Now that a couple of nights have passed, and the dust settled a little, I thought I'd post my reaction.
On the first part of the debate, neither candidate looked very ready regarding the 'bailout' questions. McCain did, however, come across as snide in his attacks on Obama, a theme that carried along throughout the night.
When they moved to foriegn policy, McCain clearly showed he has been around, and has considerable experience. However, McCain didn't do what he wanted to do, which was to paint Obama as inexperienced and/or uninformed. In fact, if anything, Obama appeared at least as capable on the subject as McCain. McCain struck some points when he pointed out his 'surge' success, and again on his attack on Obama's reaction to Russia's invasion of Georgia. Past that, frankly, McCain didn't seem to have much to say. He seemed to repeat the same old message (the surge worked) over and over again. My reaction was, "Is THAT all you've got?" You're going to claim someone is unready, and all you can complain about is someone feeling, that after 3 and a half years, there was no reason to believe the Bush administration any longer - and so be skeptical of the surge?
Obama, for his part, appeared calm, even Presidential. He didn't have much meat to his answers, though, even on things which should have been easy for him. He DID however, do the one thing the McCain camp could NOT have him do. He appeared ready, informed, prepared. He also stripped away the veneer that McCain was foolish enough to paste over himself, specifically, that the 'surge' was the only topic on Iraq worth mentioning. He pointed out the repeated mistakes and missteps of the administration, and of it's chief cheerleader, McCain. If there was a defining moment in that debate for Obama, it was him pointing out to McCain, the repeated mistakes, and saying, "It's as if you think that war started in 2007."
On the intangibles, the things which often tip debates, clearly Obama came across as more likaeble, more someone whom you could see in the role, could stand watching for 4 yeears on television. McCain appeared smug, even at times conceited. He also appeared cold, even wooden. He didn't even look at Obama once during the debate, a sign of disrespect, or so it would seem. The tracking meters all nose-dived whenever either candidate began attacking the other one, and mostly, McCain only attacked (small wonder, he has little positive to point to).
On balance 60/40 Obama - which means a loss for McCain because this was his favorite topic, the place where he 'has all the experience', and because Obama appeared MORE than able to hold his own.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Charlie Rangel
Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY), must go, meaning, he must be replaced as Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee
He has on-going allegations and factual substantiation of failure to pay taxes on properties in the Dominican Republic, failure to report taxable income in other investments, and sweet-heart deals in New York City on rental property.
As Chairman of Ways and Means, he chairs one of the most important committees in Congress. Among its duties is oversight of tax policy. Clearly Mr. Rangel has become too cozy, too comfortable with the power and the temptations his position offers.
If this were one allegation, I'd agree that it's much ado about nothing, as he asserts, but it isn't. It's at least two serious charges of failure to pay taxes, along with tax deferements on properties he has no legitimate need to be renting or having government subsidy expended against.
The bottom line is to lead, is to set an example. His example is intollerable, and he must go. Let the hypocrtical hyper-polemics defend their crookss as they will (e.g. Tom Foley or Tom Delay), but the right example is demanding of BOTH parties that they live up to the public trust they are graced and honored to be given.
He has on-going allegations and factual substantiation of failure to pay taxes on properties in the Dominican Republic, failure to report taxable income in other investments, and sweet-heart deals in New York City on rental property.
As Chairman of Ways and Means, he chairs one of the most important committees in Congress. Among its duties is oversight of tax policy. Clearly Mr. Rangel has become too cozy, too comfortable with the power and the temptations his position offers.
If this were one allegation, I'd agree that it's much ado about nothing, as he asserts, but it isn't. It's at least two serious charges of failure to pay taxes, along with tax deferements on properties he has no legitimate need to be renting or having government subsidy expended against.
The bottom line is to lead, is to set an example. His example is intollerable, and he must go. Let the hypocrtical hyper-polemics defend their crookss as they will (e.g. Tom Foley or Tom Delay), but the right example is demanding of BOTH parties that they live up to the public trust they are graced and honored to be given.
Monday, September 15, 2008
The Fall of Giants
It may be that in 20 or 100 years, they will look back on today and call it "Black Monday."
It certainly is a bell-weather, a day to recall - the fall of the two largest investment banks in the country, coming only days after the bailout of the two largest lending institutions (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac).
I work in this industry, I have friends at Lehman, my peers at my current company all come from Merril. It's a sad, sad day.
There are a few fools who attributed Fannie and Freddie to Henry Paulson, that's just because they don't know anything, but let me be clear, FM/FM failures stem from the market they were required to play in - backing FHA loans regardless of the risk taken on by the originator.
Lehman and Merril represent collapses due to unsound investment, sure, but why did they invest unsoundly? What caused the liquidity crisis? What caused people with good credit and sound income to declare bankruptcy? These aren't sub-prime loans, these were ARM's, or Home Equity Lines of Credit (HELOCs), or Home Equity Loans (HEILs). Why are so many defaulting? Why did someone at Merril estimate that a huge percentage of their HEIL's are at risk of default?
The answer is frankly simple, peoples income have not kept up with costs of living - they can't absorb these continuing inflationary pressures. What they absorbed through their home equity in the past, is no longer available. When you include the massive debt burdened/heaped on them by the admninistration for Iraq, for FM/FM bailout, for unfunded infrastructure - all to give more money to the top, who then DIDN'T invest it in America - well, not just Joe Average is bankrupt - so to is the ability of the public to pay these debts.
As a result, make no mistake, the rocks have been hit - the hull is leaking - and no BS about ear-marks is going to make it all go away. We have huge problems, not the least of which is that good friends of mine are packing their desks for things they didn't cause, being held accountable for something they didn't do. Those who ARE responsible for this mess have cashed their stock options and fled to Bermuda. Perhaps we can brand them with a big fat black 'G' - for greed - and they can try to tell us all how greed is good.
It certainly is a bell-weather, a day to recall - the fall of the two largest investment banks in the country, coming only days after the bailout of the two largest lending institutions (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac).
I work in this industry, I have friends at Lehman, my peers at my current company all come from Merril. It's a sad, sad day.
There are a few fools who attributed Fannie and Freddie to Henry Paulson, that's just because they don't know anything, but let me be clear, FM/FM failures stem from the market they were required to play in - backing FHA loans regardless of the risk taken on by the originator.
Lehman and Merril represent collapses due to unsound investment, sure, but why did they invest unsoundly? What caused the liquidity crisis? What caused people with good credit and sound income to declare bankruptcy? These aren't sub-prime loans, these were ARM's, or Home Equity Lines of Credit (HELOCs), or Home Equity Loans (HEILs). Why are so many defaulting? Why did someone at Merril estimate that a huge percentage of their HEIL's are at risk of default?
The answer is frankly simple, peoples income have not kept up with costs of living - they can't absorb these continuing inflationary pressures. What they absorbed through their home equity in the past, is no longer available. When you include the massive debt burdened/heaped on them by the admninistration for Iraq, for FM/FM bailout, for unfunded infrastructure - all to give more money to the top, who then DIDN'T invest it in America - well, not just Joe Average is bankrupt - so to is the ability of the public to pay these debts.
As a result, make no mistake, the rocks have been hit - the hull is leaking - and no BS about ear-marks is going to make it all go away. We have huge problems, not the least of which is that good friends of mine are packing their desks for things they didn't cause, being held accountable for something they didn't do. Those who ARE responsible for this mess have cashed their stock options and fled to Bermuda. Perhaps we can brand them with a big fat black 'G' - for greed - and they can try to tell us all how greed is good.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
1944? 1954? 1984.
Recently I asked a question of a prolific right-wing blogger and active member of ScaifeNet. In his normal Orwellian way, Mitch Berg attempted to turn the world 180 degrees upside down and declare truth to be lies, and lies to be truth.
I asked, "What would you categorize Rush Limbaugh as, who claims Naziism to be a liberal/leftist movement, because (to quote) “after all, it has Socialism in the name.”? This was in reply to Berg's complaint that others, including those on the left, compare right-wing extremism to fascism - and he doesn't like it.
His reply was, "It’s an oversimplification, but there’s a lot of truth to it. Hitler admired the way Lenin seized control of society, and used many of Lenin’s methods. He saw the need to totally subsume society in his ideology"
And my reaction is this; No, there's damned little truth in it outside the fact that each was a totalitarian - Stalin would be closer to Hitler anyway, than Lenin. Such an analogy, however, is extraodinarily simplistic and immature. It is wilfully changing the discussion to Totalitarianism, and then saying liberalism is passingly familiar with socialism so therefore, as Lenin was a communist - and could be calledd a socialist, and communism is totalitarian, ipso facto, liberalism is facism. Utter, commplete, nonsense. First, Lenin was far more committed to communism than socialims, meaning, while he embraced (kinda) the idea of egalitarian economics, he FAR MORE embraced (and Stalin even moreso) the ideals of extremist power grabbing, there is NO relationshp between THAT and liberalism OR socialims. Both of those economic/ethical ideals embrace the ideal of NOT ACCEPTING TOTALITARIANISM - unlike right wing extremism, which mouths equality, but supports the suspension of rights like habeaus corpus.
Further, all totalitarians use scape-goats and half-truths to assume power, and nearly always come out of near anarchy as a precedent (including civil war), but that doesn't make Hitler a Socialist, and certainly doesn't make him a liberal, an ideology which sometimes gets so bound up in tolerance of competing ideals that it stagnates and becomes incapable of action. Hitler was hardly stagnant, he began his programs of extermination and persecution within weeks of taking over as German Chancellor.
He went on "..as Lenin did; he adapted Lenin’s tactics heavily to German society (Russia was a preliterate peasant society with no liberal tradition; Germany, while historically authoritarian, was industrial, educated and somewhat cosmopolitan, and needed a different approach to totalitarianism).
I’d suggest you read Modern Times, by Paul Johnson, which has an excellent account of Hitler’s intellectual relationship with Lenin."
My counter would be to suggest reading about Joe McCarthy, a right-wing extremist red-baiter who had more in common with Hitler than either Lenin or Stalin did with Hitler. Hitler's intellectual relationship to Lenin extends to each's desire to gain power and use that power to deceive and distort issues. Lenin and Hitler are hardly equivilant people. I'd look at the book, but if it attempts to blur the difference between Facism and Communism, then it's silly.
The real point of course was this: This question wasn't abougt Hitler - and the reply was an attempt to confuse the issue that while Righties complain abougt Hilter comparisons, they love to make ludicrous comparisons of Nazism - which was founded on the political/economic philosphies of facism - with liberalism. The two ideologies could hardly be more different. So, the question wasn't about Hitler, it was about Facism, and was ignored. Mitch conveniently ignored the economic model employed by Communism and Nazism (and of course, liberalism), the political positions taken by each system and for that matter, each leader (Lenin and Hitler). One was clearly pro-worker, the other exterminated labor leaders, socialists, social democrats, trade unionist, labor unionists. If Hitler were such a liberal, I'd like to see examples of where liberals engaged in programatic extermination of a race, ethnicity, or religion? I'd also like someone to explain Hitler's extermination of 350,000 or so Social Democrats and Communits? (not to mention starving to death about 3,000,000 Soviet/Slav POW's).
So, I clarified the question:
Do you think Facism is a left wing movement?
The obfuscating reply was, "I think that “right” and “left” are an overused metaphor, (I actually prefer a two-dimensional view based on views of personal and economic liberty), and that “fascism” has been used to imprecisely...that it’s lost most of its meaning."
NO, facism has a very clear meaning for anyone desiring to understand it. Mitch instead desired to specifically NOT address the fact that it represents control of the government by corporate hegemony - collaberation with that government to enhance the position of the elite, and along with all of it, the dimunition of the middle class by scape-goat politics to pursue their subjegation to enhance a hyper-nationalistic, hyper-militaristic state. He ignored it all, despite knowing it, because it would have indicted Limbaugh as a gasbag, perpetrating deliberate falsehood. There is nearly zero relationship between liberalism and Facism, except when some chuckle-head of a liberal promotes totalitarianism in some form, and THEN it's a relationship with Totalitarianism, not Hitler and certainly not Facims.
He then laid out this whopper, "However, in fact Mussolini was by any rational definition a leftist (REALLY??? So EVERY Social Scientist who has classified Facism as rightwing extremism had it wrong??!! AND, weren't rational besides.. you see, apparently right wing extremism isn't extreme, it doesn't exist.. that's the upshot of this BS argument - they don't seek control, they don't use politics and power as a bludgeon, they don't squelch debate with hate-filled rhetoric, they don't invent excuses to invade countries just because they want to. Nope, hyper-militaristic, xenophobia, it's a complete invention of the left to say that applies to righties.. OMG)
Berg justifies this whopper with nonsesnes, "(he (Mussolin) nationalized industries, created a large complex entitlement state and controlled the media), albeit not a totalitarian (he didn’t use the state to supplant religion, the family
FAT LOAD OF CRAP - those are also halmarks of Facism, and as for control of the media, what would you call Fox News, and all of the right wing radio stations - Open Discussion forums??? Mussolini (and Spear) nationalized industries they needed to for their military programs only as a last resort, but by and large worked hand in glove with those industries instead to provide them a. slave labor b. massive profits, and c. (most importantly) busted unions (including murdering union leaders) to ensure vast profits for those corporations. This is the most gauling of Berg's numerous fictions - to say that Mussolin was some sort of leftist when he openly advocated for violence against those on the left is assinine in the extreme - and advocated for it not because he was a leftist (and to thereby take power) but to payback his corporate partners.
He also propped up and worked closesly with other industrial leaders to make them fabulously wealthy. So Mitch, in one breath talks about liking an analogy of free/totalitarian, and then goes back on the comment to try to peg right-wing hyper-miltarism and corporate/government cooperation, on leftists.. ludicrous.
Also, Mussolini's 'large and complex entitlement state' was anything but large or complex, certainly not as compared to the New Deal. To be sure, he had a few such programs, but they were mostly sops to get control - he believed in the Corporate state, and as the inventor of 'Facism' in fact, he said, Facism is 'Corporati Il Stati' as memory serves, or translated "The Corporate State."
He went on to say, " and every other facet of society). He added to that intense nationalism and a “fascist” personality cult. I do believe many leftists are intellectual thugs, yes"
See, there it is again, conflating nationalism with leftist - since when? Further, Facism - at it's core is pro-corporate conduct, not anti, finally, personality cult - like perhaps as in oh, say the blind acceptance of WMD lies? Intellectual thugs come in lots of varieties, including those who claim that 'If you aren't for us you're against us" (like Joe McCarthy and George Bush) - as well as those who claim that anyone who questions the leader is a traitor- aiding and abetting the enemy (like Joseph Geobells and John Kline and one Mitch Berg).
But yes, some leftists step over the line and engage in the same sort of smear idiocy that people like Sarah Palin do when they (falsely claim they were the victim of sexism) - and become intellectual thugs. Whereas folks like Mussolini and Hitler, were ACTUAL thugs - using juvenile and underhanded tactics to demean their opposition until such time as they had the power to simply kill them.
Intellectual thuggery takes a lot of forms, including distorting the truth, attempting to squelch all debeate by simply attacking the messenger when your message fails, and ... attempting to claim that the thing the people should fear, is freedom of thought -- like questioning the base motives of right wing (or left wing) extremism, where it comes from, and what it truly is. It's better, it appears, to claim there is no such thing, and to blame a scapegoat (like liberalism)for those things which in fact you embrace wholeheartedly.
I asked, "What would you categorize Rush Limbaugh as, who claims Naziism to be a liberal/leftist movement, because (to quote) “after all, it has Socialism in the name.”? This was in reply to Berg's complaint that others, including those on the left, compare right-wing extremism to fascism - and he doesn't like it.
His reply was, "It’s an oversimplification, but there’s a lot of truth to it. Hitler admired the way Lenin seized control of society, and used many of Lenin’s methods. He saw the need to totally subsume society in his ideology"
And my reaction is this; No, there's damned little truth in it outside the fact that each was a totalitarian - Stalin would be closer to Hitler anyway, than Lenin. Such an analogy, however, is extraodinarily simplistic and immature. It is wilfully changing the discussion to Totalitarianism, and then saying liberalism is passingly familiar with socialism so therefore, as Lenin was a communist - and could be calledd a socialist, and communism is totalitarian, ipso facto, liberalism is facism. Utter, commplete, nonsense. First, Lenin was far more committed to communism than socialims, meaning, while he embraced (kinda) the idea of egalitarian economics, he FAR MORE embraced (and Stalin even moreso) the ideals of extremist power grabbing, there is NO relationshp between THAT and liberalism OR socialims. Both of those economic/ethical ideals embrace the ideal of NOT ACCEPTING TOTALITARIANISM - unlike right wing extremism, which mouths equality, but supports the suspension of rights like habeaus corpus.
Further, all totalitarians use scape-goats and half-truths to assume power, and nearly always come out of near anarchy as a precedent (including civil war), but that doesn't make Hitler a Socialist, and certainly doesn't make him a liberal, an ideology which sometimes gets so bound up in tolerance of competing ideals that it stagnates and becomes incapable of action. Hitler was hardly stagnant, he began his programs of extermination and persecution within weeks of taking over as German Chancellor.
He went on "..as Lenin did; he adapted Lenin’s tactics heavily to German society (Russia was a preliterate peasant society with no liberal tradition; Germany, while historically authoritarian, was industrial, educated and somewhat cosmopolitan, and needed a different approach to totalitarianism).
I’d suggest you read Modern Times, by Paul Johnson, which has an excellent account of Hitler’s intellectual relationship with Lenin."
My counter would be to suggest reading about Joe McCarthy, a right-wing extremist red-baiter who had more in common with Hitler than either Lenin or Stalin did with Hitler. Hitler's intellectual relationship to Lenin extends to each's desire to gain power and use that power to deceive and distort issues. Lenin and Hitler are hardly equivilant people. I'd look at the book, but if it attempts to blur the difference between Facism and Communism, then it's silly.
The real point of course was this: This question wasn't abougt Hitler - and the reply was an attempt to confuse the issue that while Righties complain abougt Hilter comparisons, they love to make ludicrous comparisons of Nazism - which was founded on the political/economic philosphies of facism - with liberalism. The two ideologies could hardly be more different. So, the question wasn't about Hitler, it was about Facism, and was ignored. Mitch conveniently ignored the economic model employed by Communism and Nazism (and of course, liberalism), the political positions taken by each system and for that matter, each leader (Lenin and Hitler). One was clearly pro-worker, the other exterminated labor leaders, socialists, social democrats, trade unionist, labor unionists. If Hitler were such a liberal, I'd like to see examples of where liberals engaged in programatic extermination of a race, ethnicity, or religion? I'd also like someone to explain Hitler's extermination of 350,000 or so Social Democrats and Communits? (not to mention starving to death about 3,000,000 Soviet/Slav POW's).
So, I clarified the question:
Do you think Facism is a left wing movement?
The obfuscating reply was, "I think that “right” and “left” are an overused metaphor, (I actually prefer a two-dimensional view based on views of personal and economic liberty), and that “fascism” has been used to imprecisely...that it’s lost most of its meaning."
NO, facism has a very clear meaning for anyone desiring to understand it. Mitch instead desired to specifically NOT address the fact that it represents control of the government by corporate hegemony - collaberation with that government to enhance the position of the elite, and along with all of it, the dimunition of the middle class by scape-goat politics to pursue their subjegation to enhance a hyper-nationalistic, hyper-militaristic state. He ignored it all, despite knowing it, because it would have indicted Limbaugh as a gasbag, perpetrating deliberate falsehood. There is nearly zero relationship between liberalism and Facism, except when some chuckle-head of a liberal promotes totalitarianism in some form, and THEN it's a relationship with Totalitarianism, not Hitler and certainly not Facims.
He then laid out this whopper, "However, in fact Mussolini was by any rational definition a leftist (REALLY??? So EVERY Social Scientist who has classified Facism as rightwing extremism had it wrong??!! AND, weren't rational besides.. you see, apparently right wing extremism isn't extreme, it doesn't exist.. that's the upshot of this BS argument - they don't seek control, they don't use politics and power as a bludgeon, they don't squelch debate with hate-filled rhetoric, they don't invent excuses to invade countries just because they want to. Nope, hyper-militaristic, xenophobia, it's a complete invention of the left to say that applies to righties.. OMG)
Berg justifies this whopper with nonsesnes, "(he (Mussolin) nationalized industries, created a large complex entitlement state and controlled the media), albeit not a totalitarian (he didn’t use the state to supplant religion, the family
FAT LOAD OF CRAP - those are also halmarks of Facism, and as for control of the media, what would you call Fox News, and all of the right wing radio stations - Open Discussion forums??? Mussolini (and Spear) nationalized industries they needed to for their military programs only as a last resort, but by and large worked hand in glove with those industries instead to provide them a. slave labor b. massive profits, and c. (most importantly) busted unions (including murdering union leaders) to ensure vast profits for those corporations. This is the most gauling of Berg's numerous fictions - to say that Mussolin was some sort of leftist when he openly advocated for violence against those on the left is assinine in the extreme - and advocated for it not because he was a leftist (and to thereby take power) but to payback his corporate partners.
He also propped up and worked closesly with other industrial leaders to make them fabulously wealthy. So Mitch, in one breath talks about liking an analogy of free/totalitarian, and then goes back on the comment to try to peg right-wing hyper-miltarism and corporate/government cooperation, on leftists.. ludicrous.
Also, Mussolini's 'large and complex entitlement state' was anything but large or complex, certainly not as compared to the New Deal. To be sure, he had a few such programs, but they were mostly sops to get control - he believed in the Corporate state, and as the inventor of 'Facism' in fact, he said, Facism is 'Corporati Il Stati' as memory serves, or translated "The Corporate State."
He went on to say, " and every other facet of society). He added to that intense nationalism and a “fascist” personality cult. I do believe many leftists are intellectual thugs, yes"
See, there it is again, conflating nationalism with leftist - since when? Further, Facism - at it's core is pro-corporate conduct, not anti, finally, personality cult - like perhaps as in oh, say the blind acceptance of WMD lies? Intellectual thugs come in lots of varieties, including those who claim that 'If you aren't for us you're against us" (like Joe McCarthy and George Bush) - as well as those who claim that anyone who questions the leader is a traitor- aiding and abetting the enemy (like Joseph Geobells and John Kline and one Mitch Berg).
But yes, some leftists step over the line and engage in the same sort of smear idiocy that people like Sarah Palin do when they (falsely claim they were the victim of sexism) - and become intellectual thugs. Whereas folks like Mussolini and Hitler, were ACTUAL thugs - using juvenile and underhanded tactics to demean their opposition until such time as they had the power to simply kill them.
Intellectual thuggery takes a lot of forms, including distorting the truth, attempting to squelch all debeate by simply attacking the messenger when your message fails, and ... attempting to claim that the thing the people should fear, is freedom of thought -- like questioning the base motives of right wing (or left wing) extremism, where it comes from, and what it truly is. It's better, it appears, to claim there is no such thing, and to blame a scapegoat (like liberalism)for those things which in fact you embrace wholeheartedly.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Certainties
One thing we can be certain of, no matter who Barack Obama picked as a running mate, the Republicans would have attacked him or her. They had a canned commercial all setup and ready to air first thing Saturday for Biden. As Biden was the least likely of four or five possibilities, it's easy to conclude really ANYONE chosen would have been attacked.
For Hilary - too liberal, too bitchy, too much like Bill
Tom Kaine - too inexperienced
Biden - too experienced
Bill Richardson - too much of an outsider, too inexperienced, too liberal
It would have happened no matter what, and that's why Tim Pawlenty's criticisms of Obama and Biden are nothing more than political theatre. Biden represented a reasonable, though unexpected, balancing of the ticket, in the same way that Dukakis selected Lloyd Bentsen, or for that matter, Dubbya chose Cheney.
I don't love the selection of Biden, I don't see him adding much in terms of diversity, I would have rather had Clinton, as I think she represents (for some unknowable reason) an olive branch to blue-collar Democrats and Independents, but then again, so does Biden. It's just I suppose with Biden, Obama avoids the acrimony which built up between he and Clinton, and he avoids Bill's commanding presence at the White House.
But of one thing I am truly certain, the Republicans will SAY ANYTHING at any time, such as the doctoring of climate change data, birth and health statistics, invention of intelligence about Uranium, blaming of North Korea for the acts of Pakistan and Dubai, (this list is endless btw), to them, politics trumps truth, the ends justifies the means, and making a hollow claim (Pawlenty) which is absolutely and easily applicable to their own President, is just fine as long as it gets air time.
And get airtime it will, thanks to Faux News, another certainty - like taxes used to make the rich richer, a certainty you can bet the house on.
For Hilary - too liberal, too bitchy, too much like Bill
Tom Kaine - too inexperienced
Biden - too experienced
Bill Richardson - too much of an outsider, too inexperienced, too liberal
It would have happened no matter what, and that's why Tim Pawlenty's criticisms of Obama and Biden are nothing more than political theatre. Biden represented a reasonable, though unexpected, balancing of the ticket, in the same way that Dukakis selected Lloyd Bentsen, or for that matter, Dubbya chose Cheney.
I don't love the selection of Biden, I don't see him adding much in terms of diversity, I would have rather had Clinton, as I think she represents (for some unknowable reason) an olive branch to blue-collar Democrats and Independents, but then again, so does Biden. It's just I suppose with Biden, Obama avoids the acrimony which built up between he and Clinton, and he avoids Bill's commanding presence at the White House.
But of one thing I am truly certain, the Republicans will SAY ANYTHING at any time, such as the doctoring of climate change data, birth and health statistics, invention of intelligence about Uranium, blaming of North Korea for the acts of Pakistan and Dubai, (this list is endless btw), to them, politics trumps truth, the ends justifies the means, and making a hollow claim (Pawlenty) which is absolutely and easily applicable to their own President, is just fine as long as it gets air time.
And get airtime it will, thanks to Faux News, another certainty - like taxes used to make the rich richer, a certainty you can bet the house on.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Speaking Francly
Today there was a story of 10 French soldiers killed in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban.
The Taliban, of course, are the hostile, ultra-conservative, ultra-orthodox Mujahadeen descendants of the 1980's Afghani resistance against the Soviet occupation. They eventually embraced the similarly virulent and hostile Wahabis of Yemen and Saudi Arabia, a movement which grew into the leadership of Al Qaeda. The Taliban offered safe harbor for Al Qaeda, and of course, Al Qaeda's leadership was living in Afghanistan, on Septemember 11, 2001, and trained and launched those attacks from bases in Afghanistan provided by the Taliban. Fighting the Taliban is nearly equivilant to fighting Al Qaeda, with the sole exception that it is likely the Taliban can be claimed to be legitimate resistance fighters INSIDE Afghanistan.
The French have repeatedly stood by our side when trouble came. They stood by our side in relation to Vietnam and the Viet Minh in the fight against the 'Domino Theory' ludicrousness. They stood by our side in our own Revolution, in the war of 1812, in our own Civil War for that matter. We've fought by their side in WWI, WWII, in Korea, in Desert Storm I, and in Aghanistan. They've, in fact, put more boots on the ground in support of the US than ANY OTHER NATION, bar none, in raw numbers of troops. They lost more troops in WWII, despite fighting less time, than the US, but we forget that. They fought valiantly to liberate Paris, to support the D-Day landings, taking horrific losses among their freedom fighters, but we forget that.
Yesterday 10 more French fighters were killed fighting Terrorism, in a war WE decided needed to be broader than just getting the Taliban and Al Qaeda, ignoring the advice of our allies, including the French and British (who had extensive experience fighting in the Punjab and Kashmiri regions of Pakistan/Afghanistan)- to keep our 'eye on the ball'. They stood by while our troops inadequately attempted to deal with a resurging Taliban.
And yesterday, 10 more Frenchman died. The French have NEVER threatened to pull their troops from Afghanistan.
I wonder how many conservatives today will choose to call them "Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys?" Arrogance is not only a sin, it's ugly and it's vulgar, as well as just plain ignorant and stupid.
My response is "Viv Le France!, Merci Beaucoup"
The Taliban, of course, are the hostile, ultra-conservative, ultra-orthodox Mujahadeen descendants of the 1980's Afghani resistance against the Soviet occupation. They eventually embraced the similarly virulent and hostile Wahabis of Yemen and Saudi Arabia, a movement which grew into the leadership of Al Qaeda. The Taliban offered safe harbor for Al Qaeda, and of course, Al Qaeda's leadership was living in Afghanistan, on Septemember 11, 2001, and trained and launched those attacks from bases in Afghanistan provided by the Taliban. Fighting the Taliban is nearly equivilant to fighting Al Qaeda, with the sole exception that it is likely the Taliban can be claimed to be legitimate resistance fighters INSIDE Afghanistan.
The French have repeatedly stood by our side when trouble came. They stood by our side in relation to Vietnam and the Viet Minh in the fight against the 'Domino Theory' ludicrousness. They stood by our side in our own Revolution, in the war of 1812, in our own Civil War for that matter. We've fought by their side in WWI, WWII, in Korea, in Desert Storm I, and in Aghanistan. They've, in fact, put more boots on the ground in support of the US than ANY OTHER NATION, bar none, in raw numbers of troops. They lost more troops in WWII, despite fighting less time, than the US, but we forget that. They fought valiantly to liberate Paris, to support the D-Day landings, taking horrific losses among their freedom fighters, but we forget that.
Yesterday 10 more French fighters were killed fighting Terrorism, in a war WE decided needed to be broader than just getting the Taliban and Al Qaeda, ignoring the advice of our allies, including the French and British (who had extensive experience fighting in the Punjab and Kashmiri regions of Pakistan/Afghanistan)- to keep our 'eye on the ball'. They stood by while our troops inadequately attempted to deal with a resurging Taliban.
And yesterday, 10 more Frenchman died. The French have NEVER threatened to pull their troops from Afghanistan.
I wonder how many conservatives today will choose to call them "Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys?" Arrogance is not only a sin, it's ugly and it's vulgar, as well as just plain ignorant and stupid.
My response is "Viv Le France!, Merci Beaucoup"
Monday, August 11, 2008
The Theft of Thought
If I were to write a book on politics in my adult life, this title, "The Theft of Thought", would get real consideration.
Since the 1981 Reagan Revolution, discussion of policy, especially civil consideration of the best course of action, has become increasingly rare.
Bill Bradley was on Bill Maher's show recently - and said something I've felt for a while - namely that the inherent qualities which draw people to the Republican or Democratic party are not irreconciliable, they're not even opposed, but we've made them so.
Bradley postulates the primary ethic of Republicans is self-reliance, or even more clearly, personal responsibility.
He said he feels the primary ethic of Democrats is decency and concern for 'your fellow man.
I think both are correct and fair, and yet, like Bradley, I see that the politically active members of both parties show real contempt for the politically active members of the other party. This didn't use to be so, in fact, in the 60's (or 50's) there was vastly more civil discourse, and work toward effective comprimise, than there has been in the 90's and certainly more than today. Paul Krugman feels this is because during that period, the parties were not far apart on policy, so there was little need for the kind of invective and venom we see today. He's right of course that there was less divergence on policy, and he's also right that the Republicans have shifted FAR right from then, while Democrats, if anything, have become more moderate as compared to the days of the New Deal or the Great Society.
Yet, I don't feel that's the full explanation. Krugman's explanation seems to say, because John became more radical in his political position, John and Jane treat each other contemptuously. I think that the contempt was part and parcel of the radical shift, in fact, I think it caused and was the genesis of the shift, not the other way around.
Political discourse in this country became highly beligerent starting in 1964 with the Goldwater campaign. The rhetoric of Barry Goldwater - which even he felt was over the top later in life - was belicose, was full of the kinds of finger pointing and red-baiting that only McCarthy had really used since the 1930's.
Then, in 1976, and gaining ground in 1980, 1994, 2000 and 2004, a series of political attack apparatus and persons appeared, nearly all of them on the right, whcih instead of talking about policies, talked about 'character', and not in a nice way - started saying things like 'aiding and abbetting' the enemy - when someone dissented - and the chilling effect it had on the press, and on Democrats as well, was palpable. Democrats became defensive and beligerent in response, but now, to very little less degree, than Republican extremists, and it's repulsive.
Does anyone truly think someone like John Kerry (or John McCain) truly would willingly do something to jeapordize the national security interests of the country? If so, why? What inconceivably foolish notion other than animosity could drive such hatred? George Bush didn't blow up the World Trade Center - and Barack Obama isn't going to trade Israel away to terrorists.
However, rational, clear debate is the nemesis of the radicals. Because rational debate debunks the mythology about the opposition they've built up in recruiting followers. Try suggesting sometime to a staunch party loyalist, that a moderate from the other party is preferable to radical from your own and see what you get. Try to discuss, for example, whether our approach in how to secure Iraq was well planned, and you'll either get called a traitor (by the reactionary extremist Republicans) or a warmonger (by rabid anti-war radical Democrats). Even the terms which used to mean the more centrist elements of the parties 'conservative' and 'liberal' have supplanted the terms for the extremists (of radical and reactionary).
No, no longer do we have clear, reasoned debate. Instead it's sound-bites like "he's a celebrity", or "the One", which the right (and now the left) hammer home like some high-school bully, completely uninterested in the actual facts, any debate or discussion. The message apparently is, we want victory, not skillful policy or diplomacy. We are here to blugeon you - to belittle you personally, to create contempt, even hatred for you.
Thoughtful purpose, development of sound fiscal policy, for example, or even just a sound discussion of fair tax policy, that's for only an internal crowd. Thought, it seems is dead, is in fact, even outlawed. It has been stolen away, stolen by zealots who care less about finding a solution that benefits all, except in that they are convinced the ends justifies the means, and thus, anything in the middle is fair game until the end is achieved. It is reminscent of the Soviet communist theory, totalitarianism until the utopian state arises.
The only problem of course, in this Benthamite ethcial world, is that the state never arises, and of course, no one group of people has EVER had the right answer for everyone else - without including everyone else's wisdom in the decision.
So instead it's down with thought, the death of the American experiment soon to follow.
Since the 1981 Reagan Revolution, discussion of policy, especially civil consideration of the best course of action, has become increasingly rare.
Bill Bradley was on Bill Maher's show recently - and said something I've felt for a while - namely that the inherent qualities which draw people to the Republican or Democratic party are not irreconciliable, they're not even opposed, but we've made them so.
Bradley postulates the primary ethic of Republicans is self-reliance, or even more clearly, personal responsibility.
He said he feels the primary ethic of Democrats is decency and concern for 'your fellow man.
I think both are correct and fair, and yet, like Bradley, I see that the politically active members of both parties show real contempt for the politically active members of the other party. This didn't use to be so, in fact, in the 60's (or 50's) there was vastly more civil discourse, and work toward effective comprimise, than there has been in the 90's and certainly more than today. Paul Krugman feels this is because during that period, the parties were not far apart on policy, so there was little need for the kind of invective and venom we see today. He's right of course that there was less divergence on policy, and he's also right that the Republicans have shifted FAR right from then, while Democrats, if anything, have become more moderate as compared to the days of the New Deal or the Great Society.
Yet, I don't feel that's the full explanation. Krugman's explanation seems to say, because John became more radical in his political position, John and Jane treat each other contemptuously. I think that the contempt was part and parcel of the radical shift, in fact, I think it caused and was the genesis of the shift, not the other way around.
Political discourse in this country became highly beligerent starting in 1964 with the Goldwater campaign. The rhetoric of Barry Goldwater - which even he felt was over the top later in life - was belicose, was full of the kinds of finger pointing and red-baiting that only McCarthy had really used since the 1930's.
Then, in 1976, and gaining ground in 1980, 1994, 2000 and 2004, a series of political attack apparatus and persons appeared, nearly all of them on the right, whcih instead of talking about policies, talked about 'character', and not in a nice way - started saying things like 'aiding and abbetting' the enemy - when someone dissented - and the chilling effect it had on the press, and on Democrats as well, was palpable. Democrats became defensive and beligerent in response, but now, to very little less degree, than Republican extremists, and it's repulsive.
Does anyone truly think someone like John Kerry (or John McCain) truly would willingly do something to jeapordize the national security interests of the country? If so, why? What inconceivably foolish notion other than animosity could drive such hatred? George Bush didn't blow up the World Trade Center - and Barack Obama isn't going to trade Israel away to terrorists.
However, rational, clear debate is the nemesis of the radicals. Because rational debate debunks the mythology about the opposition they've built up in recruiting followers. Try suggesting sometime to a staunch party loyalist, that a moderate from the other party is preferable to radical from your own and see what you get. Try to discuss, for example, whether our approach in how to secure Iraq was well planned, and you'll either get called a traitor (by the reactionary extremist Republicans) or a warmonger (by rabid anti-war radical Democrats). Even the terms which used to mean the more centrist elements of the parties 'conservative' and 'liberal' have supplanted the terms for the extremists (of radical and reactionary).
No, no longer do we have clear, reasoned debate. Instead it's sound-bites like "he's a celebrity", or "the One", which the right (and now the left) hammer home like some high-school bully, completely uninterested in the actual facts, any debate or discussion. The message apparently is, we want victory, not skillful policy or diplomacy. We are here to blugeon you - to belittle you personally, to create contempt, even hatred for you.
Thoughtful purpose, development of sound fiscal policy, for example, or even just a sound discussion of fair tax policy, that's for only an internal crowd. Thought, it seems is dead, is in fact, even outlawed. It has been stolen away, stolen by zealots who care less about finding a solution that benefits all, except in that they are convinced the ends justifies the means, and thus, anything in the middle is fair game until the end is achieved. It is reminscent of the Soviet communist theory, totalitarianism until the utopian state arises.
The only problem of course, in this Benthamite ethcial world, is that the state never arises, and of course, no one group of people has EVER had the right answer for everyone else - without including everyone else's wisdom in the decision.
So instead it's down with thought, the death of the American experiment soon to follow.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
It's called buying votes
One of the themes you'll hear from time to time about the 'better days' of American politics, is a reference to record voter participation during the 1880's and 90's. The idea, or so the story goes, is that the American electorate was more erudite, more engaged, more committed.
Well, that's the theory - in reality of course, there are some glaring holes - namely, people worked enormous hours, had little free time to become aware - and less access to information that they do today, certainly.
No, instead the truth is a bit more seedy - voters and pricinct organizers were often paid to vote and recruit voters - vote buying was big business and business was good. Paul Krugman's book "Concience of a Liberal" outlines some specifics, but suffice to say - there was a lot more store bought voting, and a lot less true interest - than has been the mantra from teachers or from the right-wing of today which looks back fondly on those days of yore where their financial largesse was easily translated directly into votes.
And so today's story is very troubling - http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/07/politics/washingtonpost/main4327373.shtml -
Here's the thing, people can be paid for LOTS of things, but getting paid to essentially 'make up your mind' about McCain (in a positive way) and then go proselitize about McCain's virtues and Obama's sins, is nothing short of vote buying through an oblique measure. For example, let's say you're on the fence, and someone OFFERS to pay you to support their candidate - oh, online sure, only online - well, you might just very well take up that offer... I mean heck, you're getting PAID!, right?
It's also a direct violation of the idea of full disclosre of purchased advertising, as, since it's 'rewards' where the activity isn't fully tracked, it skirts the requirement to disclose campaign media purchases, both dollars committed, and location/method of delivery. McCain's camp certainly could never track the number of places a person might post - certainly not in any way easily verifiable - and as it's a contest, there's little sure way to know the value of funds given, which, um I'm guessing, they may just undercount dollars committed - just because it makes it look LESS like they're buying votes the smaller the number of dollars involved.
It's damned shady, and decidedly unethical, buying votes, obliquely is no better than buying them directly. Using clandestine moles to plant messages is shall we say, somewhat reminiscent of when BushCo put commercials out there made to look like news, but which were really push advertising for their programs, oh, and then there's the times they paid political pundits to push their agenda. You may remember those - the one's that ruined the careers of a couple of pundits because their veneer of objectivity was destroyed. Well this is just the exact same kind of thing writ large, and it's shameful, it's also sure as hell further evidence old "Straight Talk" is anything but straight, willing to use whatever shady trick he can get away with - including having paid poseuers on websites pretending to be the genuine article, deliverign unscripted and independently developed opinion.
It's also in a word, pathetic. If you can't attract votes and supporters to your idea because they are good ideas, and instead need to pay them to support you, perhaps it's not just your 'straight talk' approach that's the problem, it's your ideas.
Well, that's the theory - in reality of course, there are some glaring holes - namely, people worked enormous hours, had little free time to become aware - and less access to information that they do today, certainly.
No, instead the truth is a bit more seedy - voters and pricinct organizers were often paid to vote and recruit voters - vote buying was big business and business was good. Paul Krugman's book "Concience of a Liberal" outlines some specifics, but suffice to say - there was a lot more store bought voting, and a lot less true interest - than has been the mantra from teachers or from the right-wing of today which looks back fondly on those days of yore where their financial largesse was easily translated directly into votes.
And so today's story is very troubling - http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/07/politics/washingtonpost/main4327373.shtml -
Here's the thing, people can be paid for LOTS of things, but getting paid to essentially 'make up your mind' about McCain (in a positive way) and then go proselitize about McCain's virtues and Obama's sins, is nothing short of vote buying through an oblique measure. For example, let's say you're on the fence, and someone OFFERS to pay you to support their candidate - oh, online sure, only online - well, you might just very well take up that offer... I mean heck, you're getting PAID!, right?
It's also a direct violation of the idea of full disclosre of purchased advertising, as, since it's 'rewards' where the activity isn't fully tracked, it skirts the requirement to disclose campaign media purchases, both dollars committed, and location/method of delivery. McCain's camp certainly could never track the number of places a person might post - certainly not in any way easily verifiable - and as it's a contest, there's little sure way to know the value of funds given, which, um I'm guessing, they may just undercount dollars committed - just because it makes it look LESS like they're buying votes the smaller the number of dollars involved.
It's damned shady, and decidedly unethical, buying votes, obliquely is no better than buying them directly. Using clandestine moles to plant messages is shall we say, somewhat reminiscent of when BushCo put commercials out there made to look like news, but which were really push advertising for their programs, oh, and then there's the times they paid political pundits to push their agenda. You may remember those - the one's that ruined the careers of a couple of pundits because their veneer of objectivity was destroyed. Well this is just the exact same kind of thing writ large, and it's shameful, it's also sure as hell further evidence old "Straight Talk" is anything but straight, willing to use whatever shady trick he can get away with - including having paid poseuers on websites pretending to be the genuine article, deliverign unscripted and independently developed opinion.
It's also in a word, pathetic. If you can't attract votes and supporters to your idea because they are good ideas, and instead need to pay them to support you, perhaps it's not just your 'straight talk' approach that's the problem, it's your ideas.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Dollar Meal
"Would you like fries with that, because that's extra?," says the polite young lady across the order counter at McDonald's, after I've ordered from the McDonald's dollar menu. I ordered the Big Mac - the special one we're getting on the menu this fall.
I'll bet you didn't know you are getting a Dollar Meal with a Big Mac, but you are.
Here's the thing - Big Mac (McCain) offers no change, none, just like ordering from the Dollar Meal menu - you get NOTHING, no change for your dollar. Big Mac is a carbon copy on policy to Bush - fiscal restraint is even LESS likely, if that's possible, under McCain, and THAT's the only thing the Republicans can point to as change at all.
So instead, they have to smear Obama, calling him a 'celebrity' because he's far more eloquent and informed than their candidate, or 'The Messiah' because he generates real enthusiasm and hope, unlike their candidate.
So my response is this, the Republicans are running the Dollar Meal - A Big Mac, with no change for your dollar. It's unhealthy, fattening as hell, and the kind of meaningless fast-food quick fix soundbite baloney that defined the Bush administration. And, much like the real Big Mac (no offense McDonald's) you like Big Mac a little at first, when you first taste them, but then, an hour or two later, when you think about the costs, the calories, etc.. you feel bloated and sick, and wish you'd never tried it.
The Republicans are stuck in amber, running the same sorry, failed and distorted policies which make corporate giants rich, but the middle-class and poor even poorer, as they have since the days the Big Mac really WAS $1.00 (and no change).
I'll bet you didn't know you are getting a Dollar Meal with a Big Mac, but you are.
Here's the thing - Big Mac (McCain) offers no change, none, just like ordering from the Dollar Meal menu - you get NOTHING, no change for your dollar. Big Mac is a carbon copy on policy to Bush - fiscal restraint is even LESS likely, if that's possible, under McCain, and THAT's the only thing the Republicans can point to as change at all.
So instead, they have to smear Obama, calling him a 'celebrity' because he's far more eloquent and informed than their candidate, or 'The Messiah' because he generates real enthusiasm and hope, unlike their candidate.
So my response is this, the Republicans are running the Dollar Meal - A Big Mac, with no change for your dollar. It's unhealthy, fattening as hell, and the kind of meaningless fast-food quick fix soundbite baloney that defined the Bush administration. And, much like the real Big Mac (no offense McDonald's) you like Big Mac a little at first, when you first taste them, but then, an hour or two later, when you think about the costs, the calories, etc.. you feel bloated and sick, and wish you'd never tried it.
The Republicans are stuck in amber, running the same sorry, failed and distorted policies which make corporate giants rich, but the middle-class and poor even poorer, as they have since the days the Big Mac really WAS $1.00 (and no change).
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Economic Vapidity
The Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR - or An wahr), is a small parcel of land when contrasted against Alaska, but still, a pretty big parcel of land. It's bigger than West Virginia, and would rank as the 40th largest state if it were a state.
It was set aside in an effort to preserve species and land which had, by contrast, been destroyed in the lower 48 states, as a last haven for what was once a continent of pristine beauty. Of course, it was in the frozen north, land so undesirable, that it has the among lowest population densities in the world. That's part of the reason it was chosen.
Now, as we seen an ever increasing need for oil, those who would gladly strip mine the upper midwest for shale oil, also want access to ANWR, where there is approximately 18 Billion barrels of oil - and that's a lot of oil. It's 1 Billion more than was at the Prudhoe Bay finding.
So, sounds good, we do a little drilling, disturb not too much, and voila' we have much less expensive gas again, right?
Not so fast there big fella, some realities start to sink in when you consider where this oil is, and what is required to get it to a refinery. Some further realities sink in when you consider the overall impact such supply actually would have on the world market.
Prudhoe Bay/Alaskan oil represents 17% of the US oil consumption, it had 17 Billion barrels, about 9 of which has been pumped. It comes to the lower 48 through the Trans-Alaskan Oil Pipeline, which at peak, moved about 2.1 Million Barrels per day. Currently that pipeline carries 750k (roughly) per day.
Presumably, to use the ANWR find, the same pipeline would be used, if not, the time to get ANWR oil to market would be many, many years. Some sort of cross-ship pipeline would seem to be required - a big job, but a LOT less impactful than having to build a second pipeline, but that's where the trouble would seem to start. Prudhoe still HAS 8 Billion Barrels, and its shipping that daily at a rate of 750,000 barrels. If we assume ANWR would use up the remaining roughly 1.3 MM/bbl shipping capacity/day, then we get that ANWR would simply replace what was once coming from Prudhoe Bay. Meaning the net impact on the world stage would be roughly 1.3MM/bbl - even if ANWR could PUMP 10MM bbl/day, the problem is in logistics, there is no way to ship that oil south without either a. building a new pipeline - (a decade long project), or using the current pipeline.
Then there's this, oil is of course used world wide. 96% of the growth in consumption is in nations which subsidize the price of (and in many cases produce) oil. The US is not among that list. Their consumption will continue to grow until they are convinced to stop, they are impairing the ability of high prices to reduce consumption. Currently, the world uses about 100MM/bbl/day, at peak pumping ability, the amount of oil the oil producers can provide will peak in 4 years at 110MM/bbl/day. So, think about it, will 1.3MM/bbl/day make much, if any, difference, when consumption is only going to rise? Will a 1% increase in production really matter? The simple answer is, not very much. Oil is more affected by rumor than reality, so even a 1.3MM/bbl/day increase probably would drop the spot market by more than 1%, it might even drop it as much as 5% - but likely not much more. When OPEC agreed to increase supply by 1MM/bbl/day several years ago, oil dropped in price, but only a few dollars a barrel.
So, ANWR is unlikely to have much of an impact, and it won't have an impact for a decade or so.
Then let's talk about off-shore drilling. It wasn't economical 5 years ago, and is now only because oil is above $60/bbl. If the threats to Nigerian production, and to Iran's supply were removed, oil would probably be near $60/bbl according to both oil industry and airline industry executives. Meaning, offshore drilling is only viable IF supply isn't increased much above consumption growth. In short terms, it means offshore drilling won't be used if prices drop, so it won't really impact anything, other than keeping up with current consumption, and again, that won't happen for 10 years.
Then finally, there's shale oil. The US is said to have 150 Billion barrels of oil in shale oil deposits. There are two rather inconvenient truths here, though. First, shale oil takes HUGE amounts of water to extract, not exactly a robust commodity in North Dakota, Utah, Wyoming and Montana (where the deposits are found), and, if used for shale oil extraction, means it WON'T be available for US citizens, creating indirect shortages. Oh, and this pesky problem, shale oil is extracted by strip mining - clearing vast areas of land of it's topsoil. While the oil companies do a decent job of putting the landscape back into use, the shear vastness of the area of deposits means we'd have to strip mine an area roughly 20% of the size of the continental US to fully extract that oil - imagine the reality of that impact. So, there's not really enough water, and the environmental impact would be unbelievable in it's magnitude.
The bottom line is, the neo-cons want to entrust our future energy needs and stability to the same companies who couldn't predict the current shortfall, either didn't plan well enough how to handle it, or were plenty happen to see it coming and reap the benefits, and stood before Congress and said 'it's not OUR fault' that we didn't plan. I think the citizens of Alaska would be happy to atest to the soundness of trusting Exxon after the Valdez crash - it took a dozen years and a dozen lawsuits to get Exxon to live up to their promises to clean up the Alaskan coastline. I think trusting companies who's primary motive is profit - to 'do the right' thing, when they've so demonstrably proven they will do anything BUT the right thing if given an opportunity to make money off it, is economically vapid, vapid beyond words.
The long and short of it is simply this, there IS no immediate solution. The solution to trust the oil companies to find enough oil is trusting that in 10 years they won't look to create the same shortages, and maximize profits, that they could see 10 years ago. It also means trusting them NOT to pollute, or create economic wastelands, in pristine wilderness that is irreplacable. Finally, it ties our future to a fossil fuel that we KNOW has enormous negative impacts on the health of our country and the world as a whole. We are at a crossroads in history, do we look to simply find enough oil - as may exist in the shale deposits - to satisfy our gluttony for cheap, but destructive, energy sources - or do we look forward responsibly for better, cleaner energy? Some neo-cons say 'do both' but trusting that they'll actually DO both - is trusting them (oil companies) to not lead us into shortages that create massive profits and ruined economies. It's time to cut that umbilical cord and to put our future into the hands of people who grasp that if we do not concern ourselves with the plight of all, but rather the plight of a few, in the end, we all perish.
It was set aside in an effort to preserve species and land which had, by contrast, been destroyed in the lower 48 states, as a last haven for what was once a continent of pristine beauty. Of course, it was in the frozen north, land so undesirable, that it has the among lowest population densities in the world. That's part of the reason it was chosen.
Now, as we seen an ever increasing need for oil, those who would gladly strip mine the upper midwest for shale oil, also want access to ANWR, where there is approximately 18 Billion barrels of oil - and that's a lot of oil. It's 1 Billion more than was at the Prudhoe Bay finding.
So, sounds good, we do a little drilling, disturb not too much, and voila' we have much less expensive gas again, right?
Not so fast there big fella, some realities start to sink in when you consider where this oil is, and what is required to get it to a refinery. Some further realities sink in when you consider the overall impact such supply actually would have on the world market.
Prudhoe Bay/Alaskan oil represents 17% of the US oil consumption, it had 17 Billion barrels, about 9 of which has been pumped. It comes to the lower 48 through the Trans-Alaskan Oil Pipeline, which at peak, moved about 2.1 Million Barrels per day. Currently that pipeline carries 750k (roughly) per day.
Presumably, to use the ANWR find, the same pipeline would be used, if not, the time to get ANWR oil to market would be many, many years. Some sort of cross-ship pipeline would seem to be required - a big job, but a LOT less impactful than having to build a second pipeline, but that's where the trouble would seem to start. Prudhoe still HAS 8 Billion Barrels, and its shipping that daily at a rate of 750,000 barrels. If we assume ANWR would use up the remaining roughly 1.3 MM/bbl shipping capacity/day, then we get that ANWR would simply replace what was once coming from Prudhoe Bay. Meaning the net impact on the world stage would be roughly 1.3MM/bbl - even if ANWR could PUMP 10MM bbl/day, the problem is in logistics, there is no way to ship that oil south without either a. building a new pipeline - (a decade long project), or using the current pipeline.
Then there's this, oil is of course used world wide. 96% of the growth in consumption is in nations which subsidize the price of (and in many cases produce) oil. The US is not among that list. Their consumption will continue to grow until they are convinced to stop, they are impairing the ability of high prices to reduce consumption. Currently, the world uses about 100MM/bbl/day, at peak pumping ability, the amount of oil the oil producers can provide will peak in 4 years at 110MM/bbl/day. So, think about it, will 1.3MM/bbl/day make much, if any, difference, when consumption is only going to rise? Will a 1% increase in production really matter? The simple answer is, not very much. Oil is more affected by rumor than reality, so even a 1.3MM/bbl/day increase probably would drop the spot market by more than 1%, it might even drop it as much as 5% - but likely not much more. When OPEC agreed to increase supply by 1MM/bbl/day several years ago, oil dropped in price, but only a few dollars a barrel.
So, ANWR is unlikely to have much of an impact, and it won't have an impact for a decade or so.
Then let's talk about off-shore drilling. It wasn't economical 5 years ago, and is now only because oil is above $60/bbl. If the threats to Nigerian production, and to Iran's supply were removed, oil would probably be near $60/bbl according to both oil industry and airline industry executives. Meaning, offshore drilling is only viable IF supply isn't increased much above consumption growth. In short terms, it means offshore drilling won't be used if prices drop, so it won't really impact anything, other than keeping up with current consumption, and again, that won't happen for 10 years.
Then finally, there's shale oil. The US is said to have 150 Billion barrels of oil in shale oil deposits. There are two rather inconvenient truths here, though. First, shale oil takes HUGE amounts of water to extract, not exactly a robust commodity in North Dakota, Utah, Wyoming and Montana (where the deposits are found), and, if used for shale oil extraction, means it WON'T be available for US citizens, creating indirect shortages. Oh, and this pesky problem, shale oil is extracted by strip mining - clearing vast areas of land of it's topsoil. While the oil companies do a decent job of putting the landscape back into use, the shear vastness of the area of deposits means we'd have to strip mine an area roughly 20% of the size of the continental US to fully extract that oil - imagine the reality of that impact. So, there's not really enough water, and the environmental impact would be unbelievable in it's magnitude.
The bottom line is, the neo-cons want to entrust our future energy needs and stability to the same companies who couldn't predict the current shortfall, either didn't plan well enough how to handle it, or were plenty happen to see it coming and reap the benefits, and stood before Congress and said 'it's not OUR fault' that we didn't plan. I think the citizens of Alaska would be happy to atest to the soundness of trusting Exxon after the Valdez crash - it took a dozen years and a dozen lawsuits to get Exxon to live up to their promises to clean up the Alaskan coastline. I think trusting companies who's primary motive is profit - to 'do the right' thing, when they've so demonstrably proven they will do anything BUT the right thing if given an opportunity to make money off it, is economically vapid, vapid beyond words.
The long and short of it is simply this, there IS no immediate solution. The solution to trust the oil companies to find enough oil is trusting that in 10 years they won't look to create the same shortages, and maximize profits, that they could see 10 years ago. It also means trusting them NOT to pollute, or create economic wastelands, in pristine wilderness that is irreplacable. Finally, it ties our future to a fossil fuel that we KNOW has enormous negative impacts on the health of our country and the world as a whole. We are at a crossroads in history, do we look to simply find enough oil - as may exist in the shale deposits - to satisfy our gluttony for cheap, but destructive, energy sources - or do we look forward responsibly for better, cleaner energy? Some neo-cons say 'do both' but trusting that they'll actually DO both - is trusting them (oil companies) to not lead us into shortages that create massive profits and ruined economies. It's time to cut that umbilical cord and to put our future into the hands of people who grasp that if we do not concern ourselves with the plight of all, but rather the plight of a few, in the end, we all perish.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Doing nothing (or very little) and breaking your arm patting yourself on the back
Mitch Berg, at Scared of the Dark once again finds a way to congratulate neo-kooks for doing next to nothing.
He whines about truckers planning on protecting the Republican National Convention because "They're protesting the people actually DOING something about it." To neo-kooks, doing something means proposing short-term fixes, or fixes that didn't even exist five years ago.
ANWR has perhaps as much as 18 billion barrels of oil, I say perhaps because that's the most optimistic guess, it could be somewhat less. Even if they could get 10 Million barrels a day from ANWR, which is a massive if, it would not change the price of oil substantially. The world's current rate of consumption will top 110 M/bbls per day by 2012, and probably be over 125 bbls/day by 2025. While 10 bbls helps, it won't change the price of crude more than a few to a dozen dollars. It's a small amount when contrasted against the WORLD's consumption. People like Berg try hard to ignore that fact - when they talk about how ANWR could supply the US for several years. Oil is a world-wide commodity. While ANWR oil might even wind up here, it would only be replacing oil which would then head elsewhere. Bottom line, oil company executives testified that oil should be at $60/bbl without speculation and the threatening situation with Iran (and some threats from Niger). If you add 10MM/bbl per day to 110 which is or will be available, you're adding 9% to current supply, 9% of $60 is $5.40/bbl reduction in straight terms - which means gas would go from roughly $2.25 gallan it SHOULD be at, to $2.05 - WOW, what a difference!
Shale-oil and deep water drilling are solutions which were not even available five years ago. Shale-oil simply couldn't be realisitically produced, and deep water drilling isn't financially viable below roughly $55-60 barrel, which oil wasn't at 5 years ago. Unless the oil companies are stupid, they don't have any interest in pumping oil for a loss, and the sure won't erect oil derricks for a 'future' need 5 years in advance. Bottom line, neither was a viable solution, yet the neo-kooks belly-ache about how 'environmentalists prevented them' from having a solution. They also fail to grasp the vast quantities of water needed to process enough shale-oil to have an impact. I believe I read it takes something like 10 gallons of wash water to clean enough shale/sand to give you 2 gallons of oil. Good luck getting enough water in Utah - fresh water is already becoming a commodity under pressure in the southeast US, I wonder what happens when we start consuming another 1.5 billion gallons a day to process shale/sand oil? (at a 5:1 ratio - to produce 10 Million barrels/day will require at least that much water). Even if it's only 100 million gallons a day - that's an enormous quantity of water - and it's not available.
What the neo-kooks don't want to admit to is that for 35 years they've stood in the way of alternatives to oil, claiming it would last forever, that it renews itself, that polution control wouldn't work, was too costly, was unnecessary, that pollution was overrated hype. They also supported tax cuts which greatly increased consumption - cuts which were unneccessary sops to the US automanufacturers.
Now that things have hit critical mass, they want to claim only THEY have a solution, but their solution is either a short-term band-aid on a long-term problem (in the case of ANWR), or was not viable in the past at the market prices, and does NOTHING to address dependence, pollution, or good long-term planning. In short, bottom line, they don't want to do much of anything, they want to, once again, ignore the problems and hope they'll go away, and they want to pat themselves on the back for suggesting ANWR, which is a nothing solution, it's irresponsibily short-sighted. They want to claim others don't have solutions, because the solutions others have will, in fact, take a long time, but will, as opposed to ANWR, bring the country and the world to a far more healthy, far more viable long-term energy policy.
It's as if we're in a flood we/they could see coming, at first they denied it was going to rain, then they denied it would be much of anything, then they denied the flood would rise up high enough, then they said that the sandbags would fill themselves, and then finally as the waters invaded their home and they filled a sand-bag, they want to jump and shout and claim they stopped the flood, and that the other people, building locks and dams to control flood rains, are fools, aren't doing anything, and are the REAL problem.
It reminds me of Senator McCain, who was irrefutably wrong for 3.5 years, breaking his arm patting himself on the back because Patraeus wasn't as incompetent as Tommy Franks, claiming the ends justified the means.
He whines about truckers planning on protecting the Republican National Convention because "They're protesting the people actually DOING something about it." To neo-kooks, doing something means proposing short-term fixes, or fixes that didn't even exist five years ago.
ANWR has perhaps as much as 18 billion barrels of oil, I say perhaps because that's the most optimistic guess, it could be somewhat less. Even if they could get 10 Million barrels a day from ANWR, which is a massive if, it would not change the price of oil substantially. The world's current rate of consumption will top 110 M/bbls per day by 2012, and probably be over 125 bbls/day by 2025. While 10 bbls helps, it won't change the price of crude more than a few to a dozen dollars. It's a small amount when contrasted against the WORLD's consumption. People like Berg try hard to ignore that fact - when they talk about how ANWR could supply the US for several years. Oil is a world-wide commodity. While ANWR oil might even wind up here, it would only be replacing oil which would then head elsewhere. Bottom line, oil company executives testified that oil should be at $60/bbl without speculation and the threatening situation with Iran (and some threats from Niger). If you add 10MM/bbl per day to 110 which is or will be available, you're adding 9% to current supply, 9% of $60 is $5.40/bbl reduction in straight terms - which means gas would go from roughly $2.25 gallan it SHOULD be at, to $2.05 - WOW, what a difference!
Shale-oil and deep water drilling are solutions which were not even available five years ago. Shale-oil simply couldn't be realisitically produced, and deep water drilling isn't financially viable below roughly $55-60 barrel, which oil wasn't at 5 years ago. Unless the oil companies are stupid, they don't have any interest in pumping oil for a loss, and the sure won't erect oil derricks for a 'future' need 5 years in advance. Bottom line, neither was a viable solution, yet the neo-kooks belly-ache about how 'environmentalists prevented them' from having a solution. They also fail to grasp the vast quantities of water needed to process enough shale-oil to have an impact. I believe I read it takes something like 10 gallons of wash water to clean enough shale/sand to give you 2 gallons of oil. Good luck getting enough water in Utah - fresh water is already becoming a commodity under pressure in the southeast US, I wonder what happens when we start consuming another 1.5 billion gallons a day to process shale/sand oil? (at a 5:1 ratio - to produce 10 Million barrels/day will require at least that much water). Even if it's only 100 million gallons a day - that's an enormous quantity of water - and it's not available.
What the neo-kooks don't want to admit to is that for 35 years they've stood in the way of alternatives to oil, claiming it would last forever, that it renews itself, that polution control wouldn't work, was too costly, was unnecessary, that pollution was overrated hype. They also supported tax cuts which greatly increased consumption - cuts which were unneccessary sops to the US automanufacturers.
Now that things have hit critical mass, they want to claim only THEY have a solution, but their solution is either a short-term band-aid on a long-term problem (in the case of ANWR), or was not viable in the past at the market prices, and does NOTHING to address dependence, pollution, or good long-term planning. In short, bottom line, they don't want to do much of anything, they want to, once again, ignore the problems and hope they'll go away, and they want to pat themselves on the back for suggesting ANWR, which is a nothing solution, it's irresponsibily short-sighted. They want to claim others don't have solutions, because the solutions others have will, in fact, take a long time, but will, as opposed to ANWR, bring the country and the world to a far more healthy, far more viable long-term energy policy.
It's as if we're in a flood we/they could see coming, at first they denied it was going to rain, then they denied it would be much of anything, then they denied the flood would rise up high enough, then they said that the sandbags would fill themselves, and then finally as the waters invaded their home and they filled a sand-bag, they want to jump and shout and claim they stopped the flood, and that the other people, building locks and dams to control flood rains, are fools, aren't doing anything, and are the REAL problem.
It reminds me of Senator McCain, who was irrefutably wrong for 3.5 years, breaking his arm patting himself on the back because Patraeus wasn't as incompetent as Tommy Franks, claiming the ends justified the means.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Twins Killings
Terry Ryan retired from his post as General Manager for the Twins a couple years ago, and while Ryan didn't make every trade exactly right, neither did he very often go far wrong or do as poorly as the current manger, Bill Smith.
The Twins have forever tried to get over the hump with humpties, from Sidney Ponson, Joe Niekro (at the end of his career) and Rheal Cormier to Livan Hernandez, Adam Everett and Mike Lamb, this has ever been their lot. As a smaller market team, it's the nature of things, you rarely get to sign expensive players. It is a shame, though, that so very often, the players the Twins sign do not pan out. Only Don Baylor, Jack Morris, Mike Redmond Paul Molitor come to mind as a free agent whom they signed who produced anything like was hoped for. Whereas many, many players have not.
However, that's not really the problem, it would be nice if free agents produced, but the real killer is, for small market teams, players whom they trade, usually players about to become free agents, need to bring talent back to the small market team that trades them.
Last season, the Twins made two meaningful trades:
The first sent Johan Santana, the best pitcher in the organization's history since Bert Blylleven, to the New York Mets. For Santana, an A+ level free agent, the Twins got Carlos Gomez, Deolis Geurra, and two not too well regarded prospects. Gomez, after starting off hot, has cooled dramatically, makes defensive mistakes, and is showing himself to be what the scouts said, a fantastically fast player, with good defensive range, but who makes enormous base running mistakes, and who, unfortunately, cannot bat lead-off because he doesn't know how to draw a walk EVER. While the Twins weren't getting killed with high-calibre offers, clearly the offers MUST have been better than this someplace, but the Twins took the wrong one. Guerra has potential, but it's hard to know if it will EVER turn out. This trade is quickly becoming a bust, and when it's the best player you have to offer, that just cannot happen.
The second trade is a little more ambiguous. The Twins traded Matt Garza and Jason Bartlett to Tampa for Delmon Young and Brandon Harris. Young is hitting .294, Harris .251. However, Garza was a 24 year-old, hard throwing right-hander. His current ERA would tie him for second on the Twin's staff, and considering the generally better defensive team the Twins have over the Devil Rays, it's not unlikely Garza's ERA would be lower. He's given the 'Rays' quality starts time and again - and was not in any sort of free agent year. Bartlett, who struggled at the plate last season for the Twins, played a position where fielding well is more important than hitting well, and Bartlett was an excellent fielder. This year, he's hitting better, considering he was 25 when traded, we gave up on him too soon. Considering Adam Everett is hitting .189, and Harris can't play second base that well, and is pretty awful at short - this was a horrible trade, on a one for one basis, Bartlett is just flat-out a better SS. Delmon Young hits .294, but he's been awful in the clutch, is a lousy-armed and poor ranged left-fielder who hits for NO power. That's totally, utterly unacceptable. Some positions can be slap hitters, if you have power elsewhere, LF CAN be, but shouldn't, but Young was brought in to keep pitchers and teams honest, by hitting between Mauer and Mourneau, and he can't do it. The Twins moved him out of that spot because he's not reliable enough as a hitter, and isn't fearsome enough with power. Beyond that, his average is likely inflated by hitting behind Mourneau. He's been a C- grade player at best, considering the Twins gave up Garza to get him, this was a horrid, awful trade.
The real problem goes a bit deeper too, it's not as if the Twins didn't have solutions at second and CF in their minors. Denard Span and Alexie Casilla have proven they deserve to play. The Twins would be FAR better off with Bartlett and Casilla up the middle, Span in CF, and Garza in the rotation, having spent the money they spent on Livan Hernandez to get a DH or LF (or 3b) who could hit. Punto has returned to hitting, and is an excellent 3b, and good enough SS to play - but you didn't know that would happen. Finding a decent hitting DH really, REALLY isn't that hard, and they could have played Kubel in LF, Cuddyer in RF, Span in CF, and been a much better team. The trade of Santana CERTAINLY should have brought a starting player or high-grade pitching prospect, and as it turns out now, it sure looks to have not done so. Gomez at least could be kept for his utility and speed (though not as a PH, he can't find a pitch he won't swing at), but Monroe should be jetisoned, as should Mike Lamb, to make room for Liriano, to keep Span in the majors, and to have room for Cuddyer.
The crying shame is both of those trades were much easier to see as a bad move when they happened, but worse, that the organization didn't see it had good options in the minors for what it got for Garza and Bartlett, and look to solve glaring problems at 3B and LF with the Santana, rather than solving CF - bespeaks a General Manager and minor league evaluators who didn't do their jobs right, not even close to right, last year. While the Yankees or Red Sox can recover from that kind of screw-up, smaller market teams, like the Twins, rarely do. The proof will not be this season, but maybe next or the year after, when they need Garza, and still don't have a quality player at 3b or SS (depending on where Punto plays). They got killed twice last year - one more than a team like the Twins can afford.
The Twins have forever tried to get over the hump with humpties, from Sidney Ponson, Joe Niekro (at the end of his career) and Rheal Cormier to Livan Hernandez, Adam Everett and Mike Lamb, this has ever been their lot. As a smaller market team, it's the nature of things, you rarely get to sign expensive players. It is a shame, though, that so very often, the players the Twins sign do not pan out. Only Don Baylor, Jack Morris, Mike Redmond Paul Molitor come to mind as a free agent whom they signed who produced anything like was hoped for. Whereas many, many players have not.
However, that's not really the problem, it would be nice if free agents produced, but the real killer is, for small market teams, players whom they trade, usually players about to become free agents, need to bring talent back to the small market team that trades them.
Last season, the Twins made two meaningful trades:
The first sent Johan Santana, the best pitcher in the organization's history since Bert Blylleven, to the New York Mets. For Santana, an A+ level free agent, the Twins got Carlos Gomez, Deolis Geurra, and two not too well regarded prospects. Gomez, after starting off hot, has cooled dramatically, makes defensive mistakes, and is showing himself to be what the scouts said, a fantastically fast player, with good defensive range, but who makes enormous base running mistakes, and who, unfortunately, cannot bat lead-off because he doesn't know how to draw a walk EVER. While the Twins weren't getting killed with high-calibre offers, clearly the offers MUST have been better than this someplace, but the Twins took the wrong one. Guerra has potential, but it's hard to know if it will EVER turn out. This trade is quickly becoming a bust, and when it's the best player you have to offer, that just cannot happen.
The second trade is a little more ambiguous. The Twins traded Matt Garza and Jason Bartlett to Tampa for Delmon Young and Brandon Harris. Young is hitting .294, Harris .251. However, Garza was a 24 year-old, hard throwing right-hander. His current ERA would tie him for second on the Twin's staff, and considering the generally better defensive team the Twins have over the Devil Rays, it's not unlikely Garza's ERA would be lower. He's given the 'Rays' quality starts time and again - and was not in any sort of free agent year. Bartlett, who struggled at the plate last season for the Twins, played a position where fielding well is more important than hitting well, and Bartlett was an excellent fielder. This year, he's hitting better, considering he was 25 when traded, we gave up on him too soon. Considering Adam Everett is hitting .189, and Harris can't play second base that well, and is pretty awful at short - this was a horrible trade, on a one for one basis, Bartlett is just flat-out a better SS. Delmon Young hits .294, but he's been awful in the clutch, is a lousy-armed and poor ranged left-fielder who hits for NO power. That's totally, utterly unacceptable. Some positions can be slap hitters, if you have power elsewhere, LF CAN be, but shouldn't, but Young was brought in to keep pitchers and teams honest, by hitting between Mauer and Mourneau, and he can't do it. The Twins moved him out of that spot because he's not reliable enough as a hitter, and isn't fearsome enough with power. Beyond that, his average is likely inflated by hitting behind Mourneau. He's been a C- grade player at best, considering the Twins gave up Garza to get him, this was a horrid, awful trade.
The real problem goes a bit deeper too, it's not as if the Twins didn't have solutions at second and CF in their minors. Denard Span and Alexie Casilla have proven they deserve to play. The Twins would be FAR better off with Bartlett and Casilla up the middle, Span in CF, and Garza in the rotation, having spent the money they spent on Livan Hernandez to get a DH or LF (or 3b) who could hit. Punto has returned to hitting, and is an excellent 3b, and good enough SS to play - but you didn't know that would happen. Finding a decent hitting DH really, REALLY isn't that hard, and they could have played Kubel in LF, Cuddyer in RF, Span in CF, and been a much better team. The trade of Santana CERTAINLY should have brought a starting player or high-grade pitching prospect, and as it turns out now, it sure looks to have not done so. Gomez at least could be kept for his utility and speed (though not as a PH, he can't find a pitch he won't swing at), but Monroe should be jetisoned, as should Mike Lamb, to make room for Liriano, to keep Span in the majors, and to have room for Cuddyer.
The crying shame is both of those trades were much easier to see as a bad move when they happened, but worse, that the organization didn't see it had good options in the minors for what it got for Garza and Bartlett, and look to solve glaring problems at 3B and LF with the Santana, rather than solving CF - bespeaks a General Manager and minor league evaluators who didn't do their jobs right, not even close to right, last year. While the Yankees or Red Sox can recover from that kind of screw-up, smaller market teams, like the Twins, rarely do. The proof will not be this season, but maybe next or the year after, when they need Garza, and still don't have a quality player at 3b or SS (depending on where Punto plays). They got killed twice last year - one more than a team like the Twins can afford.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Tin. Ear. Who.
Today, the Bush Administration said, "We're going to do nothing to heed the call of the troops, to pay attention the obvious realities playing out on the ground, or help stem the growing tide and threat in Afghanistan."
Via this link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/23/world/main4287472.shtml
Bush has said essentially, no help is coming to Afghanistan any time soon. Even with a new President in 6 months, a new appropriation and orders to move will take months, perhaps even a year. The situation in Afghanistan is in fact growing more serious by the month, if not week, but this President 'committed' to the war on terror - will do nothing. Wonder why? Me too, and then it hits me.
If President Bush orders a rotation of troops to Afghanistan, he is validating Obama's (among others) plans and claims that the real fight, the fight against the Taliban, the fight against Al Qaeda and Bin Laden, is both IN Afghanistan, and in need of troops. Further, he'll validate that Iraq isn't the 'central front' on the war on terror, but rather than Afghanistan and Pakistan are.
Finally, of course, he'll be moving more troops into harms way, in an election year where John McCain's one feeble appeal is that the danger to US lives and US troops is lessening. Sending more troops into harm's way, in the place they were needed all along, is sending a message that this GWOT is far from over, and was fought in the wrong place, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons. Can't have that, as always, craven politics trumps listening to the troops and generals - more troops may be needed, but they'll be at least a year coming because this President doesn't have the moral fortitude to do his job. And the Neo-Cons want another go at screwing up a war until they are forced to change with McCain as their new figurehead. As the saying goes, fool me once..(you don't get fooled again -- Prez Bush)
Via this link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/23/world/main4287472.shtml
Bush has said essentially, no help is coming to Afghanistan any time soon. Even with a new President in 6 months, a new appropriation and orders to move will take months, perhaps even a year. The situation in Afghanistan is in fact growing more serious by the month, if not week, but this President 'committed' to the war on terror - will do nothing. Wonder why? Me too, and then it hits me.
If President Bush orders a rotation of troops to Afghanistan, he is validating Obama's (among others) plans and claims that the real fight, the fight against the Taliban, the fight against Al Qaeda and Bin Laden, is both IN Afghanistan, and in need of troops. Further, he'll validate that Iraq isn't the 'central front' on the war on terror, but rather than Afghanistan and Pakistan are.
Finally, of course, he'll be moving more troops into harms way, in an election year where John McCain's one feeble appeal is that the danger to US lives and US troops is lessening. Sending more troops into harm's way, in the place they were needed all along, is sending a message that this GWOT is far from over, and was fought in the wrong place, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons. Can't have that, as always, craven politics trumps listening to the troops and generals - more troops may be needed, but they'll be at least a year coming because this President doesn't have the moral fortitude to do his job. And the Neo-Cons want another go at screwing up a war until they are forced to change with McCain as their new figurehead. As the saying goes, fool me once..(you don't get fooled again -- Prez Bush)
McCain declares "Peace with Honor"
John McCain yesterday said that he would “Bring our troops home in Victory” as opposed to Senator Obama, whom he says will simply bring them home precipitously, and seemingly therefore, in defeat, by Mr. McCain’s comments.
I think that’s great, I think we should declare victory, and leave.
There is nothing further to be gained by our presence, unless you want to justify a permanent military presence. The Iraqis want us out, on a firm timetable, as does Senator Obama, so Obama is aligned with the sentiments of the legitimately elected government, where Senator McCain is not. Senator McCain claims if we leave too early, we will only have to return, instead, we must assure ‘victory’, of course, he doesn’t describe that ‘victory’, nor has he ever, in detail.
So if this is about covering ourselves in glory, then I say we say we’ve won, and come home. The solution necessary now is for the Iraqis to make peace internally, between the Shiaa and Sunni, between the Kurds and the Sunni, and externally between Iraq and Iran. Our presence does little but inflame and complicate the situation.
As Richard Nixon did in 1975, we should simply say we’ve won, and leave – knowing full well, in this case, however, that China and Soviet sponsored client states are NOT about to topple the Iraqi government. The only way that government will fall is if the Iraqi PEOPLE decide it is illegitimate and replace it, and they cannot make that decision, or take that action, while we are there. More than that, they cannot get on with the process of rebuilding their nation – the process of reconciliation – while we create artificial prisons with our concrete walls. That ‘reconciliation’ may be violent, or hopefully, it will be peaceful, but there is nothing our troops are going to do today, or in 50 years, which will make it be any different, and our return would be unwelcome, unnecessary, and unproductive.
The other truth is simply this, Mr. McCain has only one note to sing, he constantly yammers about ‘the surge working’ and that Mr. Obama, based on all good information at the time, opposed it. The ‘surge’ worked obliquely, was counter to better information (like say, ignoring better information about WMD), and is the first thing in five years of action in Iraq that Mr. McCain can claim he was right about. Conversely, Obama was right and Mr. McCain was wrong about – WMD, the reasons for invasion, the way to handle the occupation, the number of troops, the conduct of the CPA, the need to investigate the CPA, the reality and impact of Abu Ghraib, the need to investigate same, the conduct and control over our ‘contractors’, the cost of the war, the length of the war, the ability of the Iraqi’s to pay for the war, the competence of Tommy Franks, the truths told by General after General about what was going on and how to fight the war, and finally TA DA, the tactic/strategy advocated by Gen. Patraeus which Senator McCain, by backing Tommy Franks, initially rejected as molly-coddling.
Bottom line is this, this interference in a civil war is a war which is not worthy of the presence of our troops for one day longer. We help to save lives, to be sure, but we cannot prevent the ultimate reconciliation and work Iraq must do for itself, they know it, Obama knows it, I suspect the American people know it, I just wonder just like he was ignorant/oblivious to the realities of the fact that we helped create and exacerbate the ‘insurgency’ through our hubris, and then ultimately changed only due to political pressure, when Senator McCain will ‘get it’ too.
I think that’s great, I think we should declare victory, and leave.
There is nothing further to be gained by our presence, unless you want to justify a permanent military presence. The Iraqis want us out, on a firm timetable, as does Senator Obama, so Obama is aligned with the sentiments of the legitimately elected government, where Senator McCain is not. Senator McCain claims if we leave too early, we will only have to return, instead, we must assure ‘victory’, of course, he doesn’t describe that ‘victory’, nor has he ever, in detail.
So if this is about covering ourselves in glory, then I say we say we’ve won, and come home. The solution necessary now is for the Iraqis to make peace internally, between the Shiaa and Sunni, between the Kurds and the Sunni, and externally between Iraq and Iran. Our presence does little but inflame and complicate the situation.
As Richard Nixon did in 1975, we should simply say we’ve won, and leave – knowing full well, in this case, however, that China and Soviet sponsored client states are NOT about to topple the Iraqi government. The only way that government will fall is if the Iraqi PEOPLE decide it is illegitimate and replace it, and they cannot make that decision, or take that action, while we are there. More than that, they cannot get on with the process of rebuilding their nation – the process of reconciliation – while we create artificial prisons with our concrete walls. That ‘reconciliation’ may be violent, or hopefully, it will be peaceful, but there is nothing our troops are going to do today, or in 50 years, which will make it be any different, and our return would be unwelcome, unnecessary, and unproductive.
The other truth is simply this, Mr. McCain has only one note to sing, he constantly yammers about ‘the surge working’ and that Mr. Obama, based on all good information at the time, opposed it. The ‘surge’ worked obliquely, was counter to better information (like say, ignoring better information about WMD), and is the first thing in five years of action in Iraq that Mr. McCain can claim he was right about. Conversely, Obama was right and Mr. McCain was wrong about – WMD, the reasons for invasion, the way to handle the occupation, the number of troops, the conduct of the CPA, the need to investigate the CPA, the reality and impact of Abu Ghraib, the need to investigate same, the conduct and control over our ‘contractors’, the cost of the war, the length of the war, the ability of the Iraqi’s to pay for the war, the competence of Tommy Franks, the truths told by General after General about what was going on and how to fight the war, and finally TA DA, the tactic/strategy advocated by Gen. Patraeus which Senator McCain, by backing Tommy Franks, initially rejected as molly-coddling.
Bottom line is this, this interference in a civil war is a war which is not worthy of the presence of our troops for one day longer. We help to save lives, to be sure, but we cannot prevent the ultimate reconciliation and work Iraq must do for itself, they know it, Obama knows it, I suspect the American people know it, I just wonder just like he was ignorant/oblivious to the realities of the fact that we helped create and exacerbate the ‘insurgency’ through our hubris, and then ultimately changed only due to political pressure, when Senator McCain will ‘get it’ too.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
9 Strikes and you're normally out (ok it's 3 but..)
Recently, John McCain made the comment that "I know how to win wars" and that "the 'surge' has worked."
I think Senator McCain needs to remember a few things:
1. No WMD
2. Mission Accomplished
3. A few remaining 'dead-enders'
4. No need for more troops (2003)
5. "last throws"
6. 'Weeks not months' - Donald Rumsfeld on how long it would take to secure Iraq
7. The Iraq war will pay for itself
8. We only need six more months (said in 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007)
9. Iraq is the central front on the 'war on terror'
The point is this, I could probably go on, but the 'surge' was a change in tactics to no longer brutalizing the Iraqi people. McCain never aspoused the cavallier attitude regarding the plight of civilians that most neo-cons do and did - (with comments like 'everything's fair, mollycoddle the terrorists, Abu Ghraib was a 'fraternity prank'), but he backed an administration which did, and he backed Tommy Franks and others who did - and backed those who called any dissent 'aiding and abbetting the enemy." To the extent the 'surge' worked to calm sectarian violence - which it has - it's the FIRST THING HE'S GOTTEN RIGHT. I wouldn't, for one, break my arm patting myself on the back for a success after 3.5 years of abject failure. If this is how McCain, "knows how to win wars' then I'd rather have someone who wouldn't waste 3.5 years getting the right people, wait 3.5 years to listen to the experts.
Put another way, McCain comments are akin to someone, after striking out three times in a row, if he gets a single, jumping up and shouting, "See, I'm a great hitter!!"
Past that, the 'surge' worked because it was used to erect concrete barriers and instill a police state in Baghdad, which is good in that it has saved lives, but little political progress has followed - and such a state is not sustainable. Perhaps Senator McCain should take the time to consider why Gen. Patreaus was successful against Al Qaeda in Iraq, meaning, he was not arogant (Gen. Patreaus), he did not bluster about American infalibility and greatness, he sat down with his potential adversaries, identified commong goals, and built relationships. It is a lesson anyone who would call talking to Iran "appeasement" seems highly unlikely to accept - just as the current resident of the White House was unable to accept until change was thrust upon him.
I think Senator McCain needs to remember a few things:
1. No WMD
2. Mission Accomplished
3. A few remaining 'dead-enders'
4. No need for more troops (2003)
5. "last throws"
6. 'Weeks not months' - Donald Rumsfeld on how long it would take to secure Iraq
7. The Iraq war will pay for itself
8. We only need six more months (said in 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007)
9. Iraq is the central front on the 'war on terror'
The point is this, I could probably go on, but the 'surge' was a change in tactics to no longer brutalizing the Iraqi people. McCain never aspoused the cavallier attitude regarding the plight of civilians that most neo-cons do and did - (with comments like 'everything's fair, mollycoddle the terrorists, Abu Ghraib was a 'fraternity prank'), but he backed an administration which did, and he backed Tommy Franks and others who did - and backed those who called any dissent 'aiding and abbetting the enemy." To the extent the 'surge' worked to calm sectarian violence - which it has - it's the FIRST THING HE'S GOTTEN RIGHT. I wouldn't, for one, break my arm patting myself on the back for a success after 3.5 years of abject failure. If this is how McCain, "knows how to win wars' then I'd rather have someone who wouldn't waste 3.5 years getting the right people, wait 3.5 years to listen to the experts.
Put another way, McCain comments are akin to someone, after striking out three times in a row, if he gets a single, jumping up and shouting, "See, I'm a great hitter!!"
Past that, the 'surge' worked because it was used to erect concrete barriers and instill a police state in Baghdad, which is good in that it has saved lives, but little political progress has followed - and such a state is not sustainable. Perhaps Senator McCain should take the time to consider why Gen. Patreaus was successful against Al Qaeda in Iraq, meaning, he was not arogant (Gen. Patreaus), he did not bluster about American infalibility and greatness, he sat down with his potential adversaries, identified commong goals, and built relationships. It is a lesson anyone who would call talking to Iran "appeasement" seems highly unlikely to accept - just as the current resident of the White House was unable to accept until change was thrust upon him.
A Dark Night
Some local Scaifenetters complained about the rather mild negative remarks of people like Keith Olbermann when they commented on Tony Snow's death. Of course, they conveniently forget their own ghoulish commentary regarding the deaths of liberals they don't like, or their unnecessary political shots when commenting about Ted Kennedy and his battle with cancer.
Still, is it right to make a negative comment (or two) when someone 'high profile' passes away? The simple answer is 'yes', because being honest about someone is the right thing to do, but the less simple answer is, unless they were a complete jerk, those comments need to be tempered, and probably need to be said after a bit of time, to allow those who loved the person to grieve unfettered by thoughts less than kind. Olbermann made several highly complimentary comments about Snow "with whom he disagreed," and interestingly, in an ironic twist of fate, his comments - which I echo - point to exactly how Snow so completely differed from the right-wing in one key area. Snow was able to separate the message, from the messenger.
The idea in discussion is to debate the merits of each side's point, not to personalize each side's proponents into 'us' and 'them', while very often ignoring the point. The right very often desires the exact opposite - attacking personally (such as in the Swift Boat attacks). This is/was the antithesis of Snow - and something some on the right found infuriating, that he wouldn't demean the press personally, off-camera, he would instead stand up for his peers. Snow epitomized what we on the left wished we'd have seen in so many more on the right, passion with a sense of decency. Snow, as I've come to know AFTER his death, was a kind person, but not kind in the Ann Coulter sort of off-camera smarminess where she talked about not really meaning it with Al Franken - but then went on camera to butcher the character of one person after another. No, Snow stood up for people, stood up for good conduct. I didn't always like what he said on camera, but I rarely, if ever, saw him take off after someone personally. His like is too infrequently encountered in the world of politics, and we are cheaper for it.
Which brings us to Heath Ledger. Last night, "The Dark Knight" premiered. Ledger, as I hear, was superb, as he was a superb actor quite often, I suppose this shouldn't be too surprising, but it points to the tragedy of too many actors/artists, their on-camera/on-canvas gifts are overshadowed and perhaps even borne of a harsher off-camera reality, a 'dark night' when the cameras dim. Ledger wasn't a hero, he was, like John Belushi or Chris Farley or Freddie Prinz Jr. or Karen Carpenter for that matter, a person haunted by demons. Stardom appears to those of us sitting in our comfortable suburban world, to be easy street, and we wonder how people can go so wrong. Yet, while it is easy financially, and it seems that the worries of the 'rich and famous' in Hollywood - are often trite and shallow - the reality for some is that the very talent they draw upon comes from a skewed and painful history, and a very very negative sense of who they are. Ledger was a talented young actor, with a troubled off-camera life. I admire his talent, I would not suggest admiration of the troubles he struggled with, nor creating another and ultimately profoundly dishonest and disrespectful unreality about him. It is my guess that someone like Ledger, like someone like Snow, would rather we learn from his missteps as much as we might like to learn, should learn, from his graces.
Still, is it right to make a negative comment (or two) when someone 'high profile' passes away? The simple answer is 'yes', because being honest about someone is the right thing to do, but the less simple answer is, unless they were a complete jerk, those comments need to be tempered, and probably need to be said after a bit of time, to allow those who loved the person to grieve unfettered by thoughts less than kind. Olbermann made several highly complimentary comments about Snow "with whom he disagreed," and interestingly, in an ironic twist of fate, his comments - which I echo - point to exactly how Snow so completely differed from the right-wing in one key area. Snow was able to separate the message, from the messenger.
The idea in discussion is to debate the merits of each side's point, not to personalize each side's proponents into 'us' and 'them', while very often ignoring the point. The right very often desires the exact opposite - attacking personally (such as in the Swift Boat attacks). This is/was the antithesis of Snow - and something some on the right found infuriating, that he wouldn't demean the press personally, off-camera, he would instead stand up for his peers. Snow epitomized what we on the left wished we'd have seen in so many more on the right, passion with a sense of decency. Snow, as I've come to know AFTER his death, was a kind person, but not kind in the Ann Coulter sort of off-camera smarminess where she talked about not really meaning it with Al Franken - but then went on camera to butcher the character of one person after another. No, Snow stood up for people, stood up for good conduct. I didn't always like what he said on camera, but I rarely, if ever, saw him take off after someone personally. His like is too infrequently encountered in the world of politics, and we are cheaper for it.
Which brings us to Heath Ledger. Last night, "The Dark Knight" premiered. Ledger, as I hear, was superb, as he was a superb actor quite often, I suppose this shouldn't be too surprising, but it points to the tragedy of too many actors/artists, their on-camera/on-canvas gifts are overshadowed and perhaps even borne of a harsher off-camera reality, a 'dark night' when the cameras dim. Ledger wasn't a hero, he was, like John Belushi or Chris Farley or Freddie Prinz Jr. or Karen Carpenter for that matter, a person haunted by demons. Stardom appears to those of us sitting in our comfortable suburban world, to be easy street, and we wonder how people can go so wrong. Yet, while it is easy financially, and it seems that the worries of the 'rich and famous' in Hollywood - are often trite and shallow - the reality for some is that the very talent they draw upon comes from a skewed and painful history, and a very very negative sense of who they are. Ledger was a talented young actor, with a troubled off-camera life. I admire his talent, I would not suggest admiration of the troubles he struggled with, nor creating another and ultimately profoundly dishonest and disrespectful unreality about him. It is my guess that someone like Ledger, like someone like Snow, would rather we learn from his missteps as much as we might like to learn, should learn, from his graces.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Bank Failures
The job I have works every day with some prominent banks. IndyMac wasn't one, but that doesn't mean that some banks I know of may not have issues that I don't know of.
The failure of IndyMac represents the end-game for the idea of letting 'the market' decide on home lending, but unfortunately, may only be a signal bell for the coming rough seas. While I suspect the FDIC and the Federal Reserve have no interest in allowing more large banks to fail, there may be little the FDIC (at least) can do, and given the ham-handed way in which Bear Stearns was handled by this administration, unfortunately, any further bail-outs of large banks (other than Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) are less likely to be acceptable to a skeptical public and Congress.
The bottom line is that while economic environments are cyclical, this cycle is going to be rough, really, really rough. Rough because of fiscally foolish policies by the administration, abetted by both Democrats AND Republicans. Tax cuts which were unneeded, and did nothing meaningful to spur the economy, were passed by both parties in 2001 and 2002. Massive spending on military boondoggles (like Iraq) have made the situation worse. Fannie and Freddie were obligated to take on loans they'd rather not, and the administrations' laissez faire attitude as it watched home equity loans, depletions of 401(k) and IRA funds, and sub-prime mortgages spiral out of control, all have contributed to a heaping helping of really bad things. We've moved our ability to produce offshore, along with the jobs and payroll necessary, we've handed the wealth to people who've fled to tax havens, and failed to require them to pay their share on the way out the door.
We have little opportunity to pay our debts, insufficient strength in the economy to look to future earnings, and created debts needlessly. When you heap on that the need to pay for health care, Medicare, and Social Security, this nation is looking at a grim next couple of DECADES. When McCain talks about change, it seems like he means no change at all, and unfortunately, I doubt Obama means anything like sufficient change and honesty - either way, either man is going to be saddled with a need to change unlike anything we've seen in 40 or 50 years or more - change will be thrust upon them.
This is bad - and it has been made all the worse by an administration which was both ambivalent and complicit in the coming disaster. Let's hope the next one isn't so craven.
The failure of IndyMac represents the end-game for the idea of letting 'the market' decide on home lending, but unfortunately, may only be a signal bell for the coming rough seas. While I suspect the FDIC and the Federal Reserve have no interest in allowing more large banks to fail, there may be little the FDIC (at least) can do, and given the ham-handed way in which Bear Stearns was handled by this administration, unfortunately, any further bail-outs of large banks (other than Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) are less likely to be acceptable to a skeptical public and Congress.
The bottom line is that while economic environments are cyclical, this cycle is going to be rough, really, really rough. Rough because of fiscally foolish policies by the administration, abetted by both Democrats AND Republicans. Tax cuts which were unneeded, and did nothing meaningful to spur the economy, were passed by both parties in 2001 and 2002. Massive spending on military boondoggles (like Iraq) have made the situation worse. Fannie and Freddie were obligated to take on loans they'd rather not, and the administrations' laissez faire attitude as it watched home equity loans, depletions of 401(k) and IRA funds, and sub-prime mortgages spiral out of control, all have contributed to a heaping helping of really bad things. We've moved our ability to produce offshore, along with the jobs and payroll necessary, we've handed the wealth to people who've fled to tax havens, and failed to require them to pay their share on the way out the door.
We have little opportunity to pay our debts, insufficient strength in the economy to look to future earnings, and created debts needlessly. When you heap on that the need to pay for health care, Medicare, and Social Security, this nation is looking at a grim next couple of DECADES. When McCain talks about change, it seems like he means no change at all, and unfortunately, I doubt Obama means anything like sufficient change and honesty - either way, either man is going to be saddled with a need to change unlike anything we've seen in 40 or 50 years or more - change will be thrust upon them.
This is bad - and it has been made all the worse by an administration which was both ambivalent and complicit in the coming disaster. Let's hope the next one isn't so craven.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Say it ain't So!
Nouri al-Maliki yesterday requested a formal timetable from the US for the withdrawal of all US forces from Iraq.
A thought or two:
First, it shows that those who have said the fundamental question of whether we stay or go, is the Iraqi's to decide how to answer.
Second, is al-Maliki 'pro-surrender', or is he just in favor of telling the terrorists how long to wait?
Third, a permanent presence has always been the goal of this administration, and al-Maliki just let the neo-cons know their ambitions of using Iraq as a 'big stick' launching point, probably just got tossed out by the same Shiaa which the left has been saying for years does not want us to stay.
An al-Maliki spokesperson (member of their parliament) testified before Congress two weeks ago that 'probably more than 70 percent' of Iraqis want the US to leave, virtually immediately. I find it difficult, at best, to understand how the neo-cons and John McCain (not to mention Norm Coleman), feel threatened/angry/self-righteous about any suggestion we aren't really helping in the inter-religious conflict in Iraq, that our presence is neither necessary or wanted long-term, and that our withdrawal is best both for Iraq, and for US troops (long-term). They talk (sometimes) about reducing troop levels, but they just about never talk about removal of forces. al-Maliki and others have made it plain, our interest in a 'Status of Forces' agreement - is something they don't support, for exactly the reasons I asked a certain Senator about -- namely, our insistence on impunity from control or consequences.
I wonder what the right thinks sometimes, I really do - these people (the Iraqis) are bright, independent, and proud. They don't want foreign occupiers, they CERTAINLY don't want people who may rob them of their oil assets, and THEY want to determine their future, without the presence of troops they cannot control, cannot stop, and cannot bring to justice. No wonder they want us gone.
A thought or two:
First, it shows that those who have said the fundamental question of whether we stay or go, is the Iraqi's to decide how to answer.
Second, is al-Maliki 'pro-surrender', or is he just in favor of telling the terrorists how long to wait?
Third, a permanent presence has always been the goal of this administration, and al-Maliki just let the neo-cons know their ambitions of using Iraq as a 'big stick' launching point, probably just got tossed out by the same Shiaa which the left has been saying for years does not want us to stay.
An al-Maliki spokesperson (member of their parliament) testified before Congress two weeks ago that 'probably more than 70 percent' of Iraqis want the US to leave, virtually immediately. I find it difficult, at best, to understand how the neo-cons and John McCain (not to mention Norm Coleman), feel threatened/angry/self-righteous about any suggestion we aren't really helping in the inter-religious conflict in Iraq, that our presence is neither necessary or wanted long-term, and that our withdrawal is best both for Iraq, and for US troops (long-term). They talk (sometimes) about reducing troop levels, but they just about never talk about removal of forces. al-Maliki and others have made it plain, our interest in a 'Status of Forces' agreement - is something they don't support, for exactly the reasons I asked a certain Senator about -- namely, our insistence on impunity from control or consequences.
I wonder what the right thinks sometimes, I really do - these people (the Iraqis) are bright, independent, and proud. They don't want foreign occupiers, they CERTAINLY don't want people who may rob them of their oil assets, and THEY want to determine their future, without the presence of troops they cannot control, cannot stop, and cannot bring to justice. No wonder they want us gone.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
CEP (Circular Error Probable)
In ballistic missile technology, the amount the missile is likely to miss the actual target by, is referred to as C.E.P. or Critical Error Probable.
It mattered, for ICMBs, SLBMs etc.. which were to be used to destroy enemy missile silos, because an error of 1000' might in fact mean a failure to destroy the silo. During the cold war, Soviet missiles had large CEPs, sometimes above 1000', while US made missiles had much smaller CEPs, sometimes as small as 10'. Considering the missile was fired into low orbit, and the warhead had extremely limited opportunity for guidance or correction (in fact ZERO once the second stage had separated), hitting a target 10' in radius from 6000 miles is pretty darned good.
In contrast, our targetting of Al Qaeda, has been somewhat less effective/accurate. Yesterday, the New York Times published the following from the Associated Press:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/washington/30tribal.html?hp
The thrust of the story is that SIX YEARS after Tora Bora - after the destruction of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda is resurgent, stronger, NOT WEAKER, than it was in 2002 and stronger, not weaker, than it was prior to Iraq, or as a result of our involvement in Iraq.
In detail, the story conveys the lack of organization, the political in-fighting, and bureaucratic red-tape that President Bush SAID he'd do away with, has in fact not gotten ANY better, it is in fact, probably worse, given the revelations of political nepotism we've seen throughout the administration - down to the policy and expert level.
It goes further, though, and points out what the left has been saying for 7 years, namely that Pervez Musharraf, despite receiving BILLIONS of dollars in aid from the US, despite all of our posturing about 'either they'll get the terrorists or WE will', in fact not only hasn't Pakistan gone after Al Qaeda seriously - Al Qaeda has grown, and we can't get access. WE are being played for fools, and further, that all the 'chest thumping' about being able to get our 'allies' to perform, about how there is a new sherrif, the difficulty in dealing with Pakistan was going to make getting Al Qaeda in Pakistan very difficult, and why we COULD'T miss the opportunity to kill them in Afghanistan.
Instead, we started pulling troops out of Afghanistan in 2002 - to send them to Iraq. Iraq has made AQ stronger - not weaker, we have had bureaucratic, turf-war, fiefdom battles side-track our own actions, and we have a foreign leader de-facto sponsoring AQ - not North Korea, not Iran, but Pakistan, just as the left asserted, we missed the mark, we went after the wrong targets, we pushed troops to the wrong place, and we failed to get Bin Laden. In short, we had rampant political pandering, cronyism, and political patronage, all of which greatly impared the GWOT - probably fatally in Afghanistan - the FAR more important locale.
In Iraq, attacks are down, accomplished by creating neighborhood prisons, by 'balkanizing' Baghdad. Not all bad, people are alive who wouldn't be, but it's not sustainable, and it sure isn't 'winning,' it's postponing.
If this is 'experience', if this is an example of how the Republicans will 'win the GWOT', then I'll take a change in approach - I suppose it COULD be worse, but it'd be hard to see how. Republican claims of victory are, as Mark Twain said, "somewhat premature," but wrapping oneself in the flag has always been the last refuge of scoundrels.
Our CEP has been 6 years, even if we immediately correct, we've missed the mark badly, not even the Soviets would have missed so badly.
It mattered, for ICMBs, SLBMs etc.. which were to be used to destroy enemy missile silos, because an error of 1000' might in fact mean a failure to destroy the silo. During the cold war, Soviet missiles had large CEPs, sometimes above 1000', while US made missiles had much smaller CEPs, sometimes as small as 10'. Considering the missile was fired into low orbit, and the warhead had extremely limited opportunity for guidance or correction (in fact ZERO once the second stage had separated), hitting a target 10' in radius from 6000 miles is pretty darned good.
In contrast, our targetting of Al Qaeda, has been somewhat less effective/accurate. Yesterday, the New York Times published the following from the Associated Press:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/washington/30tribal.html?hp
The thrust of the story is that SIX YEARS after Tora Bora - after the destruction of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda is resurgent, stronger, NOT WEAKER, than it was in 2002 and stronger, not weaker, than it was prior to Iraq, or as a result of our involvement in Iraq.
In detail, the story conveys the lack of organization, the political in-fighting, and bureaucratic red-tape that President Bush SAID he'd do away with, has in fact not gotten ANY better, it is in fact, probably worse, given the revelations of political nepotism we've seen throughout the administration - down to the policy and expert level.
It goes further, though, and points out what the left has been saying for 7 years, namely that Pervez Musharraf, despite receiving BILLIONS of dollars in aid from the US, despite all of our posturing about 'either they'll get the terrorists or WE will', in fact not only hasn't Pakistan gone after Al Qaeda seriously - Al Qaeda has grown, and we can't get access. WE are being played for fools, and further, that all the 'chest thumping' about being able to get our 'allies' to perform, about how there is a new sherrif, the difficulty in dealing with Pakistan was going to make getting Al Qaeda in Pakistan very difficult, and why we COULD'T miss the opportunity to kill them in Afghanistan.
Instead, we started pulling troops out of Afghanistan in 2002 - to send them to Iraq. Iraq has made AQ stronger - not weaker, we have had bureaucratic, turf-war, fiefdom battles side-track our own actions, and we have a foreign leader de-facto sponsoring AQ - not North Korea, not Iran, but Pakistan, just as the left asserted, we missed the mark, we went after the wrong targets, we pushed troops to the wrong place, and we failed to get Bin Laden. In short, we had rampant political pandering, cronyism, and political patronage, all of which greatly impared the GWOT - probably fatally in Afghanistan - the FAR more important locale.
In Iraq, attacks are down, accomplished by creating neighborhood prisons, by 'balkanizing' Baghdad. Not all bad, people are alive who wouldn't be, but it's not sustainable, and it sure isn't 'winning,' it's postponing.
If this is 'experience', if this is an example of how the Republicans will 'win the GWOT', then I'll take a change in approach - I suppose it COULD be worse, but it'd be hard to see how. Republican claims of victory are, as Mark Twain said, "somewhat premature," but wrapping oneself in the flag has always been the last refuge of scoundrels.
Our CEP has been 6 years, even if we immediately correct, we've missed the mark badly, not even the Soviets would have missed so badly.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Opportunity Lost
In thinking about the decision on the 2nd Amendment today, I'm struck by something.
Essentially, all the court did was say "Individual=The People", and then go on to restate/regurgitate Presser 1886, in that total bans are not permissable.
What a golden opportunity blown by this court, both left and right. All they've done is say what is NOT allowed, again, rather than helping to define what is in the context of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment wording.
Those who want to whoop and holler, this decision is infantiley myopic, a stronger court would have laughed it out of the room.
Essentially, all the court did was say "Individual=The People", and then go on to restate/regurgitate Presser 1886, in that total bans are not permissable.
What a golden opportunity blown by this court, both left and right. All they've done is say what is NOT allowed, again, rather than helping to define what is in the context of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment wording.
Those who want to whoop and holler, this decision is infantiley myopic, a stronger court would have laughed it out of the room.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)