We Need Lots Of Plans!

I’m really getting tired of Republicans carping that Democrats complain about Iraq, but have no plan of their own. If they mean a single plan that all Democrats agree on, then they’re right. The Republicans certainly have a single plan they all agree on and look where it’s gotten us. They can’t even acknowledge that “We’ll stand down as the Iraqi’s stand up.” is not a plan, it is a hope, a wish, and more recently, a prayer. I don’t want Democrats to come up with a single plan and I wish Republicans with the guts to take on this administration would express their true feelings. I heard an articulate and reasonable Senator Chuck Hagel this weekend. I’d like to hear more of his real thoughts on the war. We need new ideas; lots of new ideas. Politicians should be encouraged to suggest lots of plans. If the pros and cons of each are discussed with an open mind, we might really figure out what a true exit strategy is.

We don’t need a plan from the Democrats that they will feel compelled to defend lest they be called “wafflers”. If the Democrats could come up with a single plan, what good would it do them? They are in no position to do anything about it. They are in no position to implement any of it. It would just give a single point for Republicans to attack. As the situation changes and new proposals and options are suggested, these ideas would be ridiculed as just more examples of the lack of Democrat’s resolve. Democrats, as individuals, have made many suggestions. Some have actually been borrowed by the administration, but no one is ever going to give them any credit. Democrats should continue to talk about their concerns and ideas, even if they don’t have an all inclusive plan. Not many politicians or people agree with Representative Murtha’s plan to pull out of Iraq immediately, but no one can deny that he has moved the discussion and thinking forward. We need more suggestions.

I recently heard several people on the talk shows suggest that dissent and discussion in this country only strengthens the resolve of people like the insurgents in Iraq. The implication is that opponents should shut up and support the President. Not only would this spell the end of the Democratic Party, it is not how a democracy works. People seem to believe that it is OK to have their phone tapped as long as someone promises security in return. Would they really give up their right to dissent also? Do the pundits realize that governments and citizens that project a single policy or opinion are usually called dictatorships?

Senator Dianne Feinstein was on Hardball with Chris Matthews (MSNBC) tonight. She did an excellent job of laying out the problems in Iraq and suggesting a course of action. For those of you who think Democrats have no ideas, get a copy of her interview. She made more sense in three minutes than the President has in the last three months. I understand that as a Senator she has more freedom to make certain kinds of statements than the President, but that is the very reason we need people like her to speak out.

As the ’08 presidential campaign heats up and a Democratic presidential candidate is chosen, I would expect that the Democrats will try to project a united front with a common solution to our problems. I’m sure that after the Democrat’s presidential candidate is elected, the party will break down into nuanced discussions, heated policy arguments, wishy-washy policies and general political disarray. Just the kind of energy, soul searching, flexibility and responsiveness that keeps a democracy energized.

Technorati Tags: Political President Bush Iraq Exit Strategy

Trees For Schools

The U.S. Forest Service is getting ready to sell about 300,000 acres of land in 32 states to finance the Secure Rural Schools Act (SRSA). This is about 200 square miles of land. This land is typically forest land in national forests. Once this land is sold, cut for wood and/or mined, we can never replace it. There must be other ways to fund these schools.

What do we do in five years when we again need money for SRSA? Sell more land? What do we sell when we run out of forests?

Missouri, where I live, doesn't have any large national parks. The closest we come is our national forests and we don't want to lose them. The Forest Service plans to sell 21,000 acres of forest in Missouri.

One doesn't have to be cynical to believe this sale is more about making resources available to business that funding a program. I'm sure the thinking was "Who can argue with selling a few trees in order to educate children?" Certainly not this administration which is always ready to give business a helping hand. By the way, the Forest Service is already looking for more forest land to sell.

Technorati Tags: Technorati Tags: Political Forest Service SRSA Environment

Illegals Not Welcome

If we agree that illegal immigration is a problem we must solve and mass immigration of unskilled workers is a problem we should solve, what are some things we can do to solve these problems? (See my previous post 'Is Illegal Immigration A Problem?')

Increasing border security is high on the list. I've heard a combination of proposals. Physical walls. Virtual walls. More agents. All these sound good, but these actions alone will not solve illegal immigration.

If we really want to solve this problem, we must crack down on businesses who hire illegal immigrants. Fines for hiring illegal immigrants must be levied that are commensurate with the size of the business, the number of illegal immigrants employed and the length of time they have been employed. The punishment must be severe enough so that most employers will determine it is not worth the risk to hire undocumented workers.

People who are caught entering the US illegally should have their identity recorded and then they should be returned to Mexico (or the country they entered from). This person would never be eligible for US citizenship, a green card or a work permit. If we make it possible for more workers to enter legally and deny that option to anyone who enters illegally, we can discourage workers from entering illegally.

If someone comes to the US illegally again and are caught, they go to jail and they are no longer even eligible for a visa to visit the US. Repeat offenders would face longer jail sentences.

We should increase the number of work permits for guest workers. A guest worker must have a job before their permit is issued. There would also be a provision that bringing their family with them is not an option, although they would be required to identify their family members before a permit is granted. If their family is found to be here illegally, the penalty would be swift deportation for all. This would give workers an incentive to return home when their work permit or current employment expires. Immigrant workers who have a clean record for some number of work years (6, though not necessarily contigous years) would be allowed to apply for a green card and bring their immediate family (spouse, children and parents they had identified originally) to this country.

Maybe employers of guest workers should have to pay an hourly fee or tax to the government (local, state and federal) for these workers. This would help to reimburse governments for the extra services these immigrants might require. This would also give an incentive for hiring US workers, if they can be found, for these jobs. So, for example, if you hire a US citizen, you must pay them at least minimum wage. If you hire a guest worker, you must pay them at least minimum wage plus $2.00 an hour as a government surcharge.

Better yet, maybe companies who hire guest workers should be forced to pay a certain level of benefits (like health insurance) to ALL their employees if they hire guest workers.

The idea is to give employers incentives to hire US workers, but if they hire guest workers we minimize the financial burden on community resources that provide these workers with services (like schools, health providers, etc.).

I would like to see a requirement that all guest workers be required to have a minimum ability to read, write and speak English. This would make it easier to assimilate these workers as they progress towards a green card and possibly citizenship. Certainly, every naturalized citizen should be required to speak, read and write English.

Guest workers would, of course, be required to obey all laws. Guest workers convicted of a felony and their families would face deportation. We have a right to choose people who we believe will make positive contributions to our country.

Even if we create a plan to stop illegal immigration, there are still millions of immigrants who are here illegally. We need to determine what to do with them.

One idea would be to apply all the ideas above to people who can prove they had a job here before September 1, 2006. If they have immediate family here, they can stay, but they must be documented. Children who are not citizens must show proof that their parents are here legally before they can enroll in a school. The illegal immigrant's current employer must register these workers and agree to pay the extra fees that are required for guest workers. If they won't, the guest worker will have six months to find a new employer or be sent back to their home country. Once there, they can start over as a guest worker under the new rules. Guest workers already here would have to pass the English proficiency test within one year.

Illegal immigrants and their families who started working on or after September 1, 2006 would be required to leave the country and apply for guest worker status.

Some ideas, such as not providing education for children of illegal immigrants, may sound draconian, but without rewards and punishments we cannot solve this problem. Without sufficient incentives, nothing will change. We currently have an undocumented underclass and that is also not fair to these children.

I'm sure people more familiar with immigration issues will come up with other ideas, but I believe that if we really want to stop illegal immigration, we can. At this point it is clear that the US does not really want to stop cheap labor from entering this country.


Technorati Tags: Technorati Tags: Political Illegal Immigration

Is Illegal Immigration A Problem?

I do not believe that bringing in or allowing in unlimited, cheap, unskilled labor from Mexico is good for the US. It may be good for business. It may help the US economy in the short term, but I don't think it is good in the long term. Certainly, allowing unlimited, illegal immigration is not good for us.

I am not against immigration. We are a country of immigrants. We have a history of welcoming people, educated and uneducated, who are willing to work hard to make a better life for themselves and their families, but we are a country that faces a population problem and unlimited immigration is a big part of that problem. Also, as globalization forces our least educated (and some of our best educated) to compete against workers in other countries who will work for much less pay, we do not need to import more undereducated people. I respect that most of these people are hard working, good people, but we cannot save the world by building a third-world underclass in the US. We are really hurting ourselves by severely limiting the number of educated immigrants and students who are allowed to enter the US and allowing unrestricted immigration of unskilled workers.

I believe we can solve this problem, but I suppose we first have to agree that we have a problem and what it is.

Is the problem that illegal immigrants flouted our laws and entered illegally? Is the problem that these people are undocumented? What should happen to illegal immigrants and their families who are already here? Should they receive amnesty?

Would the problem be solved if we drastically increased the number of people who are allowed to enter the US to take a job so that illegal entry declines just because it isn't necessary?

Is the problem a porous border that not only allows good people just looking for a job to enter, but also allows easy entry for drug runners, terrorists, etc.

Is the problem the public service costs of illegal laborers? Is it the additional family members they bring who also need services?

Is the problem our law which gives US citizenship to any child born in this country even if the mother entered illegally?

Is our current population level over-stressing our environment and natural resources? The US Census Bureau says that most of the US population growth over the next 100 years will be the result of immigration, not births to current US citizens.

Do illegal immigrants depress wages? We always hear that illegals take jobs that no one else wants. If cleaning hotel rooms paid $20 an hour do you think more US citizens would apply?

Is the problem our dependence on cheap labor. How many people benefit because some people are willing to work for less than a living wage? How much would the average person's cost of living go up if all the illegal immigrants were somehow forced to leave?

Is the problem that a large number of people who only speak Spanish are creating a separate society inside the US? Are we looking forward to a bilingual society and problems like the Canadians face? There is always a tension between English and French speaking Canadian citizens. More than once there have been national referendums asking if Canada should be broken up into two countries. One speaking English, the other French. Is that our future?

Is our porous border the conscious choice of politicians who understand that without cheap labor we would face other problems for which they have no solutions? Is it just easier to let this problem fester than take the political heat for really facing the issues?

Do we need to develop an economic system that does not depend on cheap labor and continued population growth?

Obviously immigration, legal and illegal, raises many issues. These are tough problems and we do not respond to tough problems until we have no choice. Even then we tend to take the path of least resistance. While we may not yet agree on the key issues of the illegal immigration problem, we can all agree that there is a lack of clear thinking and leadership in this area.

Technorati Tags: Technorati Tags: Political Immigration Over-Population

Why Are His Numbers So Low?

I watched Hardball today and Chris Matthews asked his guests why the country would trust the President on big issues, like invading Iraq, and won't trust him on small issues like the port deal. Duh.

On Fox, I caught part of Neil Cavuto's show on Fox. Boy, is he bad. Keith Olbermann of MSNBC's Countdown should start picking on him and give poor Bill O'Reilly a few days rest.

Anyway, Neil Cavuto asked a panel of conservative sycophants why President Bush's poll numbers were so low. The consensus answer was the mainstream media won't cut him any slack.

As I see it, George Bush was a bad choice for President. He never really had what it takes. He was bad before 9/11. To his credit, when the nation was traumatized by 9/11, he and Vice-President Cheney struck the right tone of strength and stability. They reassured the nation that we could weather the storm and make the terrorists pay. He correctly went after the Taliban in Afghanistan. The nation was desperate for leadership and he did an excellent job of supplying it. Unfortunately, it has pretty much been downhill from there. The President that led us into Iraq, who cares more about money and business than people, who only respects science when it agrees with what he already believes, who thinks the environment is just a pool of natural resources waiting to be tapped, who is certainly not dumb but is slow to adjust and compromise is just the type of president we were afraid we were getting when he was elected.

People want a strong leader. They want to believe the man in charge knows what he is doing. They want to give him the benefit of the doubt since to think otherwise means they made a bad choice (twice) and they worry about what the future holds if they can no longer count on him.

What we have now is a President who does not seem capable of explaining his policies and when he tries, he talks to us like we are five year olds that just aren't capable of seeing the obvious truths he is presenting. We just don't seem to understand the obvious and the poor man doesn't know how to make his explanations any simpler for us. His only solution is to repeat his answer only this time he pauses between the words hoping the extra time will allow them to somehow penetrate our thick heads. He must be terribly frustrated. The country is so dense and getting worse everyday!

Why are the President's poll numbers so low? Because he has been doing a bad job and people can no longer ignore it.

Technorati Tags: Political President Bush Polls

What If DP World Were French Owned?

A for profit company will, in most cases, operate in a way that benefits the owners. If management fails to do this, it is usually replaced by the board of directors or the board of directors is replaced by the share holders.

When the owners are a government who may, in some circumstances, have goals other than profit, how much can we depend on their motivations? It has been suggested that the United Arab Emirates (UAE) might deny us access to their ports or airfields if we stop the acquisition of the port contract by DP World. I believe the UAE ports and airfields are considered crucial to the war in Iraq. I haven't heard that these threats have actually come from the UAE, but it does raise concerns about allowing a government owned corporation to control an operation with national security implications. If anyone in the government thinks that there is even a possibility that the UAE might deny us access if this deal fails, that should kill the deal for sure. Better to face the problem now, then have the threat hanging over us.

If DP World wanted to make umbrellas in the US we wouldn't be having this conversation. No one would care that a government owned company were engaged in a business without national security implications. If DP World were a publicly held corporation there would still be questions, but as an international public corporation the questions would be different. Publicly held corporations may or may not always have high ethical standards, but you can generally trust them to go for the money. Even governments who have been allies for centuries can find their self interests sometimes conflict with ours (think of the French). For those who think that the objections to the DP World deal are racially motivated because DP World is an Arab company, ask people how they would feel if DP World were owned by the French government. I suspect the reaction would be just as strong. The possibility that port operations might be disrupted if we had a disagreement with the French government would be unacceptable.

I've heard the argument that a company owned by the Chinese government has been running a port in California. Instead of a 45 day review of a deal we all know is already dead, we should spend the 45 days reviewing that arrangement. If we can't undo it at this point, we should turn the security spotlight on this arrangement. Should the government prepare a contingency plan to take over operation of the port if the Chinese should try to use this company to change US policy instead of generate profits?

Again, I am not suggesting that either the UAE or Chinese companies involved here are anything but businesses trying to make a profit, but we shouldn't compromise national security just to maintain our free market rep. We also shouldn't give ourselves a potential national security problem to pay back the UAE for access to their ports and airfields. I hope that the UAE feels that our use of their airfields and ports is also in their national and regional interests. If we need to pay back the UAE, let's find another way.

Technorati Tags: Political Ports UAE

What Does A Port Operator Do?

Just what exactly will DP World (the United Arab Emirates company causing the recent contoversy) be doing at the six ports it is scheduled to take over? As is usually the case, you first hear a lot of claims from both sides and only well into the story do people start giving you the facts you need to know to have a reasoned opinion.

The opponents concentrate on the resume of the UAE and how we shouldn't trust our ports to another country. The proponents claim that security will still be under the control of the Coast Guard and Homeland Security. I believe it was Secretary Chertoff who reminded us that cargo will still be moved under the watchful eyes of the International Dock Workers. I can believe and appreciate that the dock workers are doing their part, but this is probably the first nice thing a Republican has said about a union in thirty years.

What will DP World actually be responsible for? Scheduling ships in and out of the port? Loading and unloading cargo? Seeing that containers get moved out of the port and onto their next destination? That's the impression I've gotten, but I'd like to hear their duties spelled out. Administration groupies keep insisting that security is still in the hands of the Coast Guard and Homeland Security. Those who have a problem with this deal don't understand that the ports will be just as safe with DP World. If this were a bank, would you hire a reformed crook as a teller? Even if you have the same guard at the front door?

I have to believe that it would be easier for the port operator or an employee of the port operator to out-flank the security, if they were so inclined, than you or I. Could an employee in Dubia working with an employee in New York have a better chance of getting illicit cargo into this country? Common sense says yes.

I'm still not saying this is a bad deal, but I'm tired of administration mouths acting like we are just as secure no matter who is running the port. Critics say this administration has become tone deaf, I wonder if they haven't just lost their common sense.


Technorati Tags: Political Ports UAE

Payback or Payoff?

I take the administration at its word that having six major ports in the US run by a company owned by the United Arab Emirates is not a problem. It sounds like the government has done a pretty thorough job of thinking this through. But for an administration that never misses an opportunity so show how strong they are on national security, their current position seems strange.

The country and politicians from both sides of the aisle are lining up against this deal. It's a no brainer position to take. So why would the President say if the Congress votes to stop the deal he will use his FIRST veto to make sure it goes through? If he doesn't change his position and actually fights to get this deal done, I think we'll all be smelling a rat. If the President keeps fighting for the UAE to get these contracts you can a bet this is a big time payoff or payback for something. I'm not suggesting that there is anything illegal here, but the UAE must have done something REALLY BIG for the President to take such a REALLY BIG political hit.

Hmmm. Do you think that besides operating other countries' ports the UAE might have a side business operating other countries' jails?


Technorati Tags: Political Ports UAE

Mohammed Cartoons

I struggled with the cartoon issue for a while because I thought that printing cartoons that were offensive to Muslims was wrong. Since then I've listened to other opinions.

My understanding is that these cartoons were intended to make a political statement or a humorous statement, and not demean a religion. If that is true, I see no reason they shouldn't have been printed. If a political cartoon offends some people or a lot of people, so what? Political cartoons usually offend someone. If you are offended, there are many ways to express your outrage. Stop reading the publication. Send letters to the editor explaining why the material is offensive or patently incorrect or unfair. You can encourage others to boycott the publication and/or its advertisers. As you can see, none of these includes any kind of violence or threats of violence.

If Muslims in Denmark were extremely outraged, they could protest as explained above or they could emigrate to a country where freedom of speech is not the law or culture and such outrageous cartoons are not allowed. I'm not suggesting that Muslims should not be welcomed as guests or citizens of Denmark, but living in a country obligates you to some acceptance of its culture or at least some acceptance of the legal ways to change the culture or laws. Denmark is a country with free speech. If you just can't accept that, move on. It is not that hard to move from one country to another to find laws and culture that are acceptable to you. Voting with your feet is an honored tradition in the US.

The Danish Muslims who took their outrage to the Middle East are the real villains here. They created a controversy where there shouldn't have been one. The Danes did not force the cartoons to be shown in countries where they would be seen as blasphemous. While the cartoons may not have been appropriate in a Muslim country, they are acceptable in Denmark and many other countries. Even if they are outrageous.

I recently read an article where Muslims in the Middle East complained that they don't get the respect they feel they deserve. They have a culture and religion with a rich history of accomplishments that rivals any ancient religion or culture, yet no one takes them seriously. Of course, that is the heart of the problem. Other cultures have moved on. Modern societies move toward freedom, the rule of law, individual responsibility, tolerance, diversity, understanding, science and reason. Unfortunately, the out of proportion outrage of many Muslims only proves that they are not ready to join the modern world. Burning down their cities and killing their own people does nothing to gain the respect of the rest of the world. It actually isolates them even more. Burning down a McDonald's restaurant to protest a religious infraction is humorous and makes the protesters look foolish. If a martyr's reward in heaven is seventy virgins, what do you get for burning down a McDonald's? A big Mac, fries and a medium diet Coke.

Do some Muslims really believe that if anyone, anywhere breaks one of their religious laws or does something to offend them they have the right or duty to kill that person? If we gave these same rights to all religions the entire world would be at war all the time. Obviously people who believe such nonsense do not deserve respect or the deference they are being given.

I do not approve of reprinting the cartoons just to show the rioters that we can print them or to intentionally offend Muslims. I don't approve of reprinting the cartoons if their content is designed to enrage rather encourage reflection. But I think editors should reprint the cartoons that are not patently offensive to the general readership of their publication when writing stories about the rioting. An editor must decide whether or not the cartoons are truly offensive to a significant part of his/her readers. If they are offensive, don't reprint them; just report their content. But to not reprint the cartoons that are not offensive to the general population is a form of censorship imposed by a religion. In this case a religion that seems to believe it can censor the entire world. That is unacceptable.

Technorati Tags: Political Mohammed Cartoons

Brit, WTHWYT?

On FOX News Sunday, Brit Hume and his colleagues mocked the DC press corps for their response to the Vice-President's shooting incident. They couldn't understand why the press couldn't accept that this was just an accident and have more empathy with the Vice-President's pain.

They failed to mention that Brit Hume asked the most ridiculous question of the week. Vice-President Cheney handpicked Brit Hume to interview him about an understandably sensitive issue and Brit, in his excitement, must have forgotten where he was. He must have thought he had his dream gig and was on Saturday Night Live.

Here is part of the actual interview from the White House web site:

Q How far away from you was he?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I'm guessing about 30 yards, which was a good thing. If he'd been closer, obviously, the damage from the shot would have been greater.

Q Now, is it clear that -- he had caught part of the shot, is that right?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: -- part of the shot. He was struck in the right side of his face, his neck and his upper torso on the right side of his body.

Q And you -- and I take it, you missed the bird.

You missed the bird!!!!!! Who cares what happened to the bird?

Brit! Have you given up your RNC aspirations and joined PETA?

What The Hell Were You Thinking?

Technorati Tags: Political Brit Hume Cheney WTHWYT

Will We Always Be At War?

A few weeks ago, during the NSA press conference, the President promised that he would fight any attempts to disclose more details about the NSA wiretapping program. He said to do so would aid the terrorists which proves, as we've suspected, that there is more to this program than we know. He claims that to reveal more information would only aid our enemies, but cynics point out that it also makes it harder to question the legality, scope and necessity of the program.

The President keeps reminding us that we are in a war. I'm about the same age as the President and I have seen several wars come and go.

The Korean War (Actually, for political reasons, it was called a police action.)
The Cold War
The Vietnam War
The War on Drugs
The War on Poverty
The War in the Balkans
The First Gulf War
The War in Afghanistan
The War in Iraq

I believe in this time frame we also had wars on cancer and the gypsy moth and a few others. I'm not trying to belittle the serious threat of Islamic terrorism, but war is a term that we use quite loosely to describe a condition where we will use our full resources to "win". While you might not put the war on terrorism in the same category as the war on poverty or drugs, you could make a case that the Cold War posed a much more serious threat to this country than Islamic terrorism. The President justifies any action that he wants to take on the fact that we are in a war. At his news conference he vowed to keep renewing his authorization of NSA wiretapping until the threat of terrorism is removed. Implicit in this statement was the assertion, "and I don't care what you think about it".

Does he ever listen to his own speechs? He has already told us that the war on terror will take a long time to win. Does he believe there is any possibility we can win the war on terrorism before his term expires? Does he even have an estimate of when the war on terrorism might be won? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? How will we even know when we've won? Common sense tells us that as long as there are people who are willing to die for their cause there will be terrorism. Terrorism evolves. New groups with grievances will emerge and terrorism is an efficient way for the less powerful to influence the powerful. So even if we destroy al Qaida tomorrow, it is reasonable that some other group will take its place demanding the attention of the world with outrageous acts. The very threat that a group might evolve into another al Qaida will be enough to justify a continued war on terrorism.

The President has said something like, "We have to get it right all the time, the terrorists only have to succeed once." I can understand the logic, but this kind of reasoning will always lead presidents to interpret laws and civil liberties in a way that gives them the most flexibility to do whatever they feel is necessary. As President Bush has shown, presidents are more afraid of being wrong once than on worrying too much about legalities. From a president's point of view, the prudent course is to secretly bend the rules. As the NSA wiretapping issue has shown, if your actions are discovered and your authority is questioned you argue that what you are doing is legal under your expanded war powers. Even if it is not legal, it is essential to national security. Either way, those arguments are easier to defend than trying to explain why some city was blown up on your watch. I can understand why presidents would think this way, but these are false choices and it is the responsibility of congress, the courts, the press and all citizens to make sure the executive branch does not lose perspective. There are fates worse than death. There are more serious threats to the nation than terrorist attacks. I can imagine a devastating attack in the US, but to ignore the constitution to prevent an attack is like making a pact with the devil. Somewhere along the line the devil will need to be paid.

I think you can argue that terrorism will be a popular tool for the foreseeable future. Even if we cleaned up all the loose nuclear material (which we are not working hard enough to accomplish), terrorists will turn to biological and chemical weapons (which as technology improves will probably be easier to create and deliver than nuclear bombs). The genie is out of the bottle; from here on we will face attacks by terrorists using weapons of mass destruction. Does that mean we will forever be on a war footing where a president can place himself above the law by invoking his duty to protect us? Presidents of any party will try. We give them every reason to feel that the fate of the country rests, in the end, on them and them alone. Given that charge it is reasonable to expect that they will use every resource at their disposal to do what they feel is necessary. And while their oath to the constitution should keep their actions within the law, the consequences of a mistake and the glaucoma of power make the dark side almost irresistible. That is why we have checks and balances. That is why we have to ask questions that, to some, may look unpatriotic.

You may believe President Bush to be true of heart and a pillar of virtue. You may accept that whatever the President does, he does with the sole intention of saving lives and protecting the nation. But what if, heaven forbid, a Democrat were elected at sometime in the future and claimed these same powers. Would you be comfortable allowing that president to authorize questionable actions in the name of the war on (fill in the current group) terrorism? Keep in mind that technology to spy on us is constantly improving. How long will it be before the NSA has the capacity to monitor EVERY phone call or email in this country? How large must an attack or a threat be before the use of such technology is rationalized? They may even be able to do that now; how would we know?

I'm not suggesting that we don't try to intercept communications between terrorists. I'm not suggesting that we stop the NSA wiretapping program. I am suggesting that this NSA program exposes the administration's belief that immediate threats are more important than laws, civil liberties and the constitution. I am asserting that "war" does not mean that the checks and balances provided by the legislative and judicial branches are diminished. If the NSA wire tapping is as legal and necessary as the administration claims, they need to prove it to Congress and the courts.

The President and his administration claim that since we are in a war, they have additional power and authority. They claim that some of our constitutional checks and balances don't apply during a war. If the President wants to claim extra powers because we are in a war, I would like to hear how we will know we are no longer in a war. The President keeps telling us this is a new kind of war. OK, how about a new definition of how we will know we have won. Without some definition of how we will know the war on terrorism is over we have basically changed the constitution, probably forever. Aren't you concerned about that?

Technorati Tags: Political Wire Taps War Constitution

Philosophy 101

If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, did it make a sound? To non-philosophers that question probably sounds silly. How about another version more in tune with the times?

If you say something that you know is untrue, but there is no way that anyone can prove it is false, did you really tell a lie?

Technorati Tags: Political

Brit For RNC Chair, II

I've written a couple of posts suggesting that Brit Hume of Fox News should replace Ken Mehlman as Chair of the Republican National Committee (RNC). I think the Vice-President seconded that nomination when he chose Brit for his interview this week.

Brit Hume For RNC Chair!

Technorati Tags: Political Brit Hume

Down With Earmarks

Tonight's edition of Now, on PBS, was about Congressional earmarks. If you missed it, you can read about the issues on the PBS web site.

The Now report made me sick.

We've been watching the Abramoff scandal unfold where a lobbyist is accused of buying votes and influence. Instead of voting for issues based on merit, some legislators may be selling their votes to the highest bidder. One of the ways to pay back a lobbyist is to slip an earmark into a bill, often when no one is looking. An earmark is a targeted appropriation. How can you slip something into a bill when no one is looking? You needed to see the Now report.

What we learned this evening is that a similar kind of unprincipled trading of votes for favors by a few is taking place all the time in the Senate and House by almost all members. The leadership in Congress buys votes by giving individual legislators money from the budget to spend in any way they like, usually for projects in their districts. The Senator or Representative then have earmarks added to bills to designate exactly how "their" money will be spent. For example, someone in the leadership says, "Vote for X and we'll give you 50 million dollars in the new highway bill that you can earmark anyway you like." Or in the case of the Alaskan Bridge To Nowhere, 1.5 billion! The money that the Congressman or Senator gets to earmark and spend in his district buys votes in the next election. As was pointed out in the Now broadcast, would it be better to spend 1.5 billion dollars for a bridge to nowhere or spend that 1.5 billion dollars to rebuild the Lake Ponchatrain bridge badly damaged by hurricane Katrina? The Senate decided Alaska needed its bridge more than New Orleans. In the case of the Bridge To Nowhere, the public was at least aware of this travesty thanks to a Oklahoman Senator Tom Coburn.

Trading favors is not new and will continue to happen, but the current incarnation of this bartering is obscene. Most Senators and Congressmen trade votes for future political success and the currency is earmarks in last minute hidden legislation.

Many earmarks happen in the dead of night when no one is watching. Some powerful Senators or Representatives can slip legislation into a bill at the last minute. Although there are rules that require all parts of a bill be made public at least three days before the bill is voted on, that rule is frequently broken. Legislators often find that they have voted for something they never knew was in the bill.

Write your Senators and Representatives and insist that all legislation, including the earmarks, be made public at least three working days before they are voted on. A Senator or Representative should never have to vote on legislation that they or their staff have not had time to review. While that only seems like common sense, that is not what is happening now. Also, all earmarks should be required to include the name of the legislator who proposed it. Another idea is to allow points of order against individual provisions in conference reports that were not contained in either the House or Senate version of the bill (see Power Struggle Over Pork by Jonathan Allen for a better description of these ideas).

Not only will these proposals help stop corruption from outside, like from lobbyists, it might weaken the strangle hold that the political parties now have (see my post Goodbye, Karl) and allow legislators to vote their conscience and not just what the party requires.

Technorati Tags: Political

I'd Like To See A Diagram

No one believes Vice-President Cheney intentionally shot Mr. Whittington, but in all the noise about how the story was handled I've heard very little about the actual incident. Ron Reagan, today on MSNBC's Hardball, gave a few details. This is more than I'd heard up to this point. I'm surprised there haven't been more explanations of the details. Ron Reagan said Vice-President Cheney apparently shot downward into a setting sun. There may be nothing wrong with taking a shot like that, but I would like to hear the details. What was the actual distance between the Vice-President and Mr. Whittington? Maybe, these details were printed somewhere and I missed them.

It is getting harder and harder to determine what is true and what isn't. Whatever the real story was regarding the Vice-President's errant shot, he wounded the truth and public trust as badly as he wounded Mr. Whittington. Who knows what to believe or who to listen to? This would seem to add impetus to the need for a reporter shield law. As the government works harder to control what information we receive, maintaining a strong independent press becomes even more important.


Technorati Tags: Vice-President Whittington

Did I Miss Something?

Last week on Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace interviewd Governor Howard Dean, Chairman of the DNC. Here is the final exchange (from the Fox News Sunday web site):

WALLACE: I just want to ask you about this question of the Democratic involvement. I want to put up something from the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. This comes directly from their Web page, and it says, "Here is a detailed look at Abramoff's lobbying and political contributions from Abramoff, the tribes that hired him, and SunCruz Casinos, which is a company that Abramoff owned since 1999."

It lists recipients by the amount of money they received. Well, the top two are the Republican campaign committees. The third and fourth biggest recipients were Democratic campaign committees. And if you go down the list, Democrats received more than $1 million from Abramoff-related interests.

DEAN: There's two points to this. First of all, actually, we — the DNC actually got $100,000-some odd. Now, I can assure you Jack Abramoff never directed that money. It is possible that some of Jack Abramoff's clients may have decided on their own to give Democrats money. The key is...

WALLACE: I'm sorry, did you say, I'm sorry. Did you say that you're sure that Abramoff didn't direct them to give that money?

DEAN: No, what I said was that it is possible that some Democrats got money from some of the — yeah. No, what I'm saying is that Abramoff may not have directed some of this money toward the Democrats.

WALLACE: In fact, he did, sir. We've got evidence of that.

DEAN: But the point is that not one Democrat either knew it or acted on it. Nobody got anything out of the Democrats from Jack Abramoff. No Democrat delivered anything, and there's no accusation and no investigation that any Democrat ever delivered anything to Jack Abramoff. And that's not true of the Republicans.

WALLACE: So if we find — and I just want to — we have to wrap this up. But if we find that there were some Democrats who wrote letters on behalf of some of the Indian tribes that Abramoff represented, then what do you say, sir?

DEAN: That's a big problem, and those Democrats are in trouble, and they should be in trouble. And our party, if the American people will put us back in power in '06, we will have on the president's desk things that outlaw all those kinds of behaviors. Right now it's a Republican scandal. Maybe they'll find that some Democrats did something wrong, too. That hasn't been the case yet.

But our reforms in the Democratic Party are going to be aimed at both Democrats and Republicans. We want to clean up Congress, and we will within 100 days of the new Congress in 2007.

WALLACE: Chairman Dean, we're going to follow up on that. Thank you. Thanks so much for joining us. And don't be a stranger. You're always welcome here.


Later in the show Chris Wallace said that Fox News did indeed have proof that letters were written by Senators on behalf of tribes that Abramoff represented. The clear implication was that Dean needed to crack down on some Democrats and this is a Democrat and Republican scandal.

From the interview it looks like Dean side stepped the first trap, but FNS clearly got him on the second and then after he was off the air and couldn't respond. I watched again this Sunday expecting to hear more about this Democratic scandal. I must of missed something. I didn't hear more explanation about which Democrats had been implicated and details of what they did wrong. Did I miss it? Fox said they had proof and then nothing? If there are Democrats involved in the Abramoff scandal, I want to know who they are.

And if the FNS proof is not there, why wasn't there an apology? Maybe I just missed it.


Technorati Tags: Political Fox News

Someone Take Mehlman To Task!

I watched Ken Mehlman on ABC's This Week this morning. I generally like George Stephanopolous, but I can't believe he let Mehlman skate on several outrageous statements. Stephanopolous made the point that Republicans (most recently in speeches by the President, Karl Rove and Mehlman himself) were throwing down the gauntlet on national security. He played a clip of Senator Chuck Haegle who said "I don't like it. It's wrong for this country. National security is more important than the Republican Party or the Democratic Party and to use it to get someone elected will ultimately end up in defeat and disaster for that political party." Stephanopolous asked Mehlman his response. He said "I wouild agree with him. I think national security is too important for partisanship."

After a further exchange and a statement by Mehlman that Democrats still used pre-9/11 thinking, Stephanopolou asked
"Are you saying the Democrats don't want to go after the enemy?"
Mehlman responded that Democrats continue to use pre-9/11 thinking. "Well I'm saying when the Chairman of the Democratic Party goes on radio and says we're going to lose the central front in the war on terror." Later he says, "When Harry Reid says we are going to kill the Patriot Act or we killed that Patriot Act, that doesn't connect the dots, that is pre-9/11. When you don't have the ability to listen in on foreign terrorists calling into this country to potential sleeper cells I think that unfortunately is a 9/11 view."

One, I believe Howard Dean was talking about the war in Iraq. It was Mehlman who twisted Dean's words and equated the war in Iraq and the war on terror. Republicans continue to do this because without this clearly untrue connection the failures in Iraq are more obvious. Howard Dean was not saying anything about the war on terror, he was talking about the war in Iraq and most of the country agrees with him. What Mehlman said was wrong and misleading and he knows it.

Two, as I understand it, Harry Reid was talking about stopping the final conference committee version of the Patriot Act. The Senate 79-9 had voted on a version Reid supported that contained a few changes that even many Republican Senators agreed were important to make. The House voted to basically reauthorize the current Patrior Act without any changes. This went to committee and what came out was the House version. Senator Reid wanted to stop that version from becoming law and instead gain some time to negotiate further to try to enact the Senate version (again, a version supported by most Republican Senators). Reid never tried to kill the Patriot Act. Senator Reid and the Democrats offered to extend the current Patrior Act to allow more time to debate the issue, which is what happened. If Senator Reid wanted to kill the Patrior Act, why did he vote on at least two occasions to extend it? Mehlman lied.

Finally, I don't believe I've heard of any Democrat that has said we shouldn't listen in on converstations between al Qaeda members and people in the United States. Democrats and some Republicans have questioned whether the way this administration has chosen to conduct this listening is legal. Members of both parties have agreed to help write legislation to make such listening legal and constitutinal. Most want oversight to ensure that rights are not being abused, but no one is saying we shouldn't try to intercept terrorist communications. The administration has refused to seek such legislation. Democrats have not called for the administation to stop this surveillance. Mehlman lied.

Ken Mehlman says that national security is too important for partisanship and then does just that. It is certainly fair to raise issues about how your opponent would approach national security, but when you distort their position you are not having an honest debate. That is partisan politics.

This guy is unbelievable! Today's distortions are even more reason to hope Brit Hume will leave Fox and replace Mehlman.

Technorati Tags: Political Ken Mehlman Brit Hume

Cable News as Manufactured Outrage

Life is just not exciting enough. How else can you explain the popularity of reality TV shows? We revel in the turmoil, intrigue and contrived spontaneity. At least that is what I think they offer from seeing the 30 second promos. I haven't been able to watch more than a couple of minutes of any of them. I get bored.

TV sports is another opportunity to live vicariously, feel the adrenalin rush and excitement of the unpredictably, bask in unmerited success and bathe in the knowledge that we are not as dumb and blind as the officials.

I do occasionally watch Cops, or shows like that. Although maybe for the wrong reasons. I don't watch to feel morally superior or excited by the pursuits. I usually come away knowing that life is not fair. For whatever reasons, a lot of people find life harder than others. I don't see how you can watch a show like Cops and not realize that given the right (or wrong) circumstances, you could be the loser on TV. I watch Cops and always come away more humble.

But my real reason for this post is a train of thought set off by George Will a couple of weeks ago on This Week (ABC). He used the term "synthetic outrage" and I immediately thought of cable news. Well, actually, I thought of Fox News and then realized they are not alone in manufacturing outrage.

O'Reilly likes to put down competitors because their number of viewers is not as high as his. I think the difference in popularity is how well a show can manufacture outrage. A really good news show would probably not be called entertaining. I love to watch the News Hour on PBS, but I would call it more informative than entertaining. This is partly because Rush calls himself an entertainer, not a journalist or commentator. I think Rush is sort of an entertainer, I just wish I could believe his loyal listeners saw him that way. I suspect most would call him a commentator and journalist.

But I digress. The cable "news" and commentary shows thrive on outrage. The more outrage they can generate in their audience, the more successful they are. When there is no convenient event or person to build outrage on, they invent something. I have sympathy for Natalee Hollaway's family and don't blame them for using any tool to keep interest in her story alive. But does anyone believe we would still be hearing about this case if it weren't for the outrage manufactured by cable "news"? The same goes for Terri Schiavo, cruise ship murders, Happy Holidays, etc. I'm sure with a little effort you can add to the list.

Fox, and maybe the other cable networks, have a nasty habit of picking guests more on their ability to generate outrage than on their ability to discuss an issue or defend a position. A good "kick me again" liberal can get a lot of air time. The same goes for sycophant conservatives.

As you watch news/commentary shows, even the individual segments in a show, make your own decision as to whether they are offering primarily journalism, commentary, entertainment or synthetic outrage. You can do this by analyzing what is being presented and the manner in which it is presented. Is what is offered fact or opinion? Is opinion offered as fact? Does the anchor or host sprinkle in personal comment and/or opinions while describing fact(the news)? Are you being given information by authentic sources? Are people telling you the thoughts and motivations of someone else? Do they offer these insights as conjecture or fact with supporting reasoning? Or have they somehow crawled inside the other person's head and are now reporting from a remote location? During an interview, does the host cut guests off, interrupt before the guest has a chance to answer or restate what the guest just said in a different way with the implication that the guest is lying or ignorant? Does the host treat the guest and their opinions with respect? You can disagree with someone and still treat them with respect (for examples, watch Now on PBS). Does the host end the interview and then give some comments that the guest has no opportunity to respond to? Is the host really trying to elicit information from the guest or trap them into saying something they can pounce on? I love the common tactic of cutting off an answer with a comment like "We only have a few seconds left and I wanted to ask you....". That really means, you aren't supplying enough outrage, let's try another subject.

If you like to watch Hannity and Colmes because it gets your blood boiling, that's fine. You probably spend too much time on the couch and this little bit of activity is probably good for your heart. But don't come away thinking all liberals are dim witted pin heads who look for every opportunity to dis the troops, hurt the country, lie, cheat, steal and evade the draft (yes, I know we no longer draft people into the armed services).

There is certainly enough stupidity, incompetence, ignorance, prejudice, hatred, injustice, violence, evil, perniciousness, arrogance, malfeasance, ...... to outrage us all. We don't need cable news to manufacture it.

Technorati Tags: Cable News Fox News Outrage

Goodbye, Karl

While there was much to comment on in tonight's State of the Union address, one observation from several commentators was the partisanship displayed on the floor of the House.

If the President truly wants to make the last three years of his term successful, I have a suggestion. Boot Karl Rove out of the White House. Send him to the RNC if you like, but get him out of the White House.

The partisan rancor starts with our democracy. Whichever candidate gets the most votes wins. The winner then has no reason to care about the concerns of people who didn't vote for him or her. If a candidate wins by one vote, she has all the marbles and the losers have none. As long as she can keep the majority that voted for her happy she doesn't need to care about the people who didn't vote for her.

The rancor is increased by having only two major parties and the use of party solidarity to pass legislation. If you want to be elected to the House, Senate or Presidency you must be a member of one of the two major parties. They have the power and, more importantly, the money. The parties believe that any success by the opposition is unacceptable. The opposition must always be derided as incompetent, out of touch and without ideals or ideas since any success for them is a loss for us. Even more importantly, they need the outrage and angst created by a good (bad?) opponent to mobilize their supporters and bring in the money. Therefore, the best way to govern is to not cooperate, because cooperation implies your opponent does have something to offer. Republicans have no incentive to seek or accept any cooperation from Democrats. Cooperation with a Democrat gives them standing which weakens Republicans and vice versa. The best strategy is to pass legislation by demanding party unity and preventing Democrats from taking any actions for which they can claim success.

The Democrats have been frozen out of the legislative process for several years. The Republicans call them poor sports, but won't even let them on the field. The Democrats are left to stand on the sidelines and try to disrupt the Republican playbook through whatever means they can find. Like filibusters. Republicans love this since they can then use these very actions to prove Democrats have no ideas other than opposition. It is the publicly expressed hope of several key Republican strategists to keep Democrats from returning to power for decades. How do they do that? By continually showing that Democrats have no ideas and have nothing to offer the country. Certainly not a strategy to win friends across the aisle. And who leads that campaign? Karl Rove.

Who are the second and third most powerful people in the White House? Karl Rove and Vice-President Cheney. You can pick their relative positions. We know what the Vice-President does (sort of), but what is Karl Rove's job in the White House? No matter what title he has, he is the take no prisoners political strategist. He makes sure that the President wins politically, which also means helping Republicans win politically. A rejuvenated Karl Rove recently resurfaced to map out strategy for the 2006 mid-term elections. His strategy, the tried and true, make the Democrats look soft on defense and terrorism. This is the second or third most important person in the White House trying to once again bury the Democrats. The President is not running in 2006, so why is Karl Rove still working to trivialize Democrats?

The President has had the majority in both houses for at least four years and still complains about how the Democrats won't cooperate. With the second or third most important person in this administration working every day to politically screw them, why would any Democrat want to play nice?

It is not up to the party out of power to make concessions. They have little to give and the party in power has a disincentive to accept any help. At this point if Republicans want to tone down the partisanship, they will need to take the lead and probably make the most concessions.

President Bush is not running again and I suggest that if he truly wants to be treated kindly by history he should become the President of all Americans and not just the leader of the Republican Party. What is more important to the President, electing Republicans or doing the country's business? Instead of using the White House to elect and re-elect Republicans as a way to pass his legislative proposals, why not work with legislators to create legislation that a majority of Representatives and Senators from both parties can support? He might not get exactly what he or his base wants, but he would quiet the partisan rancor and end up with programs and laws that a majority of legislators thought were good for the country. Not just programs and laws that party leaders steamrolled party members to pass.

Mr. President, send Karl Rove packing! Let the RNC fight the political battles and you work for all of us.

Technorati Tags: Political Partisanship State of the Union

Definition of a Pickle

One definition of pickle from Dictionary.com

4. Informal. A disagreeable or troublesome situation; a plight.

Example: Your goal is to spread democracy in the Middle East and the Palestinians elect a terrorist group to govern them.

Technorati Tags: Political Democracy

Call Me, They'll Never Know

Tonight on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Obermann they did a segment on the idiotic way the White House is trying to parse and manipulate language to obsfuscate. They showed a clip where White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan tried to prove that the recently disclosed NSA wiretapping operation does not represent domestic spying by explaining the difference between the words "domestic" and "international". To prove his point he used the example of your phone bill where a call from the U.S. to a foreign phone is listed as an international call, not a domestic call. Therefore, spying on these calls is not "domestic" spying.

Egad! Did he realize he gave away the underlying secret that has made the White House so touchy on this subject? A call made from a U.S. phone to a foreign phone shows up on your bill as an international call, but what about a call made from a foreign phone to a U.S. phone? Aha, it doesn't show up at all! Using McClellan's analogy we now know that the NSA can't snoop on calls coming into the U.S. from foreign phones! To hide from the NSA all al Qaida has to do is call the U.S. from some other country and we'll never know!

Anyone else would be fired immediately for such a gaff, but no one else would take his thankless job, so he is probably safe.

Technorati Tags: Political Wire Taps

Fair and Balanced?

I generally watch Fox News Sunday (FNS). I like to get a conservative point of view now and then, and it plugs the hole in my area between Meet The Press on NBC and This Week on ABC.

Chris Wallace is generally pretty even handed, but occasionally his convservative bias shows through. He is certainly better than Tony Snow. By the way, I know that Washington, D.C. is not a really large city, but I was surprised several years ago as the Monica Lewinsky story was breaking when Tony Snow admitted on the air that he personally knew Linda Tripp (Monica Lewinsky's "friend"). I appreciated the disclosure, but it seemed odd that a conservative news anchor had some kind of relationship with a low level Pentagon employee who secretly taped conversations to harm a liberal president. I never heard what their relationship was; they could have just been neighbors. It just struck me as very odd.

If you really think Fox is fair and balanced, just watch the panel discussion on FNS. The regular panel members include: Brit Hume, who I suggested in a previous post should be the chairman of the RNC. He doesn't even try to hide his bias. Mara Liasson, who works hard to be fair and balanced. Bill Kristol, who is a well known conservative thinker and writer. He can generally defend his position with reasoned opinion and without name calling or put-downs. Juan Williams is the token liberal. I like Juan, but it is clear that he is on the panel because he often ineffectively states his position and he obviously will take Hume's crap to stay on the show.

Yesterday, Brit Hume responded to a statement by Williams with "That's crap" or something like that. Later, Juan tried to explain that the Abramoff scandal was indeed a Republican scandal. He explained how part of the Republican "K Street Project" was to push lobbying groups to fire their employees who were Democrats and hire Republicans. Instead of a thoughtful discussion of Juan's point, Brit came back with a smart ass remark asking Juan if he was suggesting the need for civil rights legislation for lobbyists. Brit doesn't attempt to hide his disrespect for Williams. One day Juan should stare back at Brit and say, "No, Brit, that is not crap, but I can believe to an asshole like you most things sound like crap". Obviously Juan would never work for Fox again, but wouldn't that be satisfying? Hume is the managing editor of Fox News? Doesn't that make it harder for other commentators to give it back like they are getting it?

While I'm venting about Fox I've got to say that I do like to hear conservative points of view. While I might not agree with them very often, Bill Kristol, George Will and David Brooks are bright people with positions they defend with reasoned responses. A person's personal views of politics, or anything else for that matter, must be tested against well reasoned opinions of people with opposing views. Otherwise your opinions may be no more than illusions.

Having said that, Hannity and Colmes is worthless. I watch some of the Fox shows frequently, but Hannity and Colmes turns my stomach. I try to watch occasionally, but I'm generally nauseous after about five minutes. If you like someone who is unreflective, rude, obnoxious and pontificating, Hannity is probably your man. And, like Juan Williams, Alan Colmes plays the part of the ineffective, out-of-touch, hit me again liberal.

I'm sure Juan Williams and Alan Colmes are fine people, but I couldn't and wouldn't play the part of the liberal patsy. And I can't respect either for staying with Fox.

As far as Fox being "Fair and Balanced", this is just another example of the Republican/conservative belief that if you tell a lie often enough people will start believing it. Why can't they just be honest and say "We are a conservative news organizaion that is committed to balancing the views from the liberal media." Not simple or catchy enough. How about "We are right and proud of it!"

Technorati Tags: Political Fox News

Brit For RNC Chair

After watching Fox News Sunday this morning, it is clear that Brit Hume is missing his true calling, Chairman of the RNC.

Technorati Tags: Political Brit Hume

Are We Terrorists?

A recent Reuters news article says that Pakistan now believes as many as four al Qaeda members were killed in the Predator airstrike last week. I would imagine that the administration and the CIA are breathing a little easier now. An attack that killed 18 presumably innocent villagers without killing a top level terrorist would have been hard to explain. But even so, does killing 4 terrorists justify killing 18 Pakistanis?

Are you bothered that we killed 18 other people to get those four terrorists? I want to kill terrorists as much as anyone else. I have no problem killing those guys. I hope we can get some more.

But what if the 18 civilians were men, women and children from Peoria, IL? Would we make the moral trade-off quite so easily? If an al Qaeda member crept into Peoria some night and blew up 18 people, what would we call that person and what would we like to do to him and people who supported him?

What message do we send to the people of the world when we are willing to kill innocent people to achieve our military and political goals? I know that innocent people are always killed in wars and the President keeps telling us this is a war, but there is something about this attack that bothers me. Are we really willing to kill innocent people around the world on the chance it may save some of us? Are American lives worth more than Pakistani lives?

I suppose you can justify the civilian deaths in Iraq because the fighting there is needed to defend their new freedoms, but how do we justify the deaths of these Pakistanis? They might have been providing support to al Qaeda, but we aren't even sure we killed any terrorists so what would make us believe these people were not just innocent civilians?

This bothers me. I can see why some people might think we are also terrorists.

Technorati Tags: Political Terrorists

What's In A Name?

The abortion debate is not likely to end soon. I've suggested that we try to come together on a position that may not satisfy everyone, but might give a common goal that many of us could agree on. See Let's Make Abortion Rare.

We need a tag that quickly and clearly defines this view. Each side has used a term that tries to capture in a positive way their position.

"Pro-life" replaced "anti-abortion" which was too negative. I've argued that for many people who claim this position, "pro-life" is a misnomer. They should more appropriately be called "pro-birth" because they are more interested in making sure a child is born and much less about it's future. Too many pro-lifers care little about what happens to the mother or child after birth. In their zeal to insure that no abortion ever be tolerated, they lessen the moral weight of their arguments.

"Pro-choice" replaced "pro-abortion" as its proponents tried to remove the moral implications of an abortion. It is not the act or its consequences that are important, it is just important that women have the right to choose. In their zeal to insure that no abortion ever be prevented, they lessen the moral weight of their arguments.

What would be a good tag for people who believe that we should work to make abortions rare through positive actions, but retain the right of women to choose to have an abortion with reasonable restrictions? There is the obvious temptation to call the movement "pro-something". "Pro-rare?" "Pro-moral?" Neither of those is promising. How about an acronym? Keep abortions legal, but make them rare (KALBMTR)? Ugh! Make abortions rare, but legal (MARBL). Better, but someone with more imagination can suggest a better name.


Technorati Tags: Political Abortion

Robertson on Robertson

OK, I've changed my mind, it is now time to pray for Pat Robertson to come down with facial shingles (see Shingles For Robertson).

Pat Robertson has managed to utter another outrageous statement. Of course, I knew he would. He won't stop until he is no longer able to open his mouth. I don't predict or wish any bad things to happen to Reverend Robertson (except for the shingles), but we all die and bad things happen to many of us.

What kind of comments will we hear when Rev. Robertson dies or suffers from some serious disease or injury? I think a comment, in the Robertson tradition, would go something like this.

Did he really believe he could continue to make those outrageous statements without incurring God's wrath? There is a price to pay for pretending to speak for God. You can say he was an old man and his time had come, but I think God finally got fed up with his pretentious panderings. I liked the man, but I don't expect to meet him in Heaven.

Technorati Tags: Pat Robertson

Intelligent Design Explained

With apologies to Arthur C. Clarke,

Any sufficiently complex natural phenomenon will prove intelligent design to the insufficiently skeptical.

Technorati tag: Intelligent Design

Immigration Is A Population Issue

Population policy in the US and the world is not a hot topic, but it should be. Especially with the looming debate on immigration. Many of the world's problems are related directly or indirectly to population. China, the worlds most populous nation, is already suffering from many problems caused by over-population and has implemented government programs to try to control its population. You may disagree with some of its population policies, but they have at least recognized the problem and are trying to resolve it. Read Lindsey Grant's essay "China As An Emerging Nation; What It Means To The Rest Of US" for more information.

China and India (the world's second most populous country) are poised to become future super powers because of their large populations of cheap, skilled labor. The U.S. (the world's third most populous country) cannot grow its population fast enough to compete. Even if we could, our high level of consumption of resources per person would doom us. If we could lower our consumption (and standard of living?), we might be able to compete, but a declining standard of living should not be our goal.

Increasing immigration for cheap labor may do us all much more harm than good. It is obvious that cheap labor around the world has harmed the manufacturing base in the U.S. Do we really believe that bringing cheap labor to the U.S. will make us stronger? Or will it just lower the standard of living for even more Americans? For an example, read Lindsey Grant's essay "Social Security And The Fear Of Aging" which explains why mass immigration makes the problems with social security worse, not better.

If we want to increase immigration, we should encourage people with skills we need, like scientists, to immigrate. We should maintain our standard of living through innovation, wise use of resources and education, not cheaper goods, cheaper services and an ever growing population. Cheap labor may mean cheaper goods and services, but only for those who make enough money to afford them. If we win this race to the bottom with cheap labor, what is the prize?

Technorati Tags: Technorati Tags: Political Immigration Over-Population

Why All The Secrecy?

In two previous posts I suggested that the NSA wire tapping story may have involved wide scale wire tapping and that there was more to this story than we are being told. In the past I've read accounts that indicate the government can scan massive amounts of telecommunications data looking for specific items and then focus on those conversations. Many political pundits have wondered why the administration didn't just go to the courts for approval for their wire taps. One reason may be that the way they are wire tapping is highly technical and highly controversial. The administration did not want to divulge details of this technology because it is so new, current laws may not cover this new technology and/or they did not want to face possible legislative limits on this new technology.

I came across an article that more clearly states the technical possiblities. The article on arstechnica.com is titled "The new technology at the root of the NSA wiretap scandal". You can agree or disagree with the authors opinions (be sure to read his/her followup post), but the technical discussion is very interesting.

The President may have tipped his hand when he kept saying that release of the New York Times article gave our enemies information they didn't previously have. Terrorists have to suspect we are trying to intercept their communications, but they may not have understood how sophisticated the technology had become or that we were using it to monitor communications to the US.

I don't like to be cynical, but I lived through Watergate and know how easily illegal government actions can be rationalized and hidden. How sure are we that this technology, if it exists, is not being used on purely domestic telecommunications?

On Meet The Press this morning, William Safire described how his home phones were, unknown by him at the time, tapped by the FBI for six months while he was working in the White House. It started when he had made an innocuous comment that was misconstrued. It can happen to any of us.

Technorati Tags: Political Wire Taps

Which is it Charles?

On Fox News Sunday this morning (Why do they call it Fox News Sunday?) Charles Krauthammer reiterated the administration claim that we are fighting terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here. A little later he asked why we hadn't been attacked in the US since 9/11. He then proceeded to answer his own question by crediting President Bush's secret NSA wiretapping program.

Which is it Charles? We haven't been attacked because all the terrorists are busy fighting us in Iraq or because our wiretapping has foiled all attacks?

Obviously we don't know why we haven't been attacked again. It might be because of the secret wiretapping, but for security reasons we are not going to be given any details. It might be because they are all fighting us in Iraq, but I doubt it (see my previous blog, Bush Divulges Secret Info). The fact is we don't know why we haven't been attacked here in the US since 9/11. I would assume that it is probably a combination of many factors (but not because we invaded Iraq). Maybe the terrorists just aren't ready.

Mr Krauthammer is basically echoing the administration line, "Trust us". Who was the sage who said "Trust, but verify"? Oh yeah, Ronald Reagan. If the NSA program is so crucial, why not bring in the top political leaders and describe the successes and risks of the program? Then the President could propose legislation to clearly authorize this kind of wiretapping. While they couldn't give details, the legislators who were briefed could attest that the value of the intelligence gained was significant and the risk to privacy was minimal (assuming it has been).

This won't happen for several reasons. One, I believe, is because there is more to this story than we've been told.

Technorati Tags: Technorati Tags: Political Wire Taps

Bush Divulges Secret Info

I missed President Bush's address last Saturday. I've heard a lot about it so I went back and checked the text (click here for text).

About his authorization of questionable wire tapping, President Bush says,

Yesterday, the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have.

And the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies and endangers our country.

Are we really to believe that terrorists don't assume every attempt is being made to intercept their communications? I would be astounded if we weren't. As it is, I'm astounded that the President decided to do this in a way that circumvents the law.

If a someone, especially a news organization, has classified information about illegal or possibly illegal actions by government officials, what should they do? I think they have a responsibility to require the government to prove to their satisfaction that no laws were broken. If this is not done, they have a responsibility to go public. If they believed the actions were legal and that the government was correct that public disclosure would damage national security, they should sit on it. They could still go public with the info if it becomes public some other way or they come to believe the actions were, in fact, not legal.

He also said,

And the activities conducted under this authorization have helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad.

Duh! Even a half-witted terrorist could guess that their communications would be monitored, but did they know that monitored communications had actually foiled attacks? It seems to me that the most sensitive information about this monitoring was revealed by the President himself.

I've heard several news commentators say that the President has ordered 30 possibly illegal wire taps. I reviewed his Saturday address and I disagree with the number 30.

President Bush said,

In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to Al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks.

Later he said,

The activities I authorized are reviewed approximately every 45 days. Each review is based on a fresh intelligence assessment of terrorist threats to the continuity of our government and the threat of catastrophic damage to our homeland.

Still later,

I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the Sept. 11 attacks and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from Al Qaeda and related groups.

I think he meant that he reauthorized the program every 45 days which over almost 4 years is about 30 times. The only reason I make this point is that some commentators seem to believe this was a very limited program of only 30 wiretaps. I don't believe that is what the President said. We do not know how many wiretaps were authorized. This could have been wide spread listening.

I don't doubt that the President had the best of intentions when he authorized this program, but good intentions don't trump the law. While the President feels strongly that it his duty to defend and protect the American people, it is our responsibility as citizens to elect and retain representatives that adhere to the law.

We correctly praise our armed forces for their sacrifices in defense of our liberty. We worry that dissension at home will send the wrong message to our troops. But our armed forces are not just defending their fellow citizens, they are also defending our constitution. What does it say to men and women who risk their lives every day in defense of this country, that we as citizens are so fearful for our lives that we are willing to ignore the constitution and laws to prevent another attack?

If fear allows our laws to be broken and our constitution to be ignored, we dishonor those who have sacrificed in their defense.

Technorati Tags: Technorati Tags: Political Wire Taps

Defeatists Help Bush

President Bush's poll numbers are up a bit. Some pundits think it is because of his media blitz and his admission of mistakes in Iraq. Of course, he still isn't leveling with us.

He continues to link Iraq with terrorists and the war on terror. Actually, he is correct when he says that Iraq will become a haven for terrorists if we leave too soon. He doesn't mention that he created the situation by invading Iraq and botching the victory. The war on terror and the war in Iraq are only linked by this administration's failed policies.

And how stupid is the President to keep insisting that we need to fight the terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here? In Iraq we are fighting terrorists and insurgents. Not all the people going after US forces are terrorists whose only desire is to kill Americans. Some of them are insurgents who just want us to leave Iraq.

Does President Bush think the terrorists can't walk and chew gum? In Iraq we've given the terrorist a first rate recruiting and money generating operation. Besides, who says that the terrorists that we are fighting in Iraq are the only terrorists that would try to attack us at home? I would wager there are more than enough capable terrorists who are not in Iraq that can bring the fight to us. If you watch any news analysis shows you know that the experts think that it is only a matter of time before the terrorists again attack us in the US. What will President Bush say then? My guess is he'll blame the "defeatists".

By the way, I would wager that Representative Murtha is one of those "defeatists", but Murtha can claim a lot of the credit for getting Congress to question the conduct of the war and for President Bush to admit some mistakes and start talking about his plan. The very actions which seem to have brought up his poll numbers.

Unfortunately, too many people are easily confused and don't realize President Bush is still not leveling with us.

Technorati Tags: Technorati Tags: Political Iraq

Iraq Ideas From Democrats

It is a frequent Republican compaint that Democrats have no ideas and just attack the President for political gain. Senator Carl Levin was on Meet The Press yesterday and made a strong case for the need to change course in Iraq. If you missed the show, you can view the netcast here. The entire show is very good, but Levin's explanation of what needs to happen next in Iraq starts at about 30:30. His questions about the recently disclosed spying on Americans starts at about 24:00. Secretary Rice's interview starts the program.

Senator Levin makes the case that a "stay the course" policy no longer works. He argues that the administration must pressure the Iraqi's to amend the constitution to bring the Sunni's into the political process. He is basically saying that "we will stand down as the Iraqi's stand up" is not a solution. It may describe a face saving way to get our troops out, but as the President correctly says, the idea is not just to get the troops out, it is to leave a stable and democratic Iraq.

To those who think the Democrats have no new ideas. Start listening!

Technorati Tags: Technorati Tags: Political Iraq Levin

Merry Holidays, Bah Humbug

Even though the issue is over-blown and over-discussed, I have to weigh in on the Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays/Holiday tree debate.

It is undeniable that the United States is historically a Christian dominated country. Christianity is the religion of the majority of US citizens. This has given Christians a level of privilege that has allowed them to legalize some of their traditions. Heterosexual marriage is one, the Christmas federal holiday is another. I suspect most Christians do not see their religion as privileged, so any action that seems to question these legalized beliefs is seen as an attack on Christianity. Christians should be cautious about invoking religion or the Bible when defending the ban on homosexual marriages or perceived acts against Christmas. They bring into question the constitutionality of these laws.

It is obviously silly to call a Christmas tree a holiday tree, but it is equally silly to be offended by the term. What is Christian about a Christmas tree except the name? A Christmas tree is a symbol of Christmas, but so is Santa Claus. Fireworks are the symbol of the Fourth of July so should be call local governments that ban fireworks unpatriotic?

Just like the heterosexual/homosexual marriage controversy, Christians are confusing the religious and the secular. For most people, Christmas trees and Santa Claus are secular traditions that are observed on the same day as Christians celebrate the birth of Christ.

Should Christians be offended when a store clerk wishes them "Happy Holidays"? Of course not. What is the proper etiquette? It is obviously appropriate for a Christian to greet a fellow Christian with "Merry Christmas". It is also seems appropriate for a Christian to greet a stranger with "Merry Christmas". They are expressing their beliefs and including the stranger in the joy of their holiday. How should a stranger greet a person they know to be Jewish? "Merry Chistmas" would be appropriate for the same reasons it would an appropriate salutation from a Christian to a stranger. "Happy Hanukkah" may be more appropriate since you are acknowledging this person's religion, although some people might feel uncomfortable invoking the blessings of a religion they are not a member of.

When a store clerk offers a holiday greeting are they expressing their beliefs or the store's? A store probably does not want its employees expressing their personal religious beliefs. If some Christians are sensitive to "Happy Holidays", how would they react in a store where the clerks are all wishing customers "Happy Hanukkah"? Since a public corporation has no religion, if the clerk is representing the store and does not know the religious beliefs of the customer, "Happy Holidays" seems appropriate. The clerk is acknowledging that this is a special time of the year in the midst of a secular transaction.

For Christians who are truly offended by "Happy Holidays" and "Holiday tree" I suggest that you treat Christmas as a strictly religious holiday. Do not put up a Christmas tree (or a holiday tree). Do not buy presents. Do not confuse your children with the myth of Santa Claus and lobby your elected representatives to remove Christmas from the list of federal holidays. Return Christmas to a purely religious holiday. But don't be suprised when the holiday greeting you get is "Bah, Humbug".



Technorati Tags: Happy Holidays Religion Holiday Tree