary Clinton supporter. She said in so many words, “its not our fault, we just made some tactical mistakes, Jim Comey screwed everything up, there’s a real problem with sexism and misogyny, we failed to get out some Latinos and African Americans, she won the popular vote, and yes we should look at the electoral college because its not democratic.” Of course these aren’t her exact words, but the gist seems to be the same. This reminds me of 2010 when the Democrats lost and basically said hey, we didn’t misunderstand the electorate, they misunderstood us. Today Chuck Schumer said we need to communicate our message better that we want change and to resolve the economic problems that people are struggling with.

Let me try to make this clear to the Democrats. You lost because you have the wrong message and you put down, disrespect, belittle and take for granted the single largest minority in the country - the white working poor. You also lost because you are insiders who treat outsiders as if they are idiots. It’s pretty easy for the national Democratic Party to win in places like California where you hand out money and perks to various minority groups while the Republicans disrespect them. Essentially the system amounts to legal bribery. It’s a quid pro quo. You vote for us we will continue giving you handouts. Woe betide the Democrats if the Republicans start doling out social justice and create new ways of enhancing the lot of minorities than throwing money at them.

This election had nothing to do with misogyny and very little to do with Donald Trump’s remarks on tape. Don’t get me wrong. Donald Trump is a total sleaze-ball. He always has been. He probably always will. But the electorate basically said Hillary is a dishonest insider and Donald is a piggish and dishonest outsider. Ok, we’ll take the outsider. That’s not a lack of messaging, that’s a complete lack of respect by the insiders inside the beltway for the electorate.

And about the electoral college. Really? You want to disenfranchise everyone between the coasts and say basically you don’t matter? You want to turn back time to the tyranny of the majority? You want elite urban snobs to run the country? You really have lost touch. And what happens when the shoe is on the other foot? What happens when you aren’t in the majority? Will you want it back then? The electoral college is in place to do exactly what the Constitution has done on many issues. It is there to put in place checks on the overly powerful. It is there to make sure the minority in rural areas is not disenfranchised. It is there to protect against the government being too powerful and controlled by too concentrated a segment of the population.

Both political parties have lost sight of the characteristics and values we as Americans share. The values of integrity, reward for hard work, opportunity (not gifts), and an aversion to overly centralized power. Maybe some party, in order to deal with the central problem in this country, should not talk about endless taxation and redistribution of wealth. Maybe instead they should talk about making sure that the rewards that go to successful people are shared by those people with the people who help them get there. No tax, no government involvement, no salary caps. Just say that 40% as an example, of corporate profit that is not reinvested in the Company goes to workers, and that all Companies provide their employees with an ownership stake through stock or phantom stock. Just force corporate executives to provide their workers with some of the profits. Also don’t put a cap on corporate executive rewards, just force them to provide others with benefits. Something they should do voluntarily. Reward them for this with tax breaks and other incentives.

The Democratice Debate

If this were any other time, any other year, the media would be singing the praises of Hillary for her debate performance last night. In terms of substance Hillary clearly won. In terms of calm, presidential appearance, Hillary clearly won. In terms of passion, Hillary at least tied.  But let’s get real. There’s a reason Hillary doesn’t get respect.  This is the year of the populist.  This is a time, even more so than 2008 or 2012, when marketing rules the day, not substance.  If you want to market to the young popular culture, you don’t want a wonkish, substance oriented, agressive, knowledgeable, strong, woman who looks like your mom and wears pearls and suits.  An elderly, kind of wild looking, grandfather figure, with “youthful” and “revolutionary” ideas, who talks a good populist line boiling down to “screw the rich,” is much better.

 

Nevertheless, last night, smart people saw the real difference between the two.  Hillary may be nerdy but she has both passion and substance. Bernie, as I’ve said before, is full of sound and fury signifying nothing. When you scratch Bernies surface, there’s nothing underneath but the same righteous indignation you see on the outside. Hillary may not be the sexy, oh-so-inspiring choice, but in an increasingly frightening and unstable world, she has the stability, the knowledge and the expertise to lead us through the quagmire. She may not always be right or make every decision I would like, but I trust her a lot more than either Bernie or the Donald.

*Bernie Sanders Strategy*

 

Make no mistake, Bernie Sanders has a politically sound strategy. Throughout this campaign he has fostered it, refined it and implemented it to great effect. His populism does not stem from an inherent morality. He does not have an Arthurian round table of justice, honor and equality. Bernie has a plan calculated on the most basic of human calculators, pure politics. 

Virtually all ambitious politicians strive for the ultimate goal of becoming President of the United States. No higher office exists. How then does a socialist reach the POTUS goal?

According to his Senate website, Sanders is the "longest serving independent member of Congress in American history." Bernie has no superior claim to others as an idealist and outsider. A stranger to politics, political calculation and strategy he is not. In fact Bernie has done virtually nothing in his life other than run for and hold political office. So how does an independent socialist become a Democratic candidate for President? He implements an effective and sophisticated strategy to get there.

Election calculus does not require a degree in rocket science or qualification for brain surgery. You need to know your audience (target market/supporters), you need to understand your opposition's strengths and weaknesses, you need to have good timing, and ultimately you need to understand what message will best reach your target supporters. It helps to understand your own strengths and weaknesses as well. The real key to an effective strategy lies not in simple linear thinking about these components but in weaving them together so they all coalesce into an useful mechanism for winning. 

Timing, they say, is everything. They know of what they speak. Bernie has graced the political stage for almost 40 years, he's had other opportunities. Given his age, his time may be running out, but the timing couldn't be better. The country is angry, divided, and ripe for "revolution." The threat of communism, and the adjunct fear of socialism, died long ago. Progressives (blech, I hate using that word, why can't I call them lefties or radicals or at least liberals?) favor European neo-socialist policies. Mix that up in the stew of presidential primary politics and you can easily see the timing for a bubbling pot of Bernie love.

But there's an obstacle. Hil's in the mix. She's popular, she's smart, she's a woman, she's got credentials and backers and the Democratic establishment out the wazoo.  Who can Bernie target as an audience when he's up against that? How can he reach that audience, once he decides on his target market? The keys - anger, division, fear.  Who is angry and at what? What do they fear? What frustrations do they harbor? 

Think like Bernie's political consultants. Oh, yeah, he has them just like all the others. Who, you might ask yourself, are the constituents that make up primary voters?  The Democratic voters divide into a number of categories for easy marketing - minorities, the poor, elderly, Tom Wolfe's radical chic (rich liberals) and their beneficiaries the Democratic political establishment, young idealists, garden variety progressives and moderate social liberals. You know, because you know politics, that Hil will get the minority votes, because she has established credibility in their communities and you do not. Hil is likely to get the elderly because they are more moderate and they remember Bill. Hil will get the establishment. You might be able to pull the poor, the radical chic and the young idealists and the most left leaning progressives. Moderates go to Hil.

So the target audience consists of the party's left wing, the frustrated poor and young idealists. How do I reach them? What political strategy can I use to greatest effect to bring them in to primaries in droves?

Populism has been used for thousands of years as an effective political strategy in times of anger, frustration, upheaval, fear and injustice. Populism doesn't merely promote policies to appeal to the electorate logically. Populism plays on the anger, frustration, perceived injustices and fears of the population to avoid having to make real policy choices and to avoid having to define policy too clearly. If the anger, fear and frustration mean the populace wants the moon, you promise them the moon. It doesn't matter if you can deliver, it doesn't matter what it costs, it doesn't matter who it tramples or what it violates. The moon it is, cause that's what they want. Populism's only vision, in the words of some Republican talking points, requires leading from behind. Populism gives the people what they think they want, not what is right, or what they need or even what you believe.  Give them what they want and then you can get elected.

Populism provides the perfect strategy for Bernie. The young idealists are frustrated? Give them the old chicken in every pot, the old free lunch, or in this case free tuition. The poor are angry? Throw them millionaires and billionaires and Wall Street to sate their anger. Progressives think they have been betrayed, throw them universal health care and higher taxes on those millionaires and billionaires and stomp all over free trade policies.  For goodness sake stay away from foreign policy. Hillary was Secretary of State and a damn good one, no sense in trying to attack strength with weakness.  Hil can be attacked on her ties to Wall Street and her speeches. Young idealists will come out in droves if you promise free tuition, and get them riled up enough about millionaires and billionaires and how Wall Street is forcing all our jobs overseas and big corporations are getting fat and happy off jacked up prescription prices. Moderates are not big primary voters anyway. Get enough of the poor in industrial states, and voila a recipe, a strategy for success.

My problem lies in all the adoration heaped on Bernie by his supporters as some kind of moral saint looking out for the little guy. Bernie is viewed as somehow above the fray and outside the political elite. That's preposterous. Bernie is as calculating in his populism as Donald Trump is. They have taken the exact same approach, long on rhetoric and rabble rousing, short on substance.  They go for the same fears, frustrations and anger in much the same populations.  They are both "full of sound and fury signifying nothing."

Donald Trump

Well at long last, a few days before Super Tuesday, the Republican field and the Republican party decided to take Donald Trump (or as John Oliver says "Drumpf") seriously. The arrogant idiots deserve what they have got. The truth is that Trump always took himself seriously. People have to understand that he is a developer. Call him a project developer, not just a real estate developer. Two things you have to understand about developers. First they take themselves very seriously. They believe in their dreams. They believe in their projects. Second, they will lie, cheat and steal to bring those projects to fruition.

In politics this seems like hypocrisy. On the one hand he really believes what he says when he says he wants to make America great again, that he's going to build a wall, that Mexico is going to pay for it. But most importantly he believes in putting himself in the White House and putting his name on the Presidency. He gets all excited when he thinks about the "Trump White House" or the "Trump Presidency" or "President Trump." On the other hand he continuously lies in order to get to that goal. The media and the political "establishment" doesn't get this. Nor do they understand the attraction of someone like him.

The establishment and the media are used to people who are utterly insincere. But these insincere people won't tell bald faced lies, because they don't want to be embarrassed by getting caught in those lies. Because they are insincere, they don't want to get caught in their insincerity. Trump is in fact sincere. That's his great attraction. That's why people like him. He isn't insincere. He just lies. There is a huge (YUUUUGE!) difference.

The media and the politicians are cynics. Trump is a dreamer. The reason he can sell ice cubes to Eskimos is because he really believes they need ice. Politicians and the media are used to people who don't really believe what they are saying and they parse words to make people think they are cleverly not "lying." In fact people see through this and they are tired. Trump is a breath of fresh air. Who cares if he lies. They all lie. At least he believes in the results. Wouldn't it be nice to have someone who actually believes? That is his attraction.

The problem of course, to paraphrase Monty Python, is that he is that most dangerous of people, the cleverly sincere lier. In other words he beleives in his project. The only difference between a developer and a con-man is that a developer believes he has something to sell, he believes in the project. A con-man knows he has nothing to sell. Donald is dangerous because he doesn't care how he gets his project (putting the Trump name on the White House so he can make America great again) off the ground. Trample the constitution, no problem. Lie, no problem. Call people names, no problem. Be vicious about the competition, no problem. Send mixed signals to racists, no problem. He only cares about the result. As he would put it "Winning."

Those of us who care about America more deeply find this frightening. This is why people compare him to Hitler. Hitler wanted to make Germany great again. And he tried, at the cost of humanity, civilization, decency, justice, and millions upon millions of lives. He didn't care. He cared about the ultimate result. Thank God he never got it. Trump raises the vision of somebody who doesn't care. He believes the ends justify the means. That morality takes a back seat. That decency is secondary. That the constitution is just a piece of paper.

That is the problem with Trump. That is what makes him so scary. Not that he is a lier in the usual political sense, or even a con-man. Trump should be feared because he believes in his goal, putting his stamp on the White House, to the exclusion of all else.

Bernie Sanders and Big Government

 

My problem with Bernie is big government.  I think people, particularly the folks that support Bernie, don't understand the consequences of Bernie's policies and ideas.  Redistribution of wealth always sounds good.  It sounds great on stage preaching to a bunch of young idealists to say that the billionaire class is hijacking the political process and that the American People bailed out Wall Street now its time for Wall Street to help the American people. Incidentally I don't believe the first and the second is a non-sequitur.

But the issues with his particular policies are one thing, the issue with big government is another completely.  Bernie says its the height of hypocrisy that the Republicans are against big government but then want the government involved in a woman's right to choose what goes on with her own body.  About that he is certainly right.  But isn't it also the height of hypocrisy to say that billionaires and hugely profitable corporations are too powerful, hijacking the political process, and ruining the middle class but saying at the same time we should take those billionaires' and corporations' money and give it to the largest, most powerful bureaucracy in human history - the US Government?

Ronald Reagan was right when he said the most frightening words in the English language are "I'm from the Government and I'm here to help."  The Government is not your friend.  The Government does not spend your money well. If the Government was a charity, you wouldn't donate. Why? Because about 70% of your money does not got to the actual programs themselves, but to the administration, ie bureaucracy, of those programs. If you give $1,000 to charity about $820 goes directly to the people and programs you are supporting.  If you pay $1,000 to the Government, all those things you want it to go to, like free tuition, health care, environmental programs etc, get about $300, the rest goes to the people administering the programs. Government is disgustingly inefficient.  And with that inefficiency come corruption and power.

The politicians talk about government spending as if it is financed through magic. It isn't. It comes from everyone who pays taxes. That's it.  That's the only source of the Government's money. You and me. Borrowing depends on taxes, payoff of debt, from taxes, social security, Obama-care, military spending, all paid for by taxes. Everything the Government does is paid for by you and me.

Now Bernie and Barack think of that money as theirs.  Obama even had a phrase for  what we keep of our money. He called it "tax spending" and the way corporations got out of paying taxes was through tax spending loopholes. Everything that allows anybody to keep their hard earned money is a loophole.  Its as if they view all the money as theirs, and what they let us keep as spending their money. That attitude leads to corruption, because if its their money, how can anyone fault how they spend it. They convince themselves they are blameless for inefficiency and any one who wants to keep the money is greedy.

Bernie started out the campaign talking about millionaires and billionaires paying their "fair share" of taxes.  I have two problems with that. First, there is a huge difference between a millionaire and a billionaire. A person with a million dollars can live for 20 years in retirement on about fifty thousand a year. A person with a billion sedollars can live for a thousand years on a million dollars a year. Second, millionaires and billionaires pay most, if not all of the taxes in this country.

Margaret Thatcher was right (although her exact quote is unknown) when she is reputed to have said the problem with socialism is soon you run out of other peoples money.

But the real problem is that all that money goes out of the pockets of people who actually earn and, in the case of businesses, create it, to fund something that is just as bad, just as untrustworthy, just as insidious, just as corrupt (if not more so), and far more inefficient than the corporations and rich people from whom the money is to be taken.  It goes to fund the United States Government.

Ferguson–What it really means

The #Ferguson debacle involves much more than just one issue, but it seems the media and most commentators want to focus on the “guilt” of Officer Wilson, and the “failure” of “justice” that was not applied to him. Frankly, as viscerally satisfying as that is to the anger particularly among African Americans, it does not address the real issues.

Officer Wilson is not the problem. He may not even be a good example of the real problem, which is the way in which police treat African American males in our society. People say it as if it were simply a given in life and society. African American men, particularly young men and boys, are treated unfairly, disproportionately accused of crimes, disproportionately convicted, disproportionately jailed and have longer sentences than other segments of society. Until someone dies or is hurt, that fact seems to merely sit at the back of the mind of society, hidden and ignored. The mistreatment is a symptom of prejudice and discrimination, as well as actual criminal behavior generated primarily by circumstance. We all know this is the case, yet until a Ferguson comes along we ignore it. We shove these facts unobserved and unresolved into the shadows of our collective consciousness where we need not look at them.

Despite the increasing population of middle class African Americans, such Americans are still disproportionately poor and ghettoized. This means that young men growing up as they do in poverty and a lack of diversity are going to be angrier, more prone to criminal behavior and more likely to lash out at such circumstances. At the same time, American society has for generations had an ingrained false prejudicial image of the African American man as frightening and angry. This likely began with prejudices that pre-date slavery in the United States and stem from the images of “savages” in “darkest Africa,” promoted in the early days of exploration and colonization of that continent by Europeans. Images fostered in European society for probably six hundred years and only enhanced by the brutalities of slavery, the slave trade, and the eventual ghettoization and mistreatment of freed slaves. In the last 50 years those images have only been enhanced by the advent of gangs, the destruction of America’s inner cities, riots, and the treatment received from and, in all honesty, contributed by, popular culture.

The blame for its view of young black men can not solely be laid at the feet of white society. Indeed, popular culture promoted this image in film and television, but then around twenty five years ago, with the advent of hip hop and rap, it seems that African American popular culture seemed to take a “if you can’t beat them, join them” stand. Young African American men began to promote themselves as angry, aggressive and indeed barbaric, and white society embraced this image and even made it cool.

Houston, we have a problem. On the one hand we have prejudice and prejudicial treatment, on the other we have popular culture promoting images that reinforce the prejudices, and we have entered a vicious cycle. At the same time, the police are frightened of all the guns in society, afraid that every time they encounter a simple traffic stop, they will be shot. And, of course, one of the chief preservation mechanisms of the human animal is profiling. Make an intelligent judgment regarding the class of the danger and avoid or eliminate that class. It is one way humans since the beginning of time have learned to protect themselves. Yet we say to police “don’t profile.” Of course they profile. Everyone knows it. Everyone has prejudices and that is what profiling is. Particularly in dangerous situations people profile all the time. Telling them not to profile is like telling them not to be human. What we really need to do is to train police to recognize when they are profiling and teach them mechanisms for analyzing, avoiding and counteracting it.

We also need to get back to the basics of training police not to use their weapons. That’s right, not to use their weapons. It seems that police are far too free with firing their guns. They shouldn’t be. In fact they really should never shoot someone unless a person points a weapon at someone or they are fired upon.

There is however a problem separate from the problems involving the profiling of young African American men. It is a problem inherent in many cases we see on TV and on to which the media latches. It is the rush to judgment and more importantly the mob mentality generated by the anger at seeming injustice. We have a desire to blame. We have a desire to ensure that “justice” is done. The mob rises up in response to these incidents and we get not only violence and looting on the streets, but we destroy people like Officer Wilson’s lives without convicting them of any crime because we feel “justice” was not done.

One learns in law school early on that justice and the law are at best distant relations that meet occasionally. The law is about process and rules. Justice involves emotions, morals, societal norms. The law is much less malleable than justice. Justice may mean different things, in different circumstances to different people. The law by design is supposed to apply the same to all.

A crowd and a mob shouts “Murder!” and “Justice!” when they have decided the law is wrong. A mob lynches. A mob out for “Justice” in Ferguson in 2014 has very little to distinguish it from a mob out for “Justice” in Mississippi in the 1960s. They both want to apply their form of justice to a person who they believe has done them deep harm. The only real difference is the mob in Ferguson can’t find the object of their desire for justice and drag him into the street. I have no doubt they would if they could.

And that is the second problem exemplified by Ferguson. A problem nobody seems to want to discuss. That problem may be somewhat less important to many than the problem of the treatment by authorities of young black men, but it is just as endemic and very dangerous and very personal, and ultimately may be one of the reasons for the first problem.

Our society has come to believe something that is very dangerous. We have decided that the ends justify the means. There could be a whole book written about who is to blame or how this has come to pass. People can blame popular culture, they can blame the “media,” they can blame all sorts of things. Nevertheless we have decided utilitarianism is the way to go. Utilitarianism is essentially an ends justify the means philosophy. The greatest good for the greatest number. Kill one person to save a hundred. Torture someone to save thousands. Commit injustice to get justice.

This has given those in Ferguson the belief that to hell with the Grand Jury, to hell with the Law, we want Justice and we will get it by hook or by crook. That is the mob mentality. What nobody will say is that it is that same exact view, that same exact morality, which allowed Officer Wilson to shoot in the first place. The ends justify the means. A young black man charges you, shoot him. It takes a criminal off the street and it saves your life. Unarmed doesn’t matter. The ends justify the means. A young unarmed black man is shot. String up the shooter. Torch the community. Set fire to police cars. Shoot the police. Then there will be justice. The ends justify the means.

The ends never justify the means. It is not right to torture, it is not right to kill an unarmed man without just cause, it is not right to get revenge, it is not right to string someone up without a trial.

In an Op Ed for the New York Times, Michelle Alexander said “The system is legally rigged so that poor people guilty of relatively minor crimes are regularly sentenced to decades behind bars while police officers who kill unarmed black men almost never get charged, much less serve time in prison.” That is true and deeply unjust. But the focus should be on that system not on Darren Wilson. If the law is not followed, if we simply reject the findings of the Grand Jury because we disagree with them, we are no better than a lynch mob. We want to change the system. We should protest on behalf of all the young black victims, not against a single white cop in an individual situation. We should protest against a society that has branded a segment, not against a cop whose individual thought process we have not examined. We should protest against prosecutors in general, authority in general, laws that have a negative effect, the failure to train, the promotion of violence, the misuse of power. All those are legitimate objects of our protest. We should not try to virtually lynch a cop in the name of “Justice,” just because we object to the way the law happened to come out in this instance. That is a dangerous path down which there are very frightening things.

Obama, Obamacare, the Shutdown and the Strategy

What people say in Washington, what they do in Washington and what they think in Washington are all different things.  As I write this, it appears that the US will avoid the potential cliff of debt default and continuing government shutdown.  As Winston Churchill said “We can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all the other possibilities.”

I want to step back and look at this from a different, more political standpoint.  Most of this is pure speculation, but I believe it bears us thinking about it.

We start with the premise that, despite all the talking heads rhetoric, Barack Obama, John Boehner, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Eric Cantor, the Tea Party, the Republicans and the Democrats are none of them idiots or politically naïve. In this “debate” they have all made very calculated political decisions based upon one strategy or another.  If you believe that Washington politicians work on anything other than political calculus, that they are somehow altruistically striving for the best interests of all Americans, like they say they are, you and I should have a conversation about a bridge I am selling.  Some have won and some have lost and some have lived to fight another day, but all have made calculated strategic decisions and that’s what I want to talk about.

In my view, the President has won this battle decisively.  In the White House, behind closed doors they are high fiving all around.  Barack Obama is a Chicago machine politician.  Nobody wants to say it or talk about it, but if you can’t see it you are blind.  In the immortal words of Jerry Seinfeld “Not that that’s a bad thing.” It just is.  He and his people played a masterful game with this budget deal because they saw an opportunity to deal a real blow, perhaps a crippling blow to their arch nemesis the Republican Party by possibly permanently dividing it.

The President, knowing he is toxic to Republicans, repeatedly and publicly marginalized and demonized the Tea Party.  By doing so he was able to take the metaphoric high ground (not in any way the moral high ground) on the battle field.  By coming out he laid blame while at the same time inflaming divisive passions in the opposition. He recognized that the adults in the Republican room would recognize the dangers to the economy and he believed, correctly, that the country would hate the Republicans more than him.  At the same time, he drove the wedge deeper into a split that already existed in the Republican Party.  His decision had nothing to do with Obamacare or the good of the country.  It had everything to do with politics.

Of course he was able, and has been able, to do this without getting his hands too dirty.  Like a good machine politician he has people to carry his water, namely Harry Reid in the Senate.  Obama has completely solidified his position while dividing the opposition.  Its really very simple divide and conquer is always a good strategy.  Now, if he is unable to get anything done he can maintain this theme that the Tea Party is to blame.  He can look like a conciliator while maintaining a relatively hard liberal line, because he now has a target for any problems.  A designated blamee.

Now, he can and has come out looking like a diplomat, a cool head, a person who wants to get together and get things done.  For somebody who has in fact created much of the divisiveness, that is quite an accomplishment.  You have to admire his political acumen. 

The Republicans and in fact the Tea Party has lost in this battle, big time.  The President has boxed them into a corner where they will find it hard to come to unity.  They made a strategic decision to take a hard line and use a crisis and the President called their bluff.  Because it was a bluff.  The old line Republicans were never going to let the crisis come to fruition. They may have made a strategic decision that basically said, look if we allow the Tea Party to carry on this brinksmanship one of two things will happen, either the President will cave and we will win, or the Tea Party will be damaged and we will take a hit, but we will get these idiots off our back.

All of them made a mistake.  They all utterly discounted the reaction of the American people, even Obama.  His rhetoric softened considerably when the polls came out saying that Americans hated everybody, that the Democrats were taking a hit, and oh, by the way, Obamacare wasn’t going so well. 

At the end of the day, this has been political brinksmanship in the big leagues.  It has had almost nothing to do with making things “right” for the American people.

Passport for Texas

I had to share the following. It is an absolutely true story.  It happened to a friend of mine this week.

I’ve been audited by the state of California for 2010 (when I relocated [to Texas] so CA didn’t like the fact I stopped paying state income tax). Have to prove when I moved and a variety of other things. I thought would share one of their questions and validations of proof of my relocation. I told the nice lady in Sacramento that I moved to Texas in July 2010 and she said well one of the things you can use to prove you moved is the stamp in your passport when you got to Texas. I’m not making this up. I repeated I moved to Texas, not out of the country’…she said that’s OK it will still work as proof of when you actually left California. 

I’m thinking of just stamping a longhorn onto my passport with the line “fuck you I’m from Texas” underneath the longhorn and sending it in with the paperwork. 

This is your government at work.  Your tax dollars spent on raising more tax dollars and limit your freedom of movement.  Wow.

Newsroom – Good TV, Even if One-Sided

The first season of Newsroom is in the books. I musts say I loved it, primarily because the writers are so good. Sorkin’s rapid fire dialog and wit are really unmatched, certainly on television. That said, what you want to say to the whole thing after a while is “Aw come on.” The premise is good and straightforward - that news television, like all television, is run by a bunch of marketers and we would all be better served by having reporters report the news, instead of marketers feeding us the drug of "Casey Anthony Bombshell Tonight!!!" like heroin dealers. The wit and wisdom of Aaron Sorkin, unfortunately, only takes us so far. At the end we all feel like everyone does when Will McAvoy is just plain vicious and mean spirited to the black advocate for Rick Santorum on the show. The show in the end just piles onto the Tea Party without respite(not exactly a “hard” target) or counterpoint (or really give us anything else to sink our teeth into) and is just kind of nasty about it.

In truth the Newsroom, like Fox News in the real world, despite its protestations to the contrary, is only one-sidedly idealistic. McAvoy even says in the last episode that only “democrats and 'real' republicans” are smart enough to understand, implying of course that all democrats and only a very few outcast republicans are smart. The idea that tea party republicans are stupid is both demeaning and naïve. The leadership of the tea party is not stupid nor are the members. The leadership is smart and the members are pissed off for legitimate reason. The 2010 election was won by republicans (many from the tea party), not because of tea party venality, but because of democratic bullying and refusal to compromise on health care among other things. The American people were tired of Nancy and Harry running rough shod over everyone and everything simply because they could.

This is not a show about the “truth” as it purports to be, but a show about one side's view of the truth. Exactly like Fox News. The truth is that most Americans believe both the far right represented by the tea party and the republican leadership, and the far left represented by the democratic leadership, are bad for the country and Newsroom-worthy. It’s fine to report the corruption and big money behind the tea party movement, but if one is wondering about the Kochs, shouldn’t one also wonder about the sons of Richard J. Daley and the Chicago machine? I have always wondered why it isn’t news that Junior Senator Obama’s house in Chicago was partially paid for by a convicted felon who helped run the Chicago machine and why no one raises an eyebrow when Richey Daley steps down, Rahm Emmanuel goes from chief of staff at the White House to mayor of Chicago and Richey Dailey’s brother becomes chief of staff. Isn’t that something that makes somebody go “hmmmm…?” After all the Chicago machine, run for years by the Daleys, is one of the most corrupt political machines in American political history (and machine politics' last real surviving example). Just ask JFK or Richard Nixon (or just about any native Chicagoan).

This is also not a show about reality, as some reviewers would have us believe is its failure. The good thing about this show is the same as the good thing about the West Wing. It is idealistic. It is how you would wish newsrooms around the country could be run. Truth-seeking, fact based, not concerned with ratings or marketing or fluff, willing to step up against the established political and business elite including the marketing people running the companies who own the news. So it is unrealistic. That is exactly the point. So it is one sided. So what? Of course one sidedness is remediable, but I doubt Sorkin et al will remediate it. The show does what a good, in the vernacular of Sorkin, “swashbuckling” drama should do; it presents us with idealism and realizes that ideal in the fictional world. Idealism is always “unrealistic.” That’s why it’s called idealism, not realism. Mchale and McAvoy are ideals and idealists, and a lot of fun in their quirky way. And that’s what it, and they, should be – fun. Kind of like the Three Musketeers or Captain Blood. The show’s oft cited Don Quixote, which is a tale pointing out the unreality of idealism at the same time as it points to its value, is really an analogy for the show itself and less an analogy for what the characters on the show are doing.

So, in the end the show is fun, idealistic, swashbuckling and witty with good writing.  The only thing more you could want on a Sunday evening is maybe a little beating up on the other guys. They deserve it too.

The Tragedy of Tyler Clementi and Dharun Ravi

Ok, gay and lesbian community, you can put away the torches and nooses, you’ve got your lynching.  Dharun Ravi could go to prison for ten years. From what I have heard and seen, that is what will satisfy the blood lust of the GLTC.  But is it right?  No, it is not.  Let’s flip it on its head.  If an 18 year old, computer savvy, supremely confident, outgoing, relatively well off gay man had a shy, unassuming, somewhat depressed, devoutly Christian room mate whom he filmed kissing an older woman and then tweeted about it (without posting the film), and then the shy room mate killed himself, would you have your nooses and torches out then?  I think not.

Is Ravi an ass? Yes. An idiotic insensitive young man?  Yes.  Did he kill Tyler Clementi or even drive him to a tragic suicide?  No.  There is absolutely no evidence that Tyler killed himself because of this incident, other than timing. One wonders what a Psychiatrist would say about the likelihood that these tweets, which Tyler had in fact confronted and discussed with Ravi, caused a person to become suicidal in the few days that elapsed before his suicide.  In fact, the case was not at all based on the idea that Ravi caused Tyler’s death.  The “hate crime” was invasion of privacy, not manslaughter, not bullying, not harassment.  Now it is true that Tyler knew of the invasion and was upset by it and asked for a change in room mate.  But it is also true that he knew how to take care of it, he had already said something about it to Ravi.  When he invited his boy friend back to his room again after he knew of the filming, he did what most intelligent people would do.  He turned off Ravi’s computer and unplugged it and he searched for other cameras.  He had already requested a room change, but had refused the offer of different accommodations in the mean time. Does that sound like the actions of someone so upset by the incident that it would cause suicide? No.  Everything one hears and reads indicates that Tyler was not a happy young man. His suicide is tragic.  Does that mean the Ravi drove him to it and is to blame? No it does not.

Lisa Bloom will tell you that Ravi showed his “anti-gay animus” by his famous tweet – “Roommate asked for the room till midnight. I went into molly’s room and turned on my webcam. I saw him making out with a dude. Yay”  I am not so sure that you can get that from the tweet, unless you have already decided it is true.  And in any event the tweet was not directed at Tyler or even alleged to be directed at him, but Tyler found it and knew of it.  At that is why Ravi is going to jail. Did he intend to intimidate? No, and the jury did not find him guilty of intentional intimidation. He didn’t publish the video which was about 2 seconds, he didn’t go on a campaign of harassment, he didn’t invade somebody’s Facebook page with animosity and meanness. They say he showed this “anti-gay animus” through some tweets, and Tyler knew about it and he felt intimidated and that (coupled with the webcam invasion of privacy) is a hate crime with a punishment of imprisonment for up to 10 years and likely deportation, despite the fact that he has lived here virtually his entire life (one wonders, incidentally if he was from Mexico not India, if people would now be outraged about the deportation).  Beware all, if you don’t agree with your roommate's religious beliefs, sexual orientation, don’t tweet it, don’t say anything about it, and don’t let your roommate find out about it.  Keep it to yourself or you could go to jail for 10 years.  And that presumably goes for everyone.  If you are Gay, don’t complain about being in a room with a right wing Christian.  He or she might be intimidated, and you could go to jail, especially if you tweet about observing him constantly reading the bible or something weird like that, Yay.

Ravi had a lousy attorney and New Jersey had a good one.  Ravi arrogantly refused a plea deal with no jail time and “assistance” against deportation.  A very good deal.  But if all you did was tweet about an incident, in the same way you have tweeted forever about everything, why would you think you committed a hate crime?

No doubt, if anyone actually reads this, I will be subject to vitriol for defending Dharun Ravi, but I don’t think lynchings (either literal or figurative as in this case) are good no matter who is the victim or the perpetrator, and really no matter how heinous his or her crimes.  Read about the case, take a look at the facts not what the talking heads say, but the facts. You might change your view.

Technorati Tags: Tyler Clementi,Dharun Ravi,Gay,Lesbian,Hate Crime,Politics,Lisa Bloom,New Jersey,Court,Society,Social Media,Suicide

Tax Spending Reductions?

What?!

In his speech last night, the President said a couple of things that just drove me crazy.

“The fourth step in our approach is to reduce spending in the tax code.”

“the tax code is also loaded up with spending on things like itemized deductions.”

“the Fiscal Commission’s model of reducing tax expenditures.”

I hate politicians exactly because of this type of insane, dishonest and arrogant language.  Has no one read “1984”?  Does no one understand what it means when the Government starts to say things like “War is peace” or “Love is hate” or “taking money is reducing spending”?

“Reduce spending in the tax code” means raise taxes. Now to the President’s credit, he did mention that others might say “we shouldn’t even consider raising taxes.”  But is that the same as saying in multiple places, with emphasis, that he wants to “reduce spending in the tax code” instead of saying he wants to raise taxes?  Why not just say it?  Taking our money is not reducing spending, its increasing taxes, its taking our money.  This President is so political and disingenuous he makes George Bush look like a good President. And that is from someone who not only voted for Obama but contributed significantly to his campaign. What a mistake.

Now to the more substantive issues.  Obama has shown himself more and more to be a “populist” in the worst sort of way. A rabble rouser. An inciter of mobs.  Tax the rich.  Who could argue with that?  Who can argue that Warren Buffet and Barack Obama shouldn’t pay their “fair share.”  Except, as we all know, that isn’t the truth.  That isn’t who will be paying and that isn’t who will be provided disincentives from making money.

I live in California and I admit it, I make a good salary and I am probably in that 2% which sounds so great. I certainly can’t cry poverty. But the truth is I am not like those people. I can’t afford a private jet. I have to work.  In Orange County, CA, I live in an apartment because buying a house in a decent neighborhood for under $1 million is damn near impossible. I work 50-60 hours a week for a salary.  Since I have no house I have no deductions and because I live in the great State of California my tax rate is increased by 10%.  No “reducing tax spending” on me Mister President, you’re already taking almost half my salary.  And under the Obama plan you will make me work half time for the government. What is my incentive for doing so? Why work?  I’m in my fifties.  Maybe I should just retire on my savings and call it a day?  Why should I spend half my time working hard, staying away from my family, sitting in an office, in order to pay for a government that is badly run, inefficient, accomplishes little and treats me badly? What incentive do I have.  Hell, with what I have saved over the years, I could get a lower paying job that goes 9-5, has no stress and allows me time to enjoy life and I would get to pay less.

And I am not the worst example by any means.  What incentive does a young entrepreneurial hard working smart kid have? How many will be discouraged by the fact that they have to work 24 hours a day and be treated poorly by the government, told they are just like Buffet and should therefore pay for the abuse, inefficiency and stifling regulation that makes their business difficult to begin with?  How many will simply turn away?  When will democrats learn that taking money gives people less incentive to work for that money?  When will they realize how arrogant they sound when they talk about taking more of that money as “reducing spending.” 

Listen buddy, you are taking our money.  In our book that is increasing spending, not reducing it.  What do you think? That its your money to begin with and leaving it our hands is “spending”?   There is no “spending” in the tax code.  There is only taking.  It’s our money and you are taking it.  If you take more of it, you are increasing spending not decreasing it.  And after you take it, you waste it and give the people who need it much less than you take from us.  It’s highway robbery.  If the US government was a charity, I wouldn’t give, not because I don’t believe in the cause, but because the administrative costs are criminally high.  That’s why I won’t vote for you.  Of course I may be staying home if the only alternatives the opponents can give me is Bachmann, Trump or Romney.

Technorati Tags: Obama,Democrats,Republicans,Budget,Taxes,Government

Lacking Leaders, the Parties Bicker

I doubt I am the only one in America who is tired of political bickering.  You only had to watch Anderson Cooper last night to understand why the idiots in Washington can’t get anything done.  Two “pundits” from opposite sides of the aisle just couldn’t help themselves from going at it like a couple of schoolyard six year olds.  And David Gergen looked like the frustrated teacher who could only shake his head in frustration, when he should have said “Look you couple of disingenuous idiots, you’re both wrong and you’re both playing politics with real peoples lives.  Why can’t your respective leaderships shut up about who is right and who is wrong and get something done.  A compromise.  You do know what compromise is don’t you?”  But he didn’t.  He tried to be civil and the conversation decended into what continued today:

Democrat: You did it.

Republican: Nuh, uhh, you did it.

Democrat: Did not

Republican: Did so

Democrat: But you’re throwing women under the bus

Republican: Am not

Democrat: Are so

Republican: But you just want to spend, spend, spend

Democrat: Nuh, uhh.

Republican: Yes sir.

Democrat: Not

Republican: You started it

Democrat: After you did

Etc..Etc..Etc..

And we wonder why we devolved into recession, debt and unemployment.  Just look at Washington.  With leaders like this, what could we expect?

Technorati Tags: Republicans,Democrats,Budget,Politics,Tea Party,Washington,CNN,Economics

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