For all the advocates of small government who want government to get so small it can be "drowned in a bathtub," this past six weeks of environmental destruction in the Gulf should serve as a wake up call that their ideology is dangerous when put into action. Government has a function in society and often that function requires action on the massive scale.
It is more than a little ironic to see Bobby Jindal, the Republican governor of Louisiana and Haley Barbour, the Republican governor of Mississippi, criticize the federal governments response to the oil spill. Both governors, it should be recalled, have attempted to block stimulus funds and generally oppose any federal efforts.
The lack of government as regards regulations and regulatory oversight have directly contributed to the size, duration and occurrence of the spill. Putting oilmen in office in 2000, the nation developed an energy policy in secret with Dick Cheney as Chief Operating Officer of the transnational cabal.
Turning over government to private corporations and privatizing all of the functions thereof is not the way to run a society. It is the way to take all the wealth from the public commons and transfer it to private citizens while socializing the costs and risks.
Drowning government in a bathtub is a great slogan right up until there is a disaster that requires a definitive response. The corporatist response, that which we are seeing from BP, is only about cost containment and public relations.
The folly of the "death to government," crowd as exemplified by Grover Norquist and the Teabaggers, becomes apparent in moments such as this. Time to recognize that government has a role in society. Right now that role has been impeded by the actions of the previous administration and the inaction of the current administration. Time for the Obama Adminstration to step up and use government and quit worrying about the criticisms.
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Monday, May 31, 2010
Thursday, April 1, 2010
I Hope He's Playing Chess
It has often been said of Barack Obama that he is playing chess while everyone else is playing checkers. The conclusion of the health care reform battle certainly leads some credence to this idea. Further, through populist messaging and public anger, he has painted the Republicans into a corner over banking reform. If they continue to be obstructionists, they will also be seen as siding with the banks and no amount of free market rhetoric will change that perception.
But what is going on with Obama and energy policy. At a time when it is clear we need to invest in clean, sustainable green technology and infrastructure, he comes out for nuclear power, clean coal, and off shore drilling. Can this really be? Or is it that Obama is once again setting up his opponents? Let us hope that this is only a misdirection ploy that will culminate in green investment. Please Obama, be ten moves ahead, because right now you seem to be surrendering the game on the opening moves.
But what is going on with Obama and energy policy. At a time when it is clear we need to invest in clean, sustainable green technology and infrastructure, he comes out for nuclear power, clean coal, and off shore drilling. Can this really be? Or is it that Obama is once again setting up his opponents? Let us hope that this is only a misdirection ploy that will culminate in green investment. Please Obama, be ten moves ahead, because right now you seem to be surrendering the game on the opening moves.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Hell Froze Over
Hell has frozen over. It must have. The Democrats finally passed health care. After squandering a year trying to prove they could not legislate, the Democrats put their overwhelming majority to use and passed health care legislation.
The Republicans, the party of No, and the Tea Baggers, the party of know nothing, have responded by having a tantrum. Hurling racial slurs and homophobic epithets at members of Congress, spitting on at least one other member, and on one occasion taunting a man with Parkinson's, the opponents of the measure demonstrated their utter contempt for humanity.
Vowing to run on repeal of health care, the right wing continues to show they do not get it. Citing polls that show people oppose the health care bill they miss the primary reason - which is that it doesn't go far enough.
This is a start and for that both Obama and Congress deserve their due. But it is just a start. This journey should not end until the U.S. has free, universal, national health care.
The Republicans, the party of No, and the Tea Baggers, the party of know nothing, have responded by having a tantrum. Hurling racial slurs and homophobic epithets at members of Congress, spitting on at least one other member, and on one occasion taunting a man with Parkinson's, the opponents of the measure demonstrated their utter contempt for humanity.
Vowing to run on repeal of health care, the right wing continues to show they do not get it. Citing polls that show people oppose the health care bill they miss the primary reason - which is that it doesn't go far enough.
This is a start and for that both Obama and Congress deserve their due. But it is just a start. This journey should not end until the U.S. has free, universal, national health care.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
One Year In: The State of the Union
Obama, one year in:
-Gitmo is still open.
-The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue.
-Health care still hasn't been passed.
-Economy continues to reel.
I should be pissed or at least disappointed. I probably would be if I thought of Obama as some sort of messiah or for that matter did not understand how government works (more on that later). Efforts to portray him as a socialist have led me to see many of those so opposed to him as bordering on ridiculous. His first year has been more subtle and filled with shades of gray than to allow a superficial up or down assessment.
He is a political incrementalist. Not necessarily my style but I see the logic behind such an approach. It is also this approach that has frustrated many of his most ardent (and unrealistic) supports.
Yet to assess his first year one must distinguish between what he has accomplished, what he has attempted to accomplish and what he is likely to accomplish. To be fair in this assessment one must be honest and note that the President of the United States is not a dictator and can only enact legislation so far as the Congress goes along. In essence, as Teddy Roosevelt pointed out, the real power in the presidency lies in the bully pulpit, the ability to force opinion that will then force the hands of politicians.
Also, as preface, it is necessary to point out what seems to be a completely contradictory set of values blisters him for not getting things accomplished while working simultaneously to thwart any effort he makes. Let's look at Guantanamo as an example: It is true that he has not closed the place as he stated. However, if the full effort here is examined, it becomes apparent that the real block to closing Gitmo is not Obama but rather the manipulation of political and public opinion by members of Congress to prevent any actions that might lead to closure. The reality is that the number of prisoners has been drastically reduced and continues to shrink. Obama continues to pursue the closing and I give him credit for that. On the other hand, John McCain advocated closing Gitmo long ago but now opposes it because it scores political points.
The war in Iraq. While there are still troops there, this war is for all purposes winding down. The U.S. never completely leaves anywhere as the hundreds of thousands of troops all over the world attests, but this war is done. If you're going by when the last troops leave, then WWII and the Korean War are still ongoing. If you mean done as in stopping the further waste of resources and an end in sight, we're there.
Afghanistan. This is Obama's biggest mistake. There is absolutely nothing to be gained from pouring any more resources down this rat hole. I think that Obama is motivated by political concerns that seek to refute any calls that he is weak on security. Of course, that is exactly what would have happened if he had done the correct thing and pulled out. Nonetheless, he should have started this debate with the public and the fight with Congress to end this war.
Health care has been a debacle. Obama likely erred by not pushing for a one-payer system if only as a bargaining chip. In trying not to appear too radical he ended up making a tactical error and then got called a socialist anyway. Of course, the real blame for how health care reform has played out must lie with the Democratic leadership. Even when they had 60 votes, Reid was too lame to get anything through. The Democrats in general played a game where they appeared to represent the people while they assured failure for anything that might threaten the insurance industry. The Republicans revealed themselves to be obstructionist who negotiate in bad faith. Ultimately though the blame falls on the Democrats who turn an eighteen vote majority into a minority. If the Republicans want to filibuster, then damn it, let them talk until they drop.
The economy. Unemployment is at 10 percent, probably closer to 17 if you take in the underemployed and those who've given up and no economist expect this to end in the foreseeable future. Forfeitures and foreclosures are up and there is not much promise ahead. On the other hand, the home market is rebounding and job losses will probably level at around zero this month. I liken his task here to catching an anvil: when he first grabbed hold it pulled him down further until he finally gained control.
Obama takes a lot of heat for deficit spending yet most economist caution that this is not the time for deficit reduction. Paul Krugman, Nobel prize winner in economics, has argued that the stimulus should have been larger and the only thing that can rescue the economy is government spending. I know many of you hate to hear that, but a paralyzed economy is in no one's interest.
One thing the Obama administration has done that has gotten surprisingly little attention is the recouping of the bailout money. The approximately $700 billion that Henry Paulson tried to steal from the Treasury for the largest banks has been largely returned. Paulson's accomplice Tim Geithner, may have finally served his purpose in pointing out where the bodies were buried and now appears to be on his way out the door.
Of late, Obama has been striking an increasingly populist tone when it comes to the economy. Proposing all kinds of tax cuts for small businesses and individuals, he also took Wall Street and corporations to task in the State of the Union address. His deficit reduction plan is pure gimmickry but served to make an interesting point as Republicans who had advocated a deficit reduction committee suddenly came out in opposition. He has maneuvered the Republicans into a position that they are blatantly supporting big business and the banking industry over the people.
Obama has also reversed years of declining American influence and reputation around the world. Even those who are opposed to his policies must acknowledge that he has done an enormous amount in changing the view of America in the world.
Obama has also pressed for increases in investments in education and infrastructure developments. These are two areas where it is clear that America has fallen behind and is destined for diminished stature on the world stage unless we quickly address our deficits. How hard the opposition fights these ideas will be a measure of how interested they are in the well being of the country versus how interested they are in playing politics.
Viewing a four-year-term of office as a four-quarter game provides an apt analogy. The expected franchise savior was met with an all out swarming full court defense at the opening whistle. Double and triple-teamed, every dirty play possible, tripping, pulling his shorts, standing on his toes, fouling after the whistle, etc. was used. Whenever he gained momentum, an endless string of timeouts were called and occasionally a fight broke out in the stands. His bench was useless.
Despite all this, the first quarter ended even. The other team has managed to turn the refs against them (polls show Republicans are blamed 2-1 over Obama for the countries woes) and he has started the second quarter strong. When Fox News cut away from his meeting with GOP house members it was clearly because he was dunking in their faces.
No, Obama has not been perfect nor has he solved every problem of the country. Anyone who thought he would was either naive or stupid. There have been pratfalls, primarily over health care, but even that can still pass (providing someone tells Harry Reid that 59 is more than 41). As pointed out herein, foreign relations are much improved, the economy is no longer in free fall, $700 billion given away by the previous administration has been returned to the Treasury, civil liberties are no longer ridiculed by the president, and we no longer expect to be embarassed when the leader of our country make a speech.
Science has been restored to its place in the decision making process. Environmental regulations are being enforced once again. Competence is more important for a job in the administration than political loyalty. The United States is important in the world for more than its military might. New trade alliances have been developed with India, undercutting China's influence. Corporations are no longer expecting free reign.
We are at a crossroads in our history with the country quickly becoming ungovernable due to partisan politics. More than anything else Obama has provided a calm voice that recognizes the complexity of the world. While the right wing likes to portray him as a Bolshevik, he clearly is a centrist interested more in pragmatic politics than ideology. However, it is just this effort to portray him as other than he is that is the source of his renewed popularity. When the man accusing you of a credibility gap is orange from a tanning booth, when the opposition party suddenly votes against its own bills when adopted, when what passes for debate is to question whether the president was born in the country, then it becomes increasingly difficult to look at Republicans as anything but political opportunists putting their own interests ahead of the nation.
In sum, Obama is still getting the feel of the office. Suffering from unrealistic expectations he was bound to have difficulty living up to them. However, to say that he has not accomplished anything is to believe the Fox News narrative of the world.
I guess people would prefer the first year of his predecessor.
-Gitmo is still open.
-The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue.
-Health care still hasn't been passed.
-Economy continues to reel.
I should be pissed or at least disappointed. I probably would be if I thought of Obama as some sort of messiah or for that matter did not understand how government works (more on that later). Efforts to portray him as a socialist have led me to see many of those so opposed to him as bordering on ridiculous. His first year has been more subtle and filled with shades of gray than to allow a superficial up or down assessment.
He is a political incrementalist. Not necessarily my style but I see the logic behind such an approach. It is also this approach that has frustrated many of his most ardent (and unrealistic) supports.
Yet to assess his first year one must distinguish between what he has accomplished, what he has attempted to accomplish and what he is likely to accomplish. To be fair in this assessment one must be honest and note that the President of the United States is not a dictator and can only enact legislation so far as the Congress goes along. In essence, as Teddy Roosevelt pointed out, the real power in the presidency lies in the bully pulpit, the ability to force opinion that will then force the hands of politicians.
Also, as preface, it is necessary to point out what seems to be a completely contradictory set of values blisters him for not getting things accomplished while working simultaneously to thwart any effort he makes. Let's look at Guantanamo as an example: It is true that he has not closed the place as he stated. However, if the full effort here is examined, it becomes apparent that the real block to closing Gitmo is not Obama but rather the manipulation of political and public opinion by members of Congress to prevent any actions that might lead to closure. The reality is that the number of prisoners has been drastically reduced and continues to shrink. Obama continues to pursue the closing and I give him credit for that. On the other hand, John McCain advocated closing Gitmo long ago but now opposes it because it scores political points.
The war in Iraq. While there are still troops there, this war is for all purposes winding down. The U.S. never completely leaves anywhere as the hundreds of thousands of troops all over the world attests, but this war is done. If you're going by when the last troops leave, then WWII and the Korean War are still ongoing. If you mean done as in stopping the further waste of resources and an end in sight, we're there.
Afghanistan. This is Obama's biggest mistake. There is absolutely nothing to be gained from pouring any more resources down this rat hole. I think that Obama is motivated by political concerns that seek to refute any calls that he is weak on security. Of course, that is exactly what would have happened if he had done the correct thing and pulled out. Nonetheless, he should have started this debate with the public and the fight with Congress to end this war.
Health care has been a debacle. Obama likely erred by not pushing for a one-payer system if only as a bargaining chip. In trying not to appear too radical he ended up making a tactical error and then got called a socialist anyway. Of course, the real blame for how health care reform has played out must lie with the Democratic leadership. Even when they had 60 votes, Reid was too lame to get anything through. The Democrats in general played a game where they appeared to represent the people while they assured failure for anything that might threaten the insurance industry. The Republicans revealed themselves to be obstructionist who negotiate in bad faith. Ultimately though the blame falls on the Democrats who turn an eighteen vote majority into a minority. If the Republicans want to filibuster, then damn it, let them talk until they drop.
The economy. Unemployment is at 10 percent, probably closer to 17 if you take in the underemployed and those who've given up and no economist expect this to end in the foreseeable future. Forfeitures and foreclosures are up and there is not much promise ahead. On the other hand, the home market is rebounding and job losses will probably level at around zero this month. I liken his task here to catching an anvil: when he first grabbed hold it pulled him down further until he finally gained control.
Obama takes a lot of heat for deficit spending yet most economist caution that this is not the time for deficit reduction. Paul Krugman, Nobel prize winner in economics, has argued that the stimulus should have been larger and the only thing that can rescue the economy is government spending. I know many of you hate to hear that, but a paralyzed economy is in no one's interest.
One thing the Obama administration has done that has gotten surprisingly little attention is the recouping of the bailout money. The approximately $700 billion that Henry Paulson tried to steal from the Treasury for the largest banks has been largely returned. Paulson's accomplice Tim Geithner, may have finally served his purpose in pointing out where the bodies were buried and now appears to be on his way out the door.
Of late, Obama has been striking an increasingly populist tone when it comes to the economy. Proposing all kinds of tax cuts for small businesses and individuals, he also took Wall Street and corporations to task in the State of the Union address. His deficit reduction plan is pure gimmickry but served to make an interesting point as Republicans who had advocated a deficit reduction committee suddenly came out in opposition. He has maneuvered the Republicans into a position that they are blatantly supporting big business and the banking industry over the people.
Obama has also reversed years of declining American influence and reputation around the world. Even those who are opposed to his policies must acknowledge that he has done an enormous amount in changing the view of America in the world.
Obama has also pressed for increases in investments in education and infrastructure developments. These are two areas where it is clear that America has fallen behind and is destined for diminished stature on the world stage unless we quickly address our deficits. How hard the opposition fights these ideas will be a measure of how interested they are in the well being of the country versus how interested they are in playing politics.
Viewing a four-year-term of office as a four-quarter game provides an apt analogy. The expected franchise savior was met with an all out swarming full court defense at the opening whistle. Double and triple-teamed, every dirty play possible, tripping, pulling his shorts, standing on his toes, fouling after the whistle, etc. was used. Whenever he gained momentum, an endless string of timeouts were called and occasionally a fight broke out in the stands. His bench was useless.
Despite all this, the first quarter ended even. The other team has managed to turn the refs against them (polls show Republicans are blamed 2-1 over Obama for the countries woes) and he has started the second quarter strong. When Fox News cut away from his meeting with GOP house members it was clearly because he was dunking in their faces.
No, Obama has not been perfect nor has he solved every problem of the country. Anyone who thought he would was either naive or stupid. There have been pratfalls, primarily over health care, but even that can still pass (providing someone tells Harry Reid that 59 is more than 41). As pointed out herein, foreign relations are much improved, the economy is no longer in free fall, $700 billion given away by the previous administration has been returned to the Treasury, civil liberties are no longer ridiculed by the president, and we no longer expect to be embarassed when the leader of our country make a speech.
Science has been restored to its place in the decision making process. Environmental regulations are being enforced once again. Competence is more important for a job in the administration than political loyalty. The United States is important in the world for more than its military might. New trade alliances have been developed with India, undercutting China's influence. Corporations are no longer expecting free reign.
We are at a crossroads in our history with the country quickly becoming ungovernable due to partisan politics. More than anything else Obama has provided a calm voice that recognizes the complexity of the world. While the right wing likes to portray him as a Bolshevik, he clearly is a centrist interested more in pragmatic politics than ideology. However, it is just this effort to portray him as other than he is that is the source of his renewed popularity. When the man accusing you of a credibility gap is orange from a tanning booth, when the opposition party suddenly votes against its own bills when adopted, when what passes for debate is to question whether the president was born in the country, then it becomes increasingly difficult to look at Republicans as anything but political opportunists putting their own interests ahead of the nation.
In sum, Obama is still getting the feel of the office. Suffering from unrealistic expectations he was bound to have difficulty living up to them. However, to say that he has not accomplished anything is to believe the Fox News narrative of the world.
I guess people would prefer the first year of his predecessor.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
"We Want Our Money Back"
Proclaiming that "We want our money back," Barack Obama finally echoed the words that millions of Americans have felt concerning the bank bailout. He continued by announcing that fees would be imposed on the largest banks, those with assets greater than $150 billion. These fees will continue for ten years or until the full amount of the taxpayer money spent on the TARP fund are recovered.
These fees do not apply to smaller banks, community banks and the like. In fact, only the largest banks, those that caused the meltdown and then profited from it through the bailout, will be affected.
This measure may at some level be largely symbolic, but it is high time that we begin to end the corporatist policies of the past. Now is that time.
Also, let us give Obama credit for finding a way to undo the give away of the public wealth that Henry Paulson and the Bush (mis)Administration tried to engineer before leaving office. Now if only he'd fire Geithner.
By the way, before the right wing trots out to defend their corporate masters by crying "Socialism," - paying back money you took is hardly socialism. This is how far the debate has been skewed, when banks have to live up to their obligations or operate on a level playing field, they cry foul and play the victim. Watch their despicable behavior over the next few months as they try to figure out ways around the fees, using lawyers and accountants to evade their responsibility for the mess they put everyone in.
These fees do not apply to smaller banks, community banks and the like. In fact, only the largest banks, those that caused the meltdown and then profited from it through the bailout, will be affected.
This measure may at some level be largely symbolic, but it is high time that we begin to end the corporatist policies of the past. Now is that time.
Also, let us give Obama credit for finding a way to undo the give away of the public wealth that Henry Paulson and the Bush (mis)Administration tried to engineer before leaving office. Now if only he'd fire Geithner.
By the way, before the right wing trots out to defend their corporate masters by crying "Socialism," - paying back money you took is hardly socialism. This is how far the debate has been skewed, when banks have to live up to their obligations or operate on a level playing field, they cry foul and play the victim. Watch their despicable behavior over the next few months as they try to figure out ways around the fees, using lawyers and accountants to evade their responsibility for the mess they put everyone in.
Friday, January 8, 2010
"No Siege Mentality"
Yesterday Barack Obama spoke about the Christmas Day bombing attempt by Umar Abdulmuttallab. He did something rarely seen in these days by a politician - he took responsibility. Using a phrase borrowed from Harry Truman, Obama stated that "The buck stops with me." He then went on to point out that this was a series of screw ups that culminated in a person already on watch lists being allowed to board a plane with explosives. Pettiness, infighting and human error all seemed to play a part in the act. Since Christmas Day there have been a series of events at various airports that show the generally shoddy nature of security.
But it was not just the taking of responsibility that made this speech noteworthy While stating that "We are at war," Obama also stated that we would be "no siege mentality." In a stark contrast to the previous administration Obama advocated that we not panic and be ruled by fear. In refusing to make our remaining liberties sacrificial lambs in the name of the illusion of safety, Obama has taken a step towards restoring the belief in the values on which the country was founded. It is these actions, taking steps towards restoring our democracy that the last administration so trampled that have been his most important actions since taking office.
By refusing to accept the notion that we must live as we are under siege at all times, Obama also took a step towards the ultimate defeat of al-Qaeda. Turning the country into a military police state and shredding the Constitution in the name of security is not what a strong leader would do. That is what Bush tried to do - he tried to act strong because he felt he was weak. Obama did the converse. By stating that we are going to be true to our values, Obama showed real strength and a confidence in the underpinnings of our nation. A confidence that all of those who supported the Patriot Act and advocated surrendering our liberties in the name of security did not and do not have.
In taking the occasion to further announce that Guantanamo would be closed, he demonstrated a further commitment to the rule of law. This event could have provided a perfect excuse to delay or stop the closing of Gitmo, but instead, he used it as an opportunity to reaffirm a commitment to the legal process. It should be noted that Abdulmuttallab has reportedly been providing a great deal of intelligence completely within legal confines.
This speech is being examined for what it says about security. The truth is, no matter how secure, no matter what we do, something will eventually happen. The important part of what Obama said is that it signaled a change to a view that is consistent with the purported values of our country. In refusing to undermine them, not only refusing to go further, but pulling back on the mentality that sacrifices liberty for security he has already surpassed his predecessor in understanding what it takes for a country to be great.
Let's hope Dick Cheney shuts up and goes back to an undisclosed location.
But it was not just the taking of responsibility that made this speech noteworthy While stating that "We are at war," Obama also stated that we would be "no siege mentality." In a stark contrast to the previous administration Obama advocated that we not panic and be ruled by fear. In refusing to make our remaining liberties sacrificial lambs in the name of the illusion of safety, Obama has taken a step towards restoring the belief in the values on which the country was founded. It is these actions, taking steps towards restoring our democracy that the last administration so trampled that have been his most important actions since taking office.
By refusing to accept the notion that we must live as we are under siege at all times, Obama also took a step towards the ultimate defeat of al-Qaeda. Turning the country into a military police state and shredding the Constitution in the name of security is not what a strong leader would do. That is what Bush tried to do - he tried to act strong because he felt he was weak. Obama did the converse. By stating that we are going to be true to our values, Obama showed real strength and a confidence in the underpinnings of our nation. A confidence that all of those who supported the Patriot Act and advocated surrendering our liberties in the name of security did not and do not have.
In taking the occasion to further announce that Guantanamo would be closed, he demonstrated a further commitment to the rule of law. This event could have provided a perfect excuse to delay or stop the closing of Gitmo, but instead, he used it as an opportunity to reaffirm a commitment to the legal process. It should be noted that Abdulmuttallab has reportedly been providing a great deal of intelligence completely within legal confines.
This speech is being examined for what it says about security. The truth is, no matter how secure, no matter what we do, something will eventually happen. The important part of what Obama said is that it signaled a change to a view that is consistent with the purported values of our country. In refusing to undermine them, not only refusing to go further, but pulling back on the mentality that sacrifices liberty for security he has already surpassed his predecessor in understanding what it takes for a country to be great.
Let's hope Dick Cheney shuts up and goes back to an undisclosed location.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Jimmy Carter Speaks the Truth
Within the last few days Jimmy Carter has given an interview in which he stated that much of the opposition to Barack Obama is fueled by racism. Racists, of course, have howled. Obama, not being a whiner and wanting to avoid a needless confrontation has downplayed the issue.
Carter, since leaving office, has shown himself to be a man who speaks the truth. His credibility is recognized worldwide as evidenced by numerous invitations to observe international elections. As a southerner, his credibility on this issue is even greater.
Certainly there have been overt examples of racism towards Obama, but Carter seemed to be referring to the more clandestine side of racism whereby people avoid the overt, but work hard to generate fear tied to other factors. Calling Obama a socialist, a Muslim, a non-citizen, etc. are all thinly veiled efforts to portray him as "the other." Most of the people using these terms cannot seriously believe he is any of those things, but they know that if they use the racially loaded terms they really mean, they will be exposed. So instead, they generate hatred by other means.
Need more evidence: The Secret Service has already disrupted more assassination plots against Obama than all the other presidents combined. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, militias and hate groups are on the rise. Gun sales have flourished in the last year.
Both Carter and Clinton generated a great deal of anger and animosity from the right. However, the hatred and fear expressed towards Obama is clearly several quantum levels greater. The lack of civility expressed is exponentially greater. Policy is obviously not the driving force. Carter himself was more liberal in his policies than Obama, and Clinton was the rallying point for the right, but neither generated this level of attack. What then can explain the level of hatred?
Carter is right.
Carter, since leaving office, has shown himself to be a man who speaks the truth. His credibility is recognized worldwide as evidenced by numerous invitations to observe international elections. As a southerner, his credibility on this issue is even greater.
Certainly there have been overt examples of racism towards Obama, but Carter seemed to be referring to the more clandestine side of racism whereby people avoid the overt, but work hard to generate fear tied to other factors. Calling Obama a socialist, a Muslim, a non-citizen, etc. are all thinly veiled efforts to portray him as "the other." Most of the people using these terms cannot seriously believe he is any of those things, but they know that if they use the racially loaded terms they really mean, they will be exposed. So instead, they generate hatred by other means.
Need more evidence: The Secret Service has already disrupted more assassination plots against Obama than all the other presidents combined. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, militias and hate groups are on the rise. Gun sales have flourished in the last year.
Both Carter and Clinton generated a great deal of anger and animosity from the right. However, the hatred and fear expressed towards Obama is clearly several quantum levels greater. The lack of civility expressed is exponentially greater. Policy is obviously not the driving force. Carter himself was more liberal in his policies than Obama, and Clinton was the rallying point for the right, but neither generated this level of attack. What then can explain the level of hatred?
Carter is right.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
The Great State of South Carolina
Strom Thurmond, Mark Sanford, Jim Dement (or is it Demented) and now Joe Wilson. House of Representative member Joe Wilson (R-SC) from the 2nd district has now risen above the all-star cast of clowns that South Carolina is known for in its politics. Becoming the first member of Congress to heckle a president during a speech to a joint session, Wilson has stepped to the forefront of the circus that is South Carolina politics.
Wilson, who yelled "You lie!" at Obama as he confronted the misinformation and lies being spread against health care, rushed from the chamber after the speech. Later he issued an insincere apology at the behest of the Republican leadership.
To stand out in South Carolina politics, in the first traitorous state to secede during the Civil War, is quite an accomplishment. Somewhere Strom Thurmond must be smiling; the state has finally produced a bigger nitwit than himself. Mark Sanford was so happy he held a press conference.
Wilson, who yelled "You lie!" at Obama as he confronted the misinformation and lies being spread against health care, rushed from the chamber after the speech. Later he issued an insincere apology at the behest of the Republican leadership.
To stand out in South Carolina politics, in the first traitorous state to secede during the Civil War, is quite an accomplishment. Somewhere Strom Thurmond must be smiling; the state has finally produced a bigger nitwit than himself. Mark Sanford was so happy he held a press conference.
Monday, August 31, 2009
If Obama Could Fly
If Obama could fly, the right wing of this country would demand that he be arrested for breaking the laws of gravity.
If he turned water into wine, they would demand that he be arrested for the illegal production of alcohol.
The absolute ridiculous nature of the claims coming from the right these days would almost be humorous were it not for the rabid, gun-packing, hatred spewing, blood lust that seems to be occurring hand in hand with the screaming paranoia. All of a sudden, individuals who sat by and said nothing for the last eight years while the government systematically violated the rights of every citizen of this country, now scream that the government is taking over their lives by trying to provide a little health care to the poor.
Throw in the birther nonsense, the "death panel" lies, and all the other ridiculous claims and the right appears to be a wounded beast, afraid and desperate.
If he turned water into wine, they would demand that he be arrested for the illegal production of alcohol.
The absolute ridiculous nature of the claims coming from the right these days would almost be humorous were it not for the rabid, gun-packing, hatred spewing, blood lust that seems to be occurring hand in hand with the screaming paranoia. All of a sudden, individuals who sat by and said nothing for the last eight years while the government systematically violated the rights of every citizen of this country, now scream that the government is taking over their lives by trying to provide a little health care to the poor.
Throw in the birther nonsense, the "death panel" lies, and all the other ridiculous claims and the right appears to be a wounded beast, afraid and desperate.
Friday, June 5, 2009
The Power of Rhetoric
Barack Obama demonstrated yesterday that rhetoric can matter. In a speech delivered at Cairo University in Egypt, he essentially re-ordered the direction of American foreign policy. Several statements can be given as evidence.
On two occasions he used the term "Palestine" in such a way as to elevate the Palestinian state to a current reality on an even footing with Israel. Use of the phrase will have greater reverberations in the Middle East than in the U.S. Further, he openly rebuked Israel for continuing to expand the settlements. This public flogging of Israel was a further sign that there is a different direction in this policy. In recognizing the plight of the Palestinians in a manner that no American president has ever done, he signalled a willingness to confront one of the major conflicts underlying all the other conflict in the Middle East.
He openly condemned torture and unequivocally stated that he would close Guantanamo by early next year. The Iraq War was referenced as a "war of choice." In all of these statements he not only refuted the Bush Doctrine, he refuted the whole approach of the Bush (mis)Administration. Obama also demonstrated a recognition that these efforts by Bush-Cheney served to further alienate the Arab and Islamic worlds.
He directly confronted stereotypes of both Islam and America as counterproductive. In so doing, he served to isolate the fanatics from the moderates, rather than driving them together. One of the major effects of the Bush-Cheney approach to Islamic radicalism has been to cause moderate Muslims, who would normally reject the extremists, to at least tacitly support them because of their anger at the actions at Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, etc. Referring to "Holocaust deniers," he made a not-so-subtle jab at Ahmadinejad in a manner as to align him with the marginalized extremists just ahead of the coming elections.
He extended a hand to Iran with a defense of its right to have nuclear power, and then drew a line concerning nuclear weapons. In a deft maneuver that recognized the difficulty of the only nation that has ever used atomic weapons telling others not to build them, he took the opportunity to advocate a nuclear free future. Idealistic rhetoric not likely to happen in the foreseeable future, yet, a necessary statement to stake out a strategy that begins by making sure no other nations join the already too large nuclear club.
The most stunning revelation made by Obama was an open admission that the United States had played a part in the overthrow of Mohammad Mosaddeq and the government of Iran. This coup directly led to the installation of the Shah of Iran, Reza Pahlavi to the Peacock Throne. The support of the U.S. for the Shah is what ultimately led to the Islamic Revolution that occurred under Ayatollah Khomeini. In acknowledging this bit of history Obama demonstrated to the Persians that the tensions of the present have a historical basis that must be addressed in a truthful and cooperative manner.
This is the speech that George Bush should have given after 9/11. Of course, it would not have been possible for him to do so. This speech required a knowledge and understanding of history, an awareness of other cultures, and a thoughtfulness that Bush did not possess. Had such an awareness of the complexities and realities of the multiple interrelated conflicts in the Middle East been elucidated at that time, where might we be now? Instead we got, "Bring it on."
On two occasions he used the term "Palestine" in such a way as to elevate the Palestinian state to a current reality on an even footing with Israel. Use of the phrase will have greater reverberations in the Middle East than in the U.S. Further, he openly rebuked Israel for continuing to expand the settlements. This public flogging of Israel was a further sign that there is a different direction in this policy. In recognizing the plight of the Palestinians in a manner that no American president has ever done, he signalled a willingness to confront one of the major conflicts underlying all the other conflict in the Middle East.
He openly condemned torture and unequivocally stated that he would close Guantanamo by early next year. The Iraq War was referenced as a "war of choice." In all of these statements he not only refuted the Bush Doctrine, he refuted the whole approach of the Bush (mis)Administration. Obama also demonstrated a recognition that these efforts by Bush-Cheney served to further alienate the Arab and Islamic worlds.
He directly confronted stereotypes of both Islam and America as counterproductive. In so doing, he served to isolate the fanatics from the moderates, rather than driving them together. One of the major effects of the Bush-Cheney approach to Islamic radicalism has been to cause moderate Muslims, who would normally reject the extremists, to at least tacitly support them because of their anger at the actions at Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, etc. Referring to "Holocaust deniers," he made a not-so-subtle jab at Ahmadinejad in a manner as to align him with the marginalized extremists just ahead of the coming elections.
He extended a hand to Iran with a defense of its right to have nuclear power, and then drew a line concerning nuclear weapons. In a deft maneuver that recognized the difficulty of the only nation that has ever used atomic weapons telling others not to build them, he took the opportunity to advocate a nuclear free future. Idealistic rhetoric not likely to happen in the foreseeable future, yet, a necessary statement to stake out a strategy that begins by making sure no other nations join the already too large nuclear club.
The most stunning revelation made by Obama was an open admission that the United States had played a part in the overthrow of Mohammad Mosaddeq and the government of Iran. This coup directly led to the installation of the Shah of Iran, Reza Pahlavi to the Peacock Throne. The support of the U.S. for the Shah is what ultimately led to the Islamic Revolution that occurred under Ayatollah Khomeini. In acknowledging this bit of history Obama demonstrated to the Persians that the tensions of the present have a historical basis that must be addressed in a truthful and cooperative manner.
This is the speech that George Bush should have given after 9/11. Of course, it would not have been possible for him to do so. This speech required a knowledge and understanding of history, an awareness of other cultures, and a thoughtfulness that Bush did not possess. Had such an awareness of the complexities and realities of the multiple interrelated conflicts in the Middle East been elucidated at that time, where might we be now? Instead we got, "Bring it on."
Friday, May 15, 2009
The More Things Change
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Withholding information (in this case photos) from the American people, ramping up an already failed war (in this case Afghanistan), re-instituting military tribunals (this time with more rights granted, we are assured), and a continued bailout (this time with strings), is starting to make me wonder why Obama is trying to be Bush-Lite on some of the more pressing issues confronting us.
Seeking voluntary assurances from insurance and pharmaceutical companies to hold down health care costs, advocating that we move on from the torture debate, and seemingly forgetting the green agenda (say it together: infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure) seems part of a plan to appear moderate and bring everyone together.
Is Obama starting to lose touch inside the bubble? Has he been conned that being a consensus builder means watering everything down and avoiding all controversial stands?
Many people on the left, myself included, championed Obama. Not because we thought that he was going to do everything we wanted (realistically, the left was just happy that someone even slightly liberal might get elected) but we at least expected him to be a change from Bush.
Look at the issue of health care to see how little change there actually may be. Single payer, forget socialized medicine, is already off the table. Why? So the rich bastards who have screwed us over can continue to get rich. They want to make concessions so that the system will continue as is. Get serious. The only way to really control costs is socialized medicine. Put the doctors on salary and take over the whole system. Only insurance companies and those brainwashed by their propaganda believe that the private system works.
We on the left are realistic. We know that socialized medicine is not going to happen. But why should we settle that single payer is off the table? How about worrying about the people of the nation instead of the rich and the corporations? You see, we are being reasonable and trying to accept compromise. Obama himself is an example of that. But if we're only going to be ignored the left has nothing to gain from siding with the Democrats.
Having said all of the above, Obama is a million miles ahead of Bush on most issues. However, he needs to remember that watering everything down until its all the same is not what those who elected him want or expect. Maybe Obama is the most astute politician of all time and his actions are all part of a larger, slower change agenda. But its starting to seem that the more things change, ... .
Withholding information (in this case photos) from the American people, ramping up an already failed war (in this case Afghanistan), re-instituting military tribunals (this time with more rights granted, we are assured), and a continued bailout (this time with strings), is starting to make me wonder why Obama is trying to be Bush-Lite on some of the more pressing issues confronting us.
Seeking voluntary assurances from insurance and pharmaceutical companies to hold down health care costs, advocating that we move on from the torture debate, and seemingly forgetting the green agenda (say it together: infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure) seems part of a plan to appear moderate and bring everyone together.
Is Obama starting to lose touch inside the bubble? Has he been conned that being a consensus builder means watering everything down and avoiding all controversial stands?
Many people on the left, myself included, championed Obama. Not because we thought that he was going to do everything we wanted (realistically, the left was just happy that someone even slightly liberal might get elected) but we at least expected him to be a change from Bush.
Look at the issue of health care to see how little change there actually may be. Single payer, forget socialized medicine, is already off the table. Why? So the rich bastards who have screwed us over can continue to get rich. They want to make concessions so that the system will continue as is. Get serious. The only way to really control costs is socialized medicine. Put the doctors on salary and take over the whole system. Only insurance companies and those brainwashed by their propaganda believe that the private system works.
We on the left are realistic. We know that socialized medicine is not going to happen. But why should we settle that single payer is off the table? How about worrying about the people of the nation instead of the rich and the corporations? You see, we are being reasonable and trying to accept compromise. Obama himself is an example of that. But if we're only going to be ignored the left has nothing to gain from siding with the Democrats.
Having said all of the above, Obama is a million miles ahead of Bush on most issues. However, he needs to remember that watering everything down until its all the same is not what those who elected him want or expect. Maybe Obama is the most astute politician of all time and his actions are all part of a larger, slower change agenda. But its starting to seem that the more things change, ... .
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Torture Memos Reveal National Disgrace
The Obama Administration has recently released a number of memos from the Bush Justice Department that portray in painstaking detail the depths to which agents of the U.S. government sunk in their green-lighting of torture against prisoners detained as terror suspects. The memos, released in response to lawsuits filed by the ACLU (you may follow a link on this page to their website to read the memos and to sign a petition requesting a further inquiry of these charges), discuss in great detail the techniques that would be used and seek to provide legal justifications for these actions.
Immediately, the apologists for torture have lambasted the decision to release the memos primarily based on three notions; 1) that terrorists will be better able to prepare against these techniques, 2) that we can't use the techniques again and 3) that they sully the reputation of the United States. All three of these objections are patently absurd. First and foremost, the techniques have been widely discussed and are well known so the idea that terrorists can now better prepare is specious at best. The argument that the release of the memos, really the overt admission of torture, prevents future use of the methods is precisely the point of releasing them and is related to the idea that admitting this somehow sullies the nation's reputation.
It was not admitting to torture that damaged that country, it was ENGAGING IN TORTURE that damaged the nation's reputation. The very reason that we are involved in this ongoing clash is because of our actions. Only by coming clean and admitting to these acts and taking steps to ensure that they will never occur again can there be a way forward.
The complete disgrace revealed by these memos though has been lost in the debate about their release. What these memos really reveal is that the torture had nothing to do with making the nation safe. It has long been recognized that torture is ineffective as a method of gathering intelligence due to the fact that you can't trust the information. Tortured people will tell you anything and try any effort to make the pain stop. In the case of those tortured by CIA operatives and others, it is becoming abundantly clear that information gathered through torture was a complete bust.
In the case of Abu Zubaydah, one of the more infamous torture cases, he had provided a plethora of information prior to being tortured. Once the torture started, he ceased to provide useful and reliable information.
Reading the memos it becomes apparent the sadistic nature of those who plotted, condoned and justified these actions. Abu Zubaydah, for example, was apparently subjected not only to repeated water boarding, but also to sleep deprivation and having his head banged against the wall. When it became known that he was afraid of insects there were plans to put him in a confined space with an insect and make him believe its sting was poisonous. Another prisoner had an artificial leg taken from him so that episodes of prolonged standing would be even more arduous. As I said, sadistic. Sexual humiliation and personal degradation were common elements of the interrogations. It had nothing to do with gathering information it was all about the torture. As Scott Shane reported in the New York Times, senior officials from CIA headquarters were so involved in the micromanagement of the torture that some actually showed up to watch the final water boarding of Abu Zubaydah.
Why everyone seems so shocked now is the big surprise. Cheney has practically bragged about his part in the torture, former detainees have given detailed interviews about their torture and who can forget Donald Rumsfeld rationalizing the techniques years ago when they were first brought into question. The Red Cross, recognized as the arbiter of torture claims, has already filed a report that firmly accused the U.S. of torture. The fact of torture no longer seems disputable.
The national disgrace is that so many knew for so long what was going on. The national disgrace is that so many attempted to rationalize and concoct legal justifications for what was clearly wrong, clearly and indisputably war crimes. The only way to even begin to repair this stain on the nation is by dragging the criminal behavior out into the light of day and holding those responsible accountable.
The greatest national disgrace would be to let those responsible get away with it.
Shortly after posting the above blog, I learned that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was water boarded 183 times in one month. What could the interrogators possibly have learned on the 183rd time that they could not have learned on the 182nd time? This one bit of information demonstrates that the purposes of these actions were not to gather intelligence but simply the infliction of torture.
Immediately, the apologists for torture have lambasted the decision to release the memos primarily based on three notions; 1) that terrorists will be better able to prepare against these techniques, 2) that we can't use the techniques again and 3) that they sully the reputation of the United States. All three of these objections are patently absurd. First and foremost, the techniques have been widely discussed and are well known so the idea that terrorists can now better prepare is specious at best. The argument that the release of the memos, really the overt admission of torture, prevents future use of the methods is precisely the point of releasing them and is related to the idea that admitting this somehow sullies the nation's reputation.
It was not admitting to torture that damaged that country, it was ENGAGING IN TORTURE that damaged the nation's reputation. The very reason that we are involved in this ongoing clash is because of our actions. Only by coming clean and admitting to these acts and taking steps to ensure that they will never occur again can there be a way forward.
The complete disgrace revealed by these memos though has been lost in the debate about their release. What these memos really reveal is that the torture had nothing to do with making the nation safe. It has long been recognized that torture is ineffective as a method of gathering intelligence due to the fact that you can't trust the information. Tortured people will tell you anything and try any effort to make the pain stop. In the case of those tortured by CIA operatives and others, it is becoming abundantly clear that information gathered through torture was a complete bust.
In the case of Abu Zubaydah, one of the more infamous torture cases, he had provided a plethora of information prior to being tortured. Once the torture started, he ceased to provide useful and reliable information.
Reading the memos it becomes apparent the sadistic nature of those who plotted, condoned and justified these actions. Abu Zubaydah, for example, was apparently subjected not only to repeated water boarding, but also to sleep deprivation and having his head banged against the wall. When it became known that he was afraid of insects there were plans to put him in a confined space with an insect and make him believe its sting was poisonous. Another prisoner had an artificial leg taken from him so that episodes of prolonged standing would be even more arduous. As I said, sadistic. Sexual humiliation and personal degradation were common elements of the interrogations. It had nothing to do with gathering information it was all about the torture. As Scott Shane reported in the New York Times, senior officials from CIA headquarters were so involved in the micromanagement of the torture that some actually showed up to watch the final water boarding of Abu Zubaydah.
Why everyone seems so shocked now is the big surprise. Cheney has practically bragged about his part in the torture, former detainees have given detailed interviews about their torture and who can forget Donald Rumsfeld rationalizing the techniques years ago when they were first brought into question. The Red Cross, recognized as the arbiter of torture claims, has already filed a report that firmly accused the U.S. of torture. The fact of torture no longer seems disputable.
The national disgrace is that so many knew for so long what was going on. The national disgrace is that so many attempted to rationalize and concoct legal justifications for what was clearly wrong, clearly and indisputably war crimes. The only way to even begin to repair this stain on the nation is by dragging the criminal behavior out into the light of day and holding those responsible accountable.
The greatest national disgrace would be to let those responsible get away with it.
Shortly after posting the above blog, I learned that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was water boarded 183 times in one month. What could the interrogators possibly have learned on the 183rd time that they could not have learned on the 182nd time? This one bit of information demonstrates that the purposes of these actions were not to gather intelligence but simply the infliction of torture.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Who's Listening Now
The Obama Administration announced yesterday that it intends to extend the Bush (mis)Administration's position on warrantless wiretaps. Further, the protections extend not just to the telecoms that sold out the people, but now to the government. In essence, the Obama Administration is claiming that the government cannot be held accountable for wantonly breaking the law and snooping on citizens. In fact, Obama seems to be claiming some sort of "sovereign immunity" concerning this issue.
The right wing of this country may have let Bush and his flunkies have a free pass when it came to destroying the nation. However, I, and I am sure many others on the left, do not intend to allow Obama to trample over the Constitution in any way. Sovereign immunity is what kings used to protect themselves. The U.S. was founded to get away from such hubris. The days of kings and queens (Elizabeth II notwithstanding) are over.
Obama must immediately reverse this position. The citizens of a free country that claims to adhere to the rule of law cannot let this stand. We did not spend eight years suffering under a fool only to have the same draconian positions shoved down our throats.
As a Constitutional law professor, Obama cannot possibly see that these actions are within line with the Constitution. What can possibly be behind this action?
For a more complete legal exposition of this issue, please check Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley's website.
The right wing of this country may have let Bush and his flunkies have a free pass when it came to destroying the nation. However, I, and I am sure many others on the left, do not intend to allow Obama to trample over the Constitution in any way. Sovereign immunity is what kings used to protect themselves. The U.S. was founded to get away from such hubris. The days of kings and queens (Elizabeth II notwithstanding) are over.
Obama must immediately reverse this position. The citizens of a free country that claims to adhere to the rule of law cannot let this stand. We did not spend eight years suffering under a fool only to have the same draconian positions shoved down our throats.
As a Constitutional law professor, Obama cannot possibly see that these actions are within line with the Constitution. What can possibly be behind this action?
For a more complete legal exposition of this issue, please check Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley's website.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Obama's Vietnam
What do all occupations of foreign lands have in common? Answer: they all fail.
It was with great consternation that I learned of Obama's plan to send 4000 more troops to Afghanistan on the heels of the 17,000 he sent last month. This time, the 4000 are labeled as trainers, and a new fanciful strategy that involves letting the Afghans slowly take over has been revealed.
When I heard the word "trainers" bells began to go off like it was the fire of the century. This is how we first began to dig our hole in Vietnam. Support troops who would train the indigenous population to fight for themselves. Like Vietnam, the Afghans are already fighting for themselves. Against us!
Witnessing the French get their behinds whipped taught us nothing about the foolhardiness of the folly in Vietnam. Apparently, the long history of the "graveyard of Empires," has taught us nothing as well. Whether it's 4000 trainers or 17,000 troops or for that matter, 170,000 troops, history shows us that Afghanistan is remarkably resistant to occupation and invasion.
Why then is Obama doubling down on Bush's blunder? I believe that he is aware of history (something I was never sure about with Bush) so this action seems all the more curious. Is it that he is simply playing against the right wing that want so desperately to call him weak on defense? Is it that he really believes he can do something in this place that no one has been able to do before? Or is there some reason that we are not being told?
Whatever the reasons, this seems to be the biggest blunder of the administration. I remember how the Soviets were ridiculed for their efforts to control Afghanistan. Over two thousand years ago the world likely laughed at Alexander the Greats efforts here as well.
Today, I am not laughing and this is no joke. Almost eight years into this futile effort and we are upping the ante. Read history, this is just like Vietnam, only it's Afghanistan, and historically, that's been even worse.
It was with great consternation that I learned of Obama's plan to send 4000 more troops to Afghanistan on the heels of the 17,000 he sent last month. This time, the 4000 are labeled as trainers, and a new fanciful strategy that involves letting the Afghans slowly take over has been revealed.
When I heard the word "trainers" bells began to go off like it was the fire of the century. This is how we first began to dig our hole in Vietnam. Support troops who would train the indigenous population to fight for themselves. Like Vietnam, the Afghans are already fighting for themselves. Against us!
Witnessing the French get their behinds whipped taught us nothing about the foolhardiness of the folly in Vietnam. Apparently, the long history of the "graveyard of Empires," has taught us nothing as well. Whether it's 4000 trainers or 17,000 troops or for that matter, 170,000 troops, history shows us that Afghanistan is remarkably resistant to occupation and invasion.
Why then is Obama doubling down on Bush's blunder? I believe that he is aware of history (something I was never sure about with Bush) so this action seems all the more curious. Is it that he is simply playing against the right wing that want so desperately to call him weak on defense? Is it that he really believes he can do something in this place that no one has been able to do before? Or is there some reason that we are not being told?
Whatever the reasons, this seems to be the biggest blunder of the administration. I remember how the Soviets were ridiculed for their efforts to control Afghanistan. Over two thousand years ago the world likely laughed at Alexander the Greats efforts here as well.
Today, I am not laughing and this is no joke. Almost eight years into this futile effort and we are upping the ante. Read history, this is just like Vietnam, only it's Afghanistan, and historically, that's been even worse.
Friday, March 20, 2009
The Double Standard
In ancient times, the official standard for the length of a foot was determined by the size of the king's foot, or so the legend goes. This had the effect of different standards being applied based on the size of the sovereign. That process seems to have continued to this day, although it is not really a measurement of the leaders foot that is responsible.
George W. Bush, the Connecticut Texan, who got everywhere because of his daddy's name, rose to the top despite his obvious limitations. Failed in business, accused of being a deserter from the Guard during Vietnam, convicted of a DUI, and an accomplished torturer of the English language, Bush got a pass on 9/11 occurring on his watch apparently because he had only been in office for eight MONTHS when it occurred. This, despite a briefing labeled, "Bin Laden determined to strike with airplanes in the U.S." Bush even gets credit for no further attacks. Excuse me, what were the anthrax mailings.
Barack H. Obama, on the other hand, is the child of an interracial marriage who got to where he was in spite of his father's name. An accomplished author, former head of the Harvard Law Review and a dynamic speaker, is currently being skewered over the economic crisis. This, despite the fact that he has only been in office a few weeks.
Is it that the standard being applied relates to intelligence? Did Bush get a pass because he was seen as the village idiot? Is Obama being more closely scrutinized because he is intelligent? Or is it something else? Could it be that the reason Bush got the pass was that he was viewed as part of the entitled elite? Sure he was dumb, but there was never a doubt as to who he represented, his base, "the haves and the have mores." Obama, by contrast, is an intellectual without a doubt, but the attacks are more related to his former status as a community organizer and a people based populism.
Let us extend this beyond the Oval office.
The contracts of rich bankers are sacrosanct and they are awarded large bonuses for failure. Blue collar, middle-class auto workers have renegotiated contracts shoved down their throats because their bosses failed. They are told they should do this for the good of the country.
Conservative politicians and right wing bloviators decry raising the marginal income tax rate on the highest rate from 35 to 39.5 per cent. The super wealthy, you see, must have the country do for them and then their largess will trickle on the rest of us.
The real double standard is that if you want to do something to help the poor or the weak, you're accused of being a bleeding heart liberal who just wants to throw good money away, but if you crush unions and destroy the livelihoods of everyone in the world, you're a hard nosed businessman. Average people are expected to pay their taxes, transnational corporations hide out in off shore tax havens. Corporate bankers, creating a financial crisis to enrich themselves, claim they are too big to fail and ask for even more money. Meanwhile, average people who never miss a payment are seeing credit card rates adjusted upward because the bank has "reevaluated" their credit.
Will we continue to accept this double standard or will we demand that a new standard, one that applies the same to everyone, finally be adopted? Right now, the wealthy are giving us all the finger. For their own good, they need to remember what happened the last time they told the masses to eat cake.
George W. Bush, the Connecticut Texan, who got everywhere because of his daddy's name, rose to the top despite his obvious limitations. Failed in business, accused of being a deserter from the Guard during Vietnam, convicted of a DUI, and an accomplished torturer of the English language, Bush got a pass on 9/11 occurring on his watch apparently because he had only been in office for eight MONTHS when it occurred. This, despite a briefing labeled, "Bin Laden determined to strike with airplanes in the U.S." Bush even gets credit for no further attacks. Excuse me, what were the anthrax mailings.
Barack H. Obama, on the other hand, is the child of an interracial marriage who got to where he was in spite of his father's name. An accomplished author, former head of the Harvard Law Review and a dynamic speaker, is currently being skewered over the economic crisis. This, despite the fact that he has only been in office a few weeks.
Is it that the standard being applied relates to intelligence? Did Bush get a pass because he was seen as the village idiot? Is Obama being more closely scrutinized because he is intelligent? Or is it something else? Could it be that the reason Bush got the pass was that he was viewed as part of the entitled elite? Sure he was dumb, but there was never a doubt as to who he represented, his base, "the haves and the have mores." Obama, by contrast, is an intellectual without a doubt, but the attacks are more related to his former status as a community organizer and a people based populism.
Let us extend this beyond the Oval office.
The contracts of rich bankers are sacrosanct and they are awarded large bonuses for failure. Blue collar, middle-class auto workers have renegotiated contracts shoved down their throats because their bosses failed. They are told they should do this for the good of the country.
Conservative politicians and right wing bloviators decry raising the marginal income tax rate on the highest rate from 35 to 39.5 per cent. The super wealthy, you see, must have the country do for them and then their largess will trickle on the rest of us.
The real double standard is that if you want to do something to help the poor or the weak, you're accused of being a bleeding heart liberal who just wants to throw good money away, but if you crush unions and destroy the livelihoods of everyone in the world, you're a hard nosed businessman. Average people are expected to pay their taxes, transnational corporations hide out in off shore tax havens. Corporate bankers, creating a financial crisis to enrich themselves, claim they are too big to fail and ask for even more money. Meanwhile, average people who never miss a payment are seeing credit card rates adjusted upward because the bank has "reevaluated" their credit.
Will we continue to accept this double standard or will we demand that a new standard, one that applies the same to everyone, finally be adopted? Right now, the wealthy are giving us all the finger. For their own good, they need to remember what happened the last time they told the masses to eat cake.
Monday, March 16, 2009
The Werewolf Howls: Part 3
Throughout the Bush (mis)Administration, Darth Cheney, the Werewolf of Wyoming, was conspicuously out of sight. Famously hiding in his "undisclosed location," Cheney was rarely seen and could not be coaxed into any sort of appearance with the press. Now that he has left office, he is suddenly all over the media attempting to revise history and deny his crimes.
On the heels of reports that Cheney may have directed assassination squads that operated in at least 10 countries, Cheney appeared on CNN's "State of the Union" where he defended his actions as "lawful," and Constitutional. Listening to Cheney opine on the Constitution is like asking Caligula for a lecture on morality. Constitutional matters aside, Cheney's most ridiculous assertion was that the Bush (mis)Administration bore no responsibility for the economic crisis.
The misstatements above, however, were not the most reprehensible part of the interview. Instead, the most reprehensible moment was when he stated that Obama's actions of attempting to restore the rule of law, would "raise the risk" of future attacks. This statement ignores the plethora of data that suggest the actions of Bush, Cheney and their henchmen actually created terrorists. That their policies served as a catalyst for recruitment by al-Qaeda was conveniently ignored. According to Cheney, Iraq has been a success.
But it is not just the revision of history and the attempt to deflect his crimes that make this so repulsive. It is that Cheney is deliberately trying to make Obama responsible for any attacks that follow. This is to deny 60 years of American foreign policy and eight years of open antagonism towards an entire religion that served to do little more than empower the extremists and marginalize the moderate voices.
Should we be surprised to hear such balderdash from Cheney? Probably not. Anyone who can shoot a lawyer in the face and then get the lawyer to apologize likely thinks he can get away with anything. So far he has. In addition to the already mentioned assassination squads, the subversion of the Constitution, and a shooting, Cheney also engineered the outing of a CIA agent, violated open government laws and authorized torture.
Given all that has occurred, there really is only one question to ask: When do the trials begin? For Cheney, there is only one comment that will do: "Grass mud horse you, Dick Cheney" (see previous column for explanation.)
On the heels of reports that Cheney may have directed assassination squads that operated in at least 10 countries, Cheney appeared on CNN's "State of the Union" where he defended his actions as "lawful," and Constitutional. Listening to Cheney opine on the Constitution is like asking Caligula for a lecture on morality. Constitutional matters aside, Cheney's most ridiculous assertion was that the Bush (mis)Administration bore no responsibility for the economic crisis.
The misstatements above, however, were not the most reprehensible part of the interview. Instead, the most reprehensible moment was when he stated that Obama's actions of attempting to restore the rule of law, would "raise the risk" of future attacks. This statement ignores the plethora of data that suggest the actions of Bush, Cheney and their henchmen actually created terrorists. That their policies served as a catalyst for recruitment by al-Qaeda was conveniently ignored. According to Cheney, Iraq has been a success.
But it is not just the revision of history and the attempt to deflect his crimes that make this so repulsive. It is that Cheney is deliberately trying to make Obama responsible for any attacks that follow. This is to deny 60 years of American foreign policy and eight years of open antagonism towards an entire religion that served to do little more than empower the extremists and marginalize the moderate voices.
Should we be surprised to hear such balderdash from Cheney? Probably not. Anyone who can shoot a lawyer in the face and then get the lawyer to apologize likely thinks he can get away with anything. So far he has. In addition to the already mentioned assassination squads, the subversion of the Constitution, and a shooting, Cheney also engineered the outing of a CIA agent, violated open government laws and authorized torture.
Given all that has occurred, there really is only one question to ask: When do the trials begin? For Cheney, there is only one comment that will do: "Grass mud horse you, Dick Cheney" (see previous column for explanation.)
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Barack Botches Bagram
You either stand for human rights or you don't. After initially appearing to be on course to repair the damaged reputation of the United States as regards human rights, the Obama Administration has now blown it. Instead of following up on positive actions such as closing Guantanamo, the Department of Justice has ruled that human rights protections need not be extended to the 600 or so prisoners held in Bagram, Afghanistan.
Using rationales that are as pitiful as any offered by the Bush Administration, such as "it's a war zone," and "ongoing conflict," this sad ruling continues to perpetuate the active disregard for human rights that has damaged this country's international reputation. And for what purpose? Do we really believe that granting basic human rights to religious fanatics will damage our nation? Obama must realize that he was elected in part because people were fed up with just this sort of behavior committed in our name.
We are better than this, at least, we once were. Once a proud country that stood for human rights everywhere, we have become a fearful nation, afraid to live up to our own values.
Using rationales that are as pitiful as any offered by the Bush Administration, such as "it's a war zone," and "ongoing conflict," this sad ruling continues to perpetuate the active disregard for human rights that has damaged this country's international reputation. And for what purpose? Do we really believe that granting basic human rights to religious fanatics will damage our nation? Obama must realize that he was elected in part because people were fed up with just this sort of behavior committed in our name.
We are better than this, at least, we once were. Once a proud country that stood for human rights everywhere, we have become a fearful nation, afraid to live up to our own values.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Whistling Past the Graveyard (of Empires)
Afghanistan: where empires go to die. Ask the Soviets, ask the Brits, ask the Moghuls, ask Alexander the Great. All paid a price here that contributed, if not caused, their demise (see note below). Even Genghis Khan, who came as close to conquering the place as anyone, paid a heavy price.
George Bush we expected to be ignorant of history, but Obama seems to have missed this lesson as well. Today we begin sending more troops to Afghanistan in an effort to, well, it's not altogether clear what this is an effort to do. What are we trying to accomplish? Stabilization, nation building, or one long, slow bleed?
History shows that Afghanistan is an untenable proposition for invaders. As Ronald Dumbsfeld so correctly pointed out, there are no military targets there. Every victory is temporary. A largely ungovernable region, more defined by where the neighboring countries have decided to quit trying, the organization of society is along lines of fractionated tribalism and warlord feudalism.
Obama's commitment to a new effort in Afghanistan seems misplaced. Pledging to follow through with withdrawal in Iraq, continuation here appears calculated to thwart charges that he is militarily naive. But it is just the thought that Afghanistan is winnable that is the exemplar of naivete.
There is nothing to win. Even if we completely took over the country and sent in a million troops, the minute we leave everything reverts to the 13th century. A permanent occupation on the scale required is simply impossible to sustain. When it comes to Afghanistan it is time to be intelligent. Cut our loses and spend those weapons dollars on our own country, not on the futile effort to maintain an empire.
The Empire is done. It died in Afghanistan.
NOTE: For an excellent brief history on this topic, please read Milton Bearden's article in Foreign Affairs, Nov/Dec 2001, "Afghanistan: Graveyard of Empires."
George Bush we expected to be ignorant of history, but Obama seems to have missed this lesson as well. Today we begin sending more troops to Afghanistan in an effort to, well, it's not altogether clear what this is an effort to do. What are we trying to accomplish? Stabilization, nation building, or one long, slow bleed?
History shows that Afghanistan is an untenable proposition for invaders. As Ronald Dumbsfeld so correctly pointed out, there are no military targets there. Every victory is temporary. A largely ungovernable region, more defined by where the neighboring countries have decided to quit trying, the organization of society is along lines of fractionated tribalism and warlord feudalism.
Obama's commitment to a new effort in Afghanistan seems misplaced. Pledging to follow through with withdrawal in Iraq, continuation here appears calculated to thwart charges that he is militarily naive. But it is just the thought that Afghanistan is winnable that is the exemplar of naivete.
There is nothing to win. Even if we completely took over the country and sent in a million troops, the minute we leave everything reverts to the 13th century. A permanent occupation on the scale required is simply impossible to sustain. When it comes to Afghanistan it is time to be intelligent. Cut our loses and spend those weapons dollars on our own country, not on the futile effort to maintain an empire.
The Empire is done. It died in Afghanistan.
NOTE: For an excellent brief history on this topic, please read Milton Bearden's article in Foreign Affairs, Nov/Dec 2001, "Afghanistan: Graveyard of Empires."
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
What Obama Didn't Say
Last night, February 9, 2009, Barack Obama held a press conference in the East Room of the White House that was remarkable. What he said was interesting enough, but it was what he did not say that was even more noteworthy.
The whole event, which lasted one hour, was a welcome change from the past eight years. Speaking in complete sentences and actually answering questions, rather than blithering platitudes such as "Freedom's on the march," Obama gave thoughtful, coherent answers that were direct and complete. Spending seven minutes answering one question demonstrated that a different approach is being taken with the media. He even called on Helen Thomas.
Speaking of Helen Thomas, this is where what Obama didn't say comes into the picture. In general, the press conference was marked by a forthright approach that did not try to sugar coat things. Using phrases such as "permanent recession," he did not avoid the dire circumstances of the moment. However, it was with a question by Helen Thomas, the maven of the White House press corps who Bush avoided out of fear, that Obama appeared to dissimulate. Thomas asked a multi-part question related to the Middle East and at the end inquired as to whether "any nation" in the Middle East had nuclear weapons. Obama answered the bulk of the question and ignored the final part about nukes. Throughout the evening he routinely answered a number of multi-part questions, taking his time to address each sub-question. But with the question by Thomas, he avoided the question even when she persisted with a follow-up.
In not answering that one question, Obama slipped. His only alternative, I believe, was to lie. By not categorically denying that there were nations in the Middle East that had nuclear weapons, he appeared to reveal there are. Who could it be? Technologically, there are only two nations in the region that seem anywhere near capable: Iran and Israel. It is unlikely that Iran has developed nuclear weapons because the moment they do they will almost assuredly tell the world. Israel, on the other hand, has long been rumored to have this capacity. Obama seemingly verified this.
There was one other question that was more notable for what he did not say than what he did say in response. In reference to a question concerning trying members of the Bush Administration for crimes, in which he was asked if he would guarantee no prosecutions for them, Obama gave a very interesting response. He did not categorically state that there would be no prosecutions. He talked about following evidence and the rule of law. He seemed to imply that if Congress or the Justice Department were to proceed with investigations and prosecutions, he would not interfere. He added his usual line about moving forward instead of backwards. However, he preceded this statement with the phrase, "... in general, ...". The "in general," bit of this phrase is the crucial part. Linguistically he is stating that he agrees with what follows the "in general," but that he excepts what preceded it. In effect, he is prepared to let prosecutions proceed.
I willingly admit that I may be reading too much into what he did not say. However, Obama appears to choose, and use, his words very carefully. To the other questions he gave precise, in depth answers. Only in these two questions did he avoid a direct answer. In this sense, what he did not say was far more noteworthy than what he did say.
The whole event, which lasted one hour, was a welcome change from the past eight years. Speaking in complete sentences and actually answering questions, rather than blithering platitudes such as "Freedom's on the march," Obama gave thoughtful, coherent answers that were direct and complete. Spending seven minutes answering one question demonstrated that a different approach is being taken with the media. He even called on Helen Thomas.
Speaking of Helen Thomas, this is where what Obama didn't say comes into the picture. In general, the press conference was marked by a forthright approach that did not try to sugar coat things. Using phrases such as "permanent recession," he did not avoid the dire circumstances of the moment. However, it was with a question by Helen Thomas, the maven of the White House press corps who Bush avoided out of fear, that Obama appeared to dissimulate. Thomas asked a multi-part question related to the Middle East and at the end inquired as to whether "any nation" in the Middle East had nuclear weapons. Obama answered the bulk of the question and ignored the final part about nukes. Throughout the evening he routinely answered a number of multi-part questions, taking his time to address each sub-question. But with the question by Thomas, he avoided the question even when she persisted with a follow-up.
In not answering that one question, Obama slipped. His only alternative, I believe, was to lie. By not categorically denying that there were nations in the Middle East that had nuclear weapons, he appeared to reveal there are. Who could it be? Technologically, there are only two nations in the region that seem anywhere near capable: Iran and Israel. It is unlikely that Iran has developed nuclear weapons because the moment they do they will almost assuredly tell the world. Israel, on the other hand, has long been rumored to have this capacity. Obama seemingly verified this.
There was one other question that was more notable for what he did not say than what he did say in response. In reference to a question concerning trying members of the Bush Administration for crimes, in which he was asked if he would guarantee no prosecutions for them, Obama gave a very interesting response. He did not categorically state that there would be no prosecutions. He talked about following evidence and the rule of law. He seemed to imply that if Congress or the Justice Department were to proceed with investigations and prosecutions, he would not interfere. He added his usual line about moving forward instead of backwards. However, he preceded this statement with the phrase, "... in general, ...". The "in general," bit of this phrase is the crucial part. Linguistically he is stating that he agrees with what follows the "in general," but that he excepts what preceded it. In effect, he is prepared to let prosecutions proceed.
I willingly admit that I may be reading too much into what he did not say. However, Obama appears to choose, and use, his words very carefully. To the other questions he gave precise, in depth answers. Only in these two questions did he avoid a direct answer. In this sense, what he did not say was far more noteworthy than what he did say.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Cheney Howls Again: Werewolf of Wyoming, Pt. 2
Dick Cheney, in an undisclosed orbit somewhere above Earth, signaled from his DeathStar today. Seeking to rewrite history, he attempts to justify Guantanamo, torture and domestic spying. Claiming that these actions were necessary to prevent another terrorist attack, Cheney conveniently overlooks the damage these acts have done to the U.S. Moreover, Cheney's comments are an obvious effort to clear his name by betting on the inevitable.
Cheney, in an interview with Politico.com, predicts another terrorist attack if Obama shows respect for human dignity and international law. What Cheney realizes, of course, is that it is inevitable that there will be another terrorist attack, no matter what is done. It is statistically only a matter of time. Perhaps there already have been attacks, but with the secrecy of the Bush-Cheney (mis)Administration, how would we know?
By predicting attack, Cheney has set up a perfect, "I told you so," scenario. If it happens, then he will claim to be vindicated, if it doesn't, then he'll claim it's only a matter of time (which, again, I agree that it is).
When it happens, it won't be because the U.S. has suddenly restored the rule of law. It will be because for seven years, Cheney and his puppet Bush stirred up a hornet's nest. Their actions at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, etc. coupled with their pig-headed arrogance, ("Bring it On") bred more and more enemies. Rather than solving anything by their misguided maneuvers, they made the situation worse.
Secretly, Cheney is afraid that there won't be another attack, that Obama might not blow it. Why? Because if that happens, it will be irrefutable proof that all of the war crimes committed by the Werewolf of Wyoming and the village idiot of Crawford, Texas were for nothing. Already indefensible, their only rationale for these actions has been to claim necessity.
These efforts at spin are ultimately are about Cheney's awareness that he knowingly and deliberately committed war crimes. Seeking to justify his actions as necessary is but one smoke screen. In another act, his minions have engaged in a whisper campaign that Obama might still allow renditions and torture under the right circumstances. This is an overt attempt to muddy the debate by claiming that Obama will continue something he has said will stop. The underlying implication is that this somehow justifies the abuse.
Cheney is howling all these lines about necessity and continuity to hide one incontrovertible fact: He authorized, plotted and committed war crimes. His defense is that he had to do it. He wasn't just following orders, he was giving them. He was seeking the final solution to terrorism. Atrocities can not be rationalized.
Cheney, in an interview with Politico.com, predicts another terrorist attack if Obama shows respect for human dignity and international law. What Cheney realizes, of course, is that it is inevitable that there will be another terrorist attack, no matter what is done. It is statistically only a matter of time. Perhaps there already have been attacks, but with the secrecy of the Bush-Cheney (mis)Administration, how would we know?
By predicting attack, Cheney has set up a perfect, "I told you so," scenario. If it happens, then he will claim to be vindicated, if it doesn't, then he'll claim it's only a matter of time (which, again, I agree that it is).
When it happens, it won't be because the U.S. has suddenly restored the rule of law. It will be because for seven years, Cheney and his puppet Bush stirred up a hornet's nest. Their actions at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, etc. coupled with their pig-headed arrogance, ("Bring it On") bred more and more enemies. Rather than solving anything by their misguided maneuvers, they made the situation worse.
Secretly, Cheney is afraid that there won't be another attack, that Obama might not blow it. Why? Because if that happens, it will be irrefutable proof that all of the war crimes committed by the Werewolf of Wyoming and the village idiot of Crawford, Texas were for nothing. Already indefensible, their only rationale for these actions has been to claim necessity.
These efforts at spin are ultimately are about Cheney's awareness that he knowingly and deliberately committed war crimes. Seeking to justify his actions as necessary is but one smoke screen. In another act, his minions have engaged in a whisper campaign that Obama might still allow renditions and torture under the right circumstances. This is an overt attempt to muddy the debate by claiming that Obama will continue something he has said will stop. The underlying implication is that this somehow justifies the abuse.
Cheney is howling all these lines about necessity and continuity to hide one incontrovertible fact: He authorized, plotted and committed war crimes. His defense is that he had to do it. He wasn't just following orders, he was giving them. He was seeking the final solution to terrorism. Atrocities can not be rationalized.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
