We know a politician is often a whore for money, but a politician is always a whore for votes. After all, as a wise man once said, "If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner." So if Bush thinks things are bad now, wait till the rest of the war party cheerleaders start dwelling on that election in 08 and the constant dwindling of support for the war and a presidential approval level in the 20s (if that high by the big November). It's already begun...
Senator Gordon Smith, R-Oregon, a Bush rubber-stamp man 'till this point, gives a speech CNN headlines as "GOP senator criticizes Iraq war in emotional speech." Money quote: "[I'm at] the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way, being blown up the same bombs, day after day.That is absurd...It may even be criminal."
Like rats leaving the sinking ship. While sharks are circling. Some of the rats think they can make it out alive if they pretend to be a shark, especially if the sharks are busy attacking the big, meaty target in the middle.
Is this how the road to impeach begins? It reminds me of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto and his comments on another war... "In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success." Sounds like the ISG. As for the American people, Yamamoto said "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."
The power of an angry and determined electorate can lead to some important changes in this country. And those that pander or get led by the polls will jump on the bandwagon. Republicans in the House and Senate are going to face the fact that they can toss Bush under the bus and give the Dems a veto proof power to shake things up or they'll go down with the ship. All those fellas teetering in the low 50s are doing the math and reading what's on the wall. If they want to listen? Only time will tell. But the ground is shifting and the tide is turned. Let's see how big this wave gets before it breaks.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Attack Dogs Against Diplomacy
The recent GOP thought process applies the same logic to politics as diplomacy. Always attack and demonize, never try to compromise. Always pretend you are in position of strength (since perception is all that matters), and refuse to give ground or negotiate with those who have different views. Only talk to those who agree with you. After all, in the House of Representative,s the GOP would only bring bills to the floor if the majority of the GOP agreed with it. Who cares what the rest of the country (or world) thinks?
They exclude all opposing views, and label their very existence as evil. They live within an echo chamber, where every action is glorious and only some evil/liberal media prevents others from seeing this. This creates an utter fear of negotiation or compromise.
While Regan called the Soviet Union the evil empire, he also attended summits all the time to intimately discuss issues with the leader of this evil empire. Nixon visited Communist China just after the conclusion of the Great Leap Forward killed millions. It seems that today's pundits forget all of this and simply adopt the Bush black and white of "you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
A good example is a recent Instapundit post. When told the Baker commission encourages, you know, traditional diplomacy (as opposed to cowboy style regime change), he gulps "uh oh." He later notes:
If we had a President with some balls who really wanted to change things (as just creating terrorists and bungling occupations), then he would fly to Tehran, admit to our past sins (overthrowing their prime minister in the 50s, installing the shah, selling arms to Saddam while he was gassing Iranians), and make a plea for respect and peace, I think we would get much farther in the world. As for Syria, if we force Israel and Palestine to take some action (we control a lot of money flows to both) and help them get Golan back, things would ease up as well.
But the Republicans would rather demonize and send out hostility, fear, and militarism.
*Sigh* I shouldn't have to say this, since it goes without question. But we would have to get Iran to grow up accept Israel's right to exist (out of the West Bank and Gaza, natch). And we would keep a wary eye on the Iranians and let them know that an attack on us is an act of war. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to live in peace.
They exclude all opposing views, and label their very existence as evil. They live within an echo chamber, where every action is glorious and only some evil/liberal media prevents others from seeing this. This creates an utter fear of negotiation or compromise.
While Regan called the Soviet Union the evil empire, he also attended summits all the time to intimately discuss issues with the leader of this evil empire. Nixon visited Communist China just after the conclusion of the Great Leap Forward killed millions. It seems that today's pundits forget all of this and simply adopt the Bush black and white of "you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
A good example is a recent Instapundit post. When told the Baker commission encourages, you know, traditional diplomacy (as opposed to cowboy style regime change), he gulps "uh oh." He later notes:
John Hinderaker is very unhappy with this talk. He also thinks that any expectation of a deal with the Iranians is "delusional."Ooh, can't trust those wily Persians! Throughout all this hand-wringing, there's a failure to understand we are a far greater threat to Iran than they are to us. We occupy countries on two of their borders. Our ships ply their waters (and we could blockade them just as well as they could blockade the gulf). We have thousands of nuclear weapons, tell them our only diplomatic goal as to their government is "regime change," and call them part of the "Axis of Evil."I'll just note that the last time folks in the White House tried to cut a deal with the Iranians, Don Regan characterized it this way: "We got snookered by a bunch of rug merchants."
If we had a President with some balls who really wanted to change things (as just creating terrorists and bungling occupations), then he would fly to Tehran, admit to our past sins (overthrowing their prime minister in the 50s, installing the shah, selling arms to Saddam while he was gassing Iranians), and make a plea for respect and peace, I think we would get much farther in the world. As for Syria, if we force Israel and Palestine to take some action (we control a lot of money flows to both) and help them get Golan back, things would ease up as well.
But the Republicans would rather demonize and send out hostility, fear, and militarism.
*Sigh* I shouldn't have to say this, since it goes without question. But we would have to get Iran to grow up accept Israel's right to exist (out of the West Bank and Gaza, natch). And we would keep a wary eye on the Iranians and let them know that an attack on us is an act of war. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to live in peace.
Monday, November 13, 2006
Why Does Bush Lie? Becuase it is Convenient.
A huge problem with our Washington press corps? There are too concerned with the 'winger accusation of "liberal bias" to do their job, so they hide behind their stenography reporting. They won't call a Republican out, and will report spin as worthy and meaningful statements.
George Bush on why he lied to the country about Rumsfeld's tenure as Secretary of Defense before the election.
George Bush on why he lied to the country about Rumsfeld's tenure as Secretary of Defense before the election.
The only way to answer that question, and get it on to another question, was to
give you that answer.
In essence? I had to feed you something to get you to shut up. So I gave you a lie. It worked. My image as a strong and resolute decider remained.
This pretty clearly implies that he's used this tactic before and he will use it again. He wasn't even sheepish about being exposed as an empty political liar. Just a bit of a nod and a wink, since the press corps knows he lies all the time, but they are afraid to say so to America. So Bush even openly admits that he is a liar, because he knows it won't be reported. To report that simple truth would be unpardonable liberal bias, after all.
Sure enough, on Meet the Press, David Gregory (who actually can ask some pretty probing questions in a press conference), proves that in front of the public eye the Washington press can't admit to basic facts about the President:
MR. GREGORY: Right, well, he deliberately misled those reporters, and he said he
did it because he didn’t want to inject politics in the campaign. You have to
wonder why–how he could–was there a way to, to get around that question in some
fashion so he didn’t have to give that ammunition to people who thought the
policy was a failure. And that’s what he did right at the end.
(snip)
MR. RUSSERT: Does that hurt his credibility with you and the press
corps?
MR. GREGORY: Well, I–look, you know, you like to get a straight answer
out of the president. He laid out his case for, for why he did it, and there’s
no question that would’ve injected politics. So I think people see it different
ways.
Translation: I wish he wouldn't lie, but some people say the lie was OK, so who am I to question the credibility of a liar? That would be partisan.
It is unfathomable why he didn't answer that question like a normal human being. That answer should have gone "Absolutely, Tim. The President admitted lying to our face for partisan political reasons, and without shame. Whenever he opens his mouth, how do we know he isn't playing the same game? He is clearly willing to lie to the American Public about our military situation, and frankly has lost credibility on that count." Is that a radical response? No. It is the response of a normal human being when he finds out someone lied to his face. A person loses credibility when they are caught in a lie. That's kina of how credibility works, you know?
Different people see it like this: normal people see what happened as brazen, bald-faced lying. Bush partisans think Bush should do whatever Bush feels is best, and if Bush felt it to be the right choice, then it was. So by the act of Bush choosing to lie, it is justifed. They will even applaud Bush for admitting it (Good for Bush for fooling those pesky reporters!). But unprincipled 'wingers schooled in newspeak should not control the definition of what is acceptable.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Corruption in emerging democracies
A afghan poll just came out saying they feel things look good for democracy, but worry about corruption. That's not surprising, since politics is in essence a spoils system. Corruption will always occur. The question is, how to stem its pernicious influences and make corrections to the system.
The goal in our support for new democracies should be to create competing power centers that use information, not violence to change things. If there is something that isn't working, or corruption in the system, the proper way to halt things is not violent change, but clear exposure of the corruption. Sunshine is the best disenfectant. A government needs to seperate some powers, both for the standard separation of powers arguments (that factions can be dangerious and self-interesed, sometimes fanatically so), but for reasons of embarassment. Part of the Bush era problem was that Republicans marached in lockstep demonizing their opponents while refusing to ever say anything wrong about their fellows. In an open, established society like ours, the First Amendment and the internet at least lets damning information out. The new democracies need idependent power systems within the state that can audit the government and bring information out for the public, to help expose individuals natural proclivity for corruption and abuse of power to check the excesses that will spring up.
While the GOP here called those who questioned them terrorist lovers and the like, at least there were no death squads. This is not the case in many fragile democracies. So those in power must be exposed witout fear of reprisal. The US should support (and physically protect) this "audit" branch of government, which would be armed with certain investigative powers. However, the "audit branch" will have no power but that of investigation. The results cannot be used to force a change directly. The information will be gathered, a report issued to the federal and state/province governments, and also to the public. Then it will be up to the citizenry and competing factions to use this information to create change, through protest, elections, etc.
Frankly, the US must essentially commit itself to protection of the fourth estate in Iraq and Afghanistan. If there was an investigative group empowered to ask questions, get answers, examine documents, and report on the state of affairs without fear, an informed and enlightened populace could be created, one that both understands and has a stake in civil society.
If such a system has some effect in cleaning up corruption, faith in deomcracy will grow.
The enemy of a democratic government by the people is secrecy within the halls of government itself. If those in office can hide their dealings, they cannot be called to acccount. For what is in the shadows, but darkness?
The goal in our support for new democracies should be to create competing power centers that use information, not violence to change things. If there is something that isn't working, or corruption in the system, the proper way to halt things is not violent change, but clear exposure of the corruption. Sunshine is the best disenfectant. A government needs to seperate some powers, both for the standard separation of powers arguments (that factions can be dangerious and self-interesed, sometimes fanatically so), but for reasons of embarassment. Part of the Bush era problem was that Republicans marached in lockstep demonizing their opponents while refusing to ever say anything wrong about their fellows. In an open, established society like ours, the First Amendment and the internet at least lets damning information out. The new democracies need idependent power systems within the state that can audit the government and bring information out for the public, to help expose individuals natural proclivity for corruption and abuse of power to check the excesses that will spring up.
While the GOP here called those who questioned them terrorist lovers and the like, at least there were no death squads. This is not the case in many fragile democracies. So those in power must be exposed witout fear of reprisal. The US should support (and physically protect) this "audit" branch of government, which would be armed with certain investigative powers. However, the "audit branch" will have no power but that of investigation. The results cannot be used to force a change directly. The information will be gathered, a report issued to the federal and state/province governments, and also to the public. Then it will be up to the citizenry and competing factions to use this information to create change, through protest, elections, etc.
Frankly, the US must essentially commit itself to protection of the fourth estate in Iraq and Afghanistan. If there was an investigative group empowered to ask questions, get answers, examine documents, and report on the state of affairs without fear, an informed and enlightened populace could be created, one that both understands and has a stake in civil society.
If such a system has some effect in cleaning up corruption, faith in deomcracy will grow.
The enemy of a democratic government by the people is secrecy within the halls of government itself. If those in office can hide their dealings, they cannot be called to acccount. For what is in the shadows, but darkness?
Saturday, October 28, 2006
How Democrats Should Govern v. The GOP
This an administration, in both the Congress and the executive, that seeks to cut corners and avoid the actual, hard responsibilities of governing so they can spend time fundraising with their fatcat buddies at fancy $500 plate (or even $10,000) dinners.
The only thing that ever gets an sort of interest in a GOP Congress is blow jobs and gay sex. These perverts need to quite nosing around in bedrooms and focus on how our government is performing, because its doing a lousy job, from Katrina to Iraq to the administration of our health system. This is a government of the people, and it needs to be making sure its spending the peoples money wisely.
Bush runs massive deficets so he can give a break to his rich buddies, and talks about raising taxes (or even just not constantly lowering them) as the greatest evil that can be inflicted upon America. But he has raised spending more than any president in a generation. He just doesn't want his rich cronies to have to skip out on buying that second yacht, so he just won't pay for his spending binge and incompetently managed wars. He'd rather have our kids pay for that.
Bush denigrates work, says what's important is to have us "invest," become part of the "ownership society." He disagrees that work is always to be more valued over wealth. So he wants the owners to get rich. To Bush, wealth isn't created by innovation and gumption, but from wisely acquiring companies, sitting on the boards of companies, or owning sporting teams. Essentially, prosperity comes from playing with money, not getting a paycheck. And sometimes your investments really pan out, and you can double your wealth, but sometimes they bust. Then you have to go back to your mansion, think about the failed deal for a bit, and then take some other millions you have and buy part of another company. It's not small business ownership he understands, but corparate posturing. He doesn't understand the concerns and needs of the middle class, and it shows.
He's not working for the vast majority of Americans. He'll cynically frame every little thing in America in the most partisan way to try and pick fights with the opposing party (and his oppenents frankly aren't politically clever enough to rebut it), and to portray them as either gay, cowards or some sort of Tax Monster. But he doesn't want to talk about the issues. And neither does the Congress. They want to stay in power so they can keep giving their buddies federal tax breaks and federal contracts. Then their buddies take 'em out to fancy meals and travel junkets, employ their family and staffers, and let their Congress what a swell guy he is for seeing things his way. And thats the MO of the governing party right now.
Their only pitch is the divisive political angle, and that's the only thing they try to work on when they are in session. They haven't actually dealt with any real problems. They don't hold hearings on Iraq, how the medicare implementation is working, reconstruction efforts in New Orleans, the endemic corruption stalking and felling so many members of Congress, or hold debates on the proper role of American Power in the world to promote Peace and Prosperity. But the moment their is sex talk, be it Clinton's or even Foley's, the Congress will hold hearings. They will pontificate on Terri Shiavo. Someone sees a breast, they'll rave on about it for 100s of hours. To them, the war is something to applaud, not something to actually investigate to ensure it's not all going to hell. Because they only thing they really see is their next campaign ad for the next election, and the next fancy party their big money sponsors will throw. They don't even work five days a week when they are around. They are do-nothing bums. Any new Congress, led by Democrats, should operate monday through Friday. Is that too goddamn much to ask of our elected leaders? That they actually show up to work?
They do not want to actually govern. They are just kicking everything down the road, figuring someone will eventually clean up their mess. And they shouldn't govern. And everyone running against them should be constantly pointing this out. They should be railing on the corrupt, flaccid, hear-no-evil , speak-no-evil, see-no-evil (about Republicans in office, at least) who govern only for the rich. The sad thing is that those in Congress proposed many rational and sensible laws and attempts to investigate the dysfunctions and failings of our government. But they were always shot down by the Republican party, and the hack agenda was implemented instead.
A very strong argument should not be on policy, but on competence. And that requires a democratic leadership to stand firmly for oversight, for investigation, for good governance, oversight, and, above all, hard work. They should be in DC no less than Monday morning to Friday afternoon. And if that means an individual representative or two doesn't get re-elected, that's too damn bad. It is far greater for the party to push an agenda of hard work, and a rising tide lifts all boats. Furthermore, once this oversight and investigating concludes on a particular area, Democrats should say they'll then hold some substantive debates, with many viewpoints offered. Some people with the best ideas and most interest will get together to hammer out a bill, then this bill will be debated. If it looks good, there will be a vote. No earmarks will be attached. The Congress should have constant votes on little or medium sized things (which will keep people at the Capitol working. The days of dirty tricks and backroom Committees should be finished.
I think the American people would be greatful, and would pay them respect for their hard work on election day.
The only thing that ever gets an sort of interest in a GOP Congress is blow jobs and gay sex. These perverts need to quite nosing around in bedrooms and focus on how our government is performing, because its doing a lousy job, from Katrina to Iraq to the administration of our health system. This is a government of the people, and it needs to be making sure its spending the peoples money wisely.
Bush runs massive deficets so he can give a break to his rich buddies, and talks about raising taxes (or even just not constantly lowering them) as the greatest evil that can be inflicted upon America. But he has raised spending more than any president in a generation. He just doesn't want his rich cronies to have to skip out on buying that second yacht, so he just won't pay for his spending binge and incompetently managed wars. He'd rather have our kids pay for that.
Bush denigrates work, says what's important is to have us "invest," become part of the "ownership society." He disagrees that work is always to be more valued over wealth. So he wants the owners to get rich. To Bush, wealth isn't created by innovation and gumption, but from wisely acquiring companies, sitting on the boards of companies, or owning sporting teams. Essentially, prosperity comes from playing with money, not getting a paycheck. And sometimes your investments really pan out, and you can double your wealth, but sometimes they bust. Then you have to go back to your mansion, think about the failed deal for a bit, and then take some other millions you have and buy part of another company. It's not small business ownership he understands, but corparate posturing. He doesn't understand the concerns and needs of the middle class, and it shows.
He's not working for the vast majority of Americans. He'll cynically frame every little thing in America in the most partisan way to try and pick fights with the opposing party (and his oppenents frankly aren't politically clever enough to rebut it), and to portray them as either gay, cowards or some sort of Tax Monster. But he doesn't want to talk about the issues. And neither does the Congress. They want to stay in power so they can keep giving their buddies federal tax breaks and federal contracts. Then their buddies take 'em out to fancy meals and travel junkets, employ their family and staffers, and let their Congress what a swell guy he is for seeing things his way. And thats the MO of the governing party right now.
Their only pitch is the divisive political angle, and that's the only thing they try to work on when they are in session. They haven't actually dealt with any real problems. They don't hold hearings on Iraq, how the medicare implementation is working, reconstruction efforts in New Orleans, the endemic corruption stalking and felling so many members of Congress, or hold debates on the proper role of American Power in the world to promote Peace and Prosperity. But the moment their is sex talk, be it Clinton's or even Foley's, the Congress will hold hearings. They will pontificate on Terri Shiavo. Someone sees a breast, they'll rave on about it for 100s of hours. To them, the war is something to applaud, not something to actually investigate to ensure it's not all going to hell. Because they only thing they really see is their next campaign ad for the next election, and the next fancy party their big money sponsors will throw. They don't even work five days a week when they are around. They are do-nothing bums. Any new Congress, led by Democrats, should operate monday through Friday. Is that too goddamn much to ask of our elected leaders? That they actually show up to work?
They do not want to actually govern. They are just kicking everything down the road, figuring someone will eventually clean up their mess. And they shouldn't govern. And everyone running against them should be constantly pointing this out. They should be railing on the corrupt, flaccid, hear-no-evil , speak-no-evil, see-no-evil (about Republicans in office, at least) who govern only for the rich. The sad thing is that those in Congress proposed many rational and sensible laws and attempts to investigate the dysfunctions and failings of our government. But they were always shot down by the Republican party, and the hack agenda was implemented instead.
A very strong argument should not be on policy, but on competence. And that requires a democratic leadership to stand firmly for oversight, for investigation, for good governance, oversight, and, above all, hard work. They should be in DC no less than Monday morning to Friday afternoon. And if that means an individual representative or two doesn't get re-elected, that's too damn bad. It is far greater for the party to push an agenda of hard work, and a rising tide lifts all boats. Furthermore, once this oversight and investigating concludes on a particular area, Democrats should say they'll then hold some substantive debates, with many viewpoints offered. Some people with the best ideas and most interest will get together to hammer out a bill, then this bill will be debated. If it looks good, there will be a vote. No earmarks will be attached. The Congress should have constant votes on little or medium sized things (which will keep people at the Capitol working. The days of dirty tricks and backroom Committees should be finished.
I think the American people would be greatful, and would pay them respect for their hard work on election day.
Saturday, October 21, 2006
Liberal Manifesto
I see that the good folks over at the American Prospect have planted the flag of liberalism and reasoned government upon the internet. Good to have some reassertion of this traditional term, which was once associated with advancement of the rights of man and of meritocratic, open governments of the people (not just for the heriditary rulers or propertied interest). Just as Andrew Sullivan does try to lead a way to a rationed defense of traditional conservative principles, there ought to be an effort to bring to the forefront the traditional liberal principles, so that these principals stand out when people speak of liberals or conservatives. See this Prospect post, "We Answer to the Name of Liberals."
The media has sadly steered the political discourse of this country first into the gutter, then into the bedroom, and finally, back into childhood. Parties became the "mommy party" and "daddy party," the horserace and individual tactics of a campaign took primacy over policy arguments, and any focus on the competence or diligence of a lawmaker. Reasoned analysis replaced with sound bites, and investigative journalism to stenography. Attempts to appela to mature and grown up thought disregarded, and instead reporting like its some sort of high school contest; an actual sheer popularity contest with no sort of realization that leaders of this nation should be ready to bear a heavy burden and to sacrifice themselves for the people. Instead, the only relevant question they enjoyed asking was "would you prefer having a beer with this man?"
I don't think this declaration will change the infantalized tone in politics, but it is a good start. There should be a consistent political voice refusing to be defined by a our media. The voice of rational governance, against the voice of the vacuous, no attention span talking heads who currently try and control our discourse.
The media has sadly steered the political discourse of this country first into the gutter, then into the bedroom, and finally, back into childhood. Parties became the "mommy party" and "daddy party," the horserace and individual tactics of a campaign took primacy over policy arguments, and any focus on the competence or diligence of a lawmaker. Reasoned analysis replaced with sound bites, and investigative journalism to stenography. Attempts to appela to mature and grown up thought disregarded, and instead reporting like its some sort of high school contest; an actual sheer popularity contest with no sort of realization that leaders of this nation should be ready to bear a heavy burden and to sacrifice themselves for the people. Instead, the only relevant question they enjoyed asking was "would you prefer having a beer with this man?"
I don't think this declaration will change the infantalized tone in politics, but it is a good start. There should be a consistent political voice refusing to be defined by a our media. The voice of rational governance, against the voice of the vacuous, no attention span talking heads who currently try and control our discourse.
Monday, October 02, 2006
Churchill and the Dignified Response to Terror
I was reading up a bit on Churchill, on the way he viewed a struggle of total war against an implacable foe, and for the umpteenth time, I again had to shake my head at the failings of our president. Especially this gem:
was a more significant threat to civilization then a few thousand Al-Queda types sitting in caves, planning to blow up airliners. We all must deal with risks, and until the danger of driving to the airport is less then the danger of flying in the airplane, we frankly shouldn't waste so much time fretting.
Also, since this fight is said to be the defining moment of our times, I would also like to compare Bush and the reactions of Churchill to leading the British in the defining moment of their times.
He also introduced food rationing to the British public in 1940, to ensure that the soliders could get enough meat. Naturally, the draft was cumpolsory.
Bush...lowered taxes on stock dividends. He also decided to invade a country that had no link to 9-11. Victory was apparently not the aim. But he has won the suspension of Habeus Corpus. Odious. Odious. He has apparently recently read Camus. He should also read a little Nietzsche.
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism 146
We have looked into the abyss, the ledge has given way, and we are falling. Despite the damage done, perhaps soon we shall begin the long climb back up, the climb to decency, liberty, and truth.
I leave you with more of Sir Winston.
Never flinch. Hold your head high. Do not lose your convenctions when you peer into the abyss (which lies within all our souls). Refuse to be terrorized. Important principles, all of which our executive has discarded.
"You might however consider whether you should not unfold as a background the great privilege of habeas corpus and trial by jury, which are the supreme protection invented by the English people for ordinary individuals against the state. The power of the Executive to cast a man in prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government, whether Nazi or Communist. (my emphasis)There you have it. Stalwart Conservative and the Lion of Brittania, declaring our new policy on imperial presidential power: The highest degree odious and the foundation of totalitarianism and the Nazi Party. And yes, I do think that the Nazi threat in World War II (which had alread killed hundreds of thousands of Britons by the time he made this statement)
In a telegram by Churchill from Cairo, Egypt to Home Secretary Herbert Morrison (21 November 1943).
was a more significant threat to civilization then a few thousand Al-Queda types sitting in caves, planning to blow up airliners. We all must deal with risks, and until the danger of driving to the airport is less then the danger of flying in the airplane, we frankly shouldn't waste so much time fretting.
Also, since this fight is said to be the defining moment of our times, I would also like to compare Bush and the reactions of Churchill to leading the British in the defining moment of their times.
"I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us: to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror..."
Speech in the House of Commons, after taking office as Prime Minister (13 May
1940).
He also introduced food rationing to the British public in 1940, to ensure that the soliders could get enough meat. Naturally, the draft was cumpolsory.
Bush...lowered taxes on stock dividends. He also decided to invade a country that had no link to 9-11. Victory was apparently not the aim. But he has won the suspension of Habeus Corpus. Odious. Odious. He has apparently recently read Camus. He should also read a little Nietzsche.
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism 146
We have looked into the abyss, the ledge has given way, and we are falling. Despite the damage done, perhaps soon we shall begin the long climb back up, the climb to decency, liberty, and truth.
I leave you with more of Sir Winston.
"The day may dawn when fair play, love for one's fellow men, respect for justice and freedom, will enable tormented generations to march forth triumphant from the hideous epoch in which we have to dwell. Meanwhile, never flinch, never weary, never despair."
Churchill's last major speech in the Commons, 1 March 1955.
Never flinch. Hold your head high. Do not lose your convenctions when you peer into the abyss (which lies within all our souls). Refuse to be terrorized. Important principles, all of which our executive has discarded.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Governance Ruminations
Good Represenative Government
One of the great failings of the lastCongress was their essential do-nothingness. They logged one of the least working hours ever. A simple (but surprisingly hard) way to win over the American people is to support working 5 days a week.
I know the house of representatives got used to 3 day work weeks with 4 days of schmoozing and money raising, but the Dems could really get the support of us average workers if they would have the grace to Treat Their Job Like It Is Fucking Important. They are running the country, not a country club. So do your job for a whole work week. Hold extra hearings if you can't find ways to fill the day. Exert some oversight. You know, do your job. That is a simple concept. The American people will respect it.
Good Representative Governance
Also, try to end corruption. Police yourself above all (with respect to unethical behavior). Remember your role as a public steward. And try to keep earmakrs down, for the love of god. If someone wants money in their district, make them earn it. Make them at least work on their appropration enough to put it through a committee based on actual merits. Naturally a signature piece of legislatation made need a bit o' the bacon grease. But vow to keep it below 100, even thought the outgoing folks (R) were around 6,000+
A Democratic President and Congress
Only a Democratic Presidential candidate can propose a solution that could actually be implemented. The only action the Dems can take is to investigate.The mistakes made in Iraq have been hidden by the GOP and Bush, not to mention the reality of the situation on the ground. The Dems should vow to hold 5 or 6 day work weeks, with lots of long hours, in order to discover what really has been going on the last three years. Only once we have the true picture of the facts on the ground can we devise a change. Have 'em even send congressional investigation committees to Iraq and the neighboring countries (hopefully composed of ex-military staff and hard nosed professional diplomats, not some namby pamby staffer who's parents donated a lot of cash, a la "Life in the Emerald City").
One of the great failings of the lastCongress was their essential do-nothingness. They logged one of the least working hours ever. A simple (but surprisingly hard) way to win over the American people is to support working 5 days a week.
I know the house of representatives got used to 3 day work weeks with 4 days of schmoozing and money raising, but the Dems could really get the support of us average workers if they would have the grace to Treat Their Job Like It Is Fucking Important. They are running the country, not a country club. So do your job for a whole work week. Hold extra hearings if you can't find ways to fill the day. Exert some oversight. You know, do your job. That is a simple concept. The American people will respect it.
Good Representative Governance
Also, try to end corruption. Police yourself above all (with respect to unethical behavior). Remember your role as a public steward. And try to keep earmakrs down, for the love of god. If someone wants money in their district, make them earn it. Make them at least work on their appropration enough to put it through a committee based on actual merits. Naturally a signature piece of legislatation made need a bit o' the bacon grease. But vow to keep it below 100, even thought the outgoing folks (R) were around 6,000+
A Democratic President and Congress
Only a Democratic Presidential candidate can propose a solution that could actually be implemented. The only action the Dems can take is to investigate.The mistakes made in Iraq have been hidden by the GOP and Bush, not to mention the reality of the situation on the ground. The Dems should vow to hold 5 or 6 day work weeks, with lots of long hours, in order to discover what really has been going on the last three years. Only once we have the true picture of the facts on the ground can we devise a change. Have 'em even send congressional investigation committees to Iraq and the neighboring countries (hopefully composed of ex-military staff and hard nosed professional diplomats, not some namby pamby staffer who's parents donated a lot of cash, a la "Life in the Emerald City").
The Federalism of Persuasion
I would like to make a call for a new Federalism, which will redefine the role of the federal government to the states. It will be that of a more nuetral and non-partisan government that focuses on gathering data, promulgating (but not mandating) new polices, and more trusting of states to fulfill their own duties. It will be a Federal government that focuses less on how it spends money, because it will spend less. Instead, it will provide more discretion to the states to spend, but it will aggressively audit the spending to ensure that the taxpayers money is not wasted on frivolous or corrupt projects.
Currently, the federal government is a source of mandates, like the No Child Left Behind. I will use educational policy as an example to describe the new federalism. The NCLB act mandated all kinds of testing on our schools. It provided some money, but certainly not enough to fulfill the orders from DC. It is administered in a haphazardly and counter-productive fashion, becuase it is run inflexibly by Dept. of Eductaion bureaucrats in D.C. The new federalism would have handled things much differently.
First off, the focus would be on good policy, as divorced from the political process as possible (difficult as that may be). This is because there is no guarantee that the policy will be enacted. The implementation of the policy will be permissive. Instead of mandates and limited funds, there will be suggestions and block grants to the States to help their educational systems. Money sent from DC will only be very general. Money for facilites/equipment, teachers, or training. The states will receive the grants, and they can spend it as the choose in that general field. However, there will be very strict audit requirments by the folks in DC on documentation of how the money gets spent. This will be a federal job, and the feds will not only pay for their own auditors, but will also help provide a little additional money to the states to help them with the audit compliance requirments. The auditors will have the power to subpoena and investigate if they feel something fishy is going on. They can hold public hearings, which will be in the state, not in DC (the audit teams will be based in the staes, paid by the feds, with the HQ in DC). If there is misues of funds, it will be investigated and publicized in the local area. The state will then be penalized by having to give the money back, and hopefully the local state corruption will be rooted out.
This is more of a traditional balance of powers benefit. There is freedom to act by the state, but oversight to ensure responsible use of funds by the federal government. These policy departments will have a mix of political apointments and of career civil servants. Additionally, the political apointees will have fixed, multi-year terms (so they can outlast any particular executive leader and offer advice freely, without fear of offending the orthodoxy). There will be a range of 2 years to 10 years, which will ensure a eclectic mix of opinions. The agency will then issue their policy, based on a mix of the opinions of the career experts and the appointees. If the President doesn't like what he sees for political reasons, he can refuse to issue the report for that year (i.e. provide additional funding for adopting these measures). However, then the President will be exposed as against good policy. Naturally, the continued adherence to older policies will still be valid for additional federal funds.
The feds will also promulgate policy on a yearly basis. There will be policy plans issued, which wil focus on the areas the US most needs to tweak. It is not required to follow these policies. However, the policies will have a certain number of key points (say 10). If a state chooses to follow most of these (say 8 of 10), it will be entitled to additional funding from the feds for adopting what is believed to be a better and more rational policy. The policy arm of the feds will constantly liason with their counterparts in the states to reformulate their ideas. Additionally, while new polices will come out each year, the States themselves only have to adjust to follow the newest federal policy (in order to get the extra funds) once every 10 years or so. They can adpot earlier if they wish, but in order to avoid constant, yearly upheavels, they can wait. States that like a new idea can lead the reform, more cautious States can adpot only the tried and true methods. Such an operation is an incalculable boost to the laboratory of ideas that is our federal system.
Naturally, this should only be for most policies, not all. For example, Civil and Voting rights should be protected by the feds, and following such federal laws won't be optional. But with anything regarding basic administration, the control on such choices should lie with the states. Liberty and due process should remain protected by the federal government (in a meaningful wya, not like it is now with suspension of Habeus Corpus and basic due process).
Currently, the federal government is a source of mandates, like the No Child Left Behind. I will use educational policy as an example to describe the new federalism. The NCLB act mandated all kinds of testing on our schools. It provided some money, but certainly not enough to fulfill the orders from DC. It is administered in a haphazardly and counter-productive fashion, becuase it is run inflexibly by Dept. of Eductaion bureaucrats in D.C. The new federalism would have handled things much differently.
First off, the focus would be on good policy, as divorced from the political process as possible (difficult as that may be). This is because there is no guarantee that the policy will be enacted. The implementation of the policy will be permissive. Instead of mandates and limited funds, there will be suggestions and block grants to the States to help their educational systems. Money sent from DC will only be very general. Money for facilites/equipment, teachers, or training. The states will receive the grants, and they can spend it as the choose in that general field. However, there will be very strict audit requirments by the folks in DC on documentation of how the money gets spent. This will be a federal job, and the feds will not only pay for their own auditors, but will also help provide a little additional money to the states to help them with the audit compliance requirments. The auditors will have the power to subpoena and investigate if they feel something fishy is going on. They can hold public hearings, which will be in the state, not in DC (the audit teams will be based in the staes, paid by the feds, with the HQ in DC). If there is misues of funds, it will be investigated and publicized in the local area. The state will then be penalized by having to give the money back, and hopefully the local state corruption will be rooted out.
This is more of a traditional balance of powers benefit. There is freedom to act by the state, but oversight to ensure responsible use of funds by the federal government. These policy departments will have a mix of political apointments and of career civil servants. Additionally, the political apointees will have fixed, multi-year terms (so they can outlast any particular executive leader and offer advice freely, without fear of offending the orthodoxy). There will be a range of 2 years to 10 years, which will ensure a eclectic mix of opinions. The agency will then issue their policy, based on a mix of the opinions of the career experts and the appointees. If the President doesn't like what he sees for political reasons, he can refuse to issue the report for that year (i.e. provide additional funding for adopting these measures). However, then the President will be exposed as against good policy. Naturally, the continued adherence to older policies will still be valid for additional federal funds.
The feds will also promulgate policy on a yearly basis. There will be policy plans issued, which wil focus on the areas the US most needs to tweak. It is not required to follow these policies. However, the policies will have a certain number of key points (say 10). If a state chooses to follow most of these (say 8 of 10), it will be entitled to additional funding from the feds for adopting what is believed to be a better and more rational policy. The policy arm of the feds will constantly liason with their counterparts in the states to reformulate their ideas. Additionally, while new polices will come out each year, the States themselves only have to adjust to follow the newest federal policy (in order to get the extra funds) once every 10 years or so. They can adpot earlier if they wish, but in order to avoid constant, yearly upheavels, they can wait. States that like a new idea can lead the reform, more cautious States can adpot only the tried and true methods. Such an operation is an incalculable boost to the laboratory of ideas that is our federal system.
Naturally, this should only be for most policies, not all. For example, Civil and Voting rights should be protected by the feds, and following such federal laws won't be optional. But with anything regarding basic administration, the control on such choices should lie with the states. Liberty and due process should remain protected by the federal government (in a meaningful wya, not like it is now with suspension of Habeus Corpus and basic due process).
Sunday, September 17, 2006
American Energy Renissance and Employment Ruminations
There is a failure of immagination in energy in the republican party.
100 years ago, people tried all kinds of energy system, and we went with the dirty and cheap one. It's time to actually support, as opposed to Lip Service, real energy goals.
The current policy from Bush Co. is to "hope" that the free market comes up with something. Just like he "hopes" Iraqis will just figure it out and make peace. But just like the great American advances in the space race and the Manhattan project, we need serious government investment into these fields.
We should fund new state university based research centers and new government labs that contain the best and the brightest focusing on critical energy ideals (perhaps with the help of some of them university folk!)
There should be increased grants, sure, but the focus should be on increased american engineering students and physicians. Setting these people loose in our economy, especially after theoretical job experience in cutting edge state and federal research labs, will only increase economic innovation.
State governments should get grants to create joint degrees in both the nuts and bolts of engineering and the concepts associated with pure energy theoretical applications to encourage new ways to conceptualize energy
After sputnik, we invested heavily in these types of things (math, science), and we should increase state block grants for these technical subjects. To make sure the money is well spent, there should be serious audit professionals (who's ethics will hopefully migrate into morally bankrupt industries that need sober auditing).
We should subsidize scholarships for americans in engineering areas, especially for students from finacially disadvantaged areas. Instead of a message of no escape from econmically blighted areas, we should preach that all students in a certain income range will get help to go to college and become an engineer. The poorest should get a free ride, on a slowly decreasing scale, finally peteting out to no tuition assistance around 75 K (and indexed to the CPI). Children from families without means should know that there is a reward to focusing on education: a valuable education about the physical world. Even if it creates a glut of engineering jobs, it creates a vitally educated and practical poulace.
It is a simple sloganan, and many can actually succed quickly under such a program. Want to succed? become an engineer for amcerica!
A hope of working hard and getting an education as a path out of poverty is a far better enticement for society than excellence in sports. Don't belive me? Go ask Maurice Clarrett.
Just as an aside, there ought to be a program helping the children on those who lose their jobs through globalizaton, like scholorship opportunities and tutoring programs.
Even if we give up on a worker's job, we should at least let them know we want their child to have a future.
Government technology centers should also be built in areas based on their economic blight (and despite Kelo, it should be ok to do a little bit of extra rennovation in really bad area, but it needs to be associated with the gov. center. Just saying all right to have a slight commercial [bars, restaurants] incorporated into the gov. rennovation)
The government should invest some in helping the auto industry become more efficent. Locate these research centers in the rust belt and Michigan.
We also need to invest in better basic energy systems. Efficencey creates gains throughout the economy.
100 years ago, people tried all kinds of energy system, and we went with the dirty and cheap one. It's time to actually support, as opposed to Lip Service, real energy goals.
The current policy from Bush Co. is to "hope" that the free market comes up with something. Just like he "hopes" Iraqis will just figure it out and make peace. But just like the great American advances in the space race and the Manhattan project, we need serious government investment into these fields.
We should fund new state university based research centers and new government labs that contain the best and the brightest focusing on critical energy ideals (perhaps with the help of some of them university folk!)
There should be increased grants, sure, but the focus should be on increased american engineering students and physicians. Setting these people loose in our economy, especially after theoretical job experience in cutting edge state and federal research labs, will only increase economic innovation.
State governments should get grants to create joint degrees in both the nuts and bolts of engineering and the concepts associated with pure energy theoretical applications to encourage new ways to conceptualize energy
After sputnik, we invested heavily in these types of things (math, science), and we should increase state block grants for these technical subjects. To make sure the money is well spent, there should be serious audit professionals (who's ethics will hopefully migrate into morally bankrupt industries that need sober auditing).
We should subsidize scholarships for americans in engineering areas, especially for students from finacially disadvantaged areas. Instead of a message of no escape from econmically blighted areas, we should preach that all students in a certain income range will get help to go to college and become an engineer. The poorest should get a free ride, on a slowly decreasing scale, finally peteting out to no tuition assistance around 75 K (and indexed to the CPI). Children from families without means should know that there is a reward to focusing on education: a valuable education about the physical world. Even if it creates a glut of engineering jobs, it creates a vitally educated and practical poulace.
It is a simple sloganan, and many can actually succed quickly under such a program. Want to succed? become an engineer for amcerica!
A hope of working hard and getting an education as a path out of poverty is a far better enticement for society than excellence in sports. Don't belive me? Go ask Maurice Clarrett.
Just as an aside, there ought to be a program helping the children on those who lose their jobs through globalizaton, like scholorship opportunities and tutoring programs.
Even if we give up on a worker's job, we should at least let them know we want their child to have a future.
Government technology centers should also be built in areas based on their economic blight (and despite Kelo, it should be ok to do a little bit of extra rennovation in really bad area, but it needs to be associated with the gov. center. Just saying all right to have a slight commercial [bars, restaurants] incorporated into the gov. rennovation)
The government should invest some in helping the auto industry become more efficent. Locate these research centers in the rust belt and Michigan.
We also need to invest in better basic energy systems. Efficencey creates gains throughout the economy.
Immigration Workers in America
Some Ideas:
Immigration
Immigrants should be able to come to america the capitalist way, by paying a fee (and passing a security clearance). Smugglers get all the money from the trade in illegal entry. We should bring it out of the shadows and capture that revenue stream to help immigrants ajust. Naturally, citizenship would have to be earned (and paid for).
First year immigrants would have to pay a certain amount. The next year, it would be slightly less, it decreases another 2 years, then starts going up slowly. This will increase to a certain point until it is equal (or maybe a bit higher) than a new arrival. Unless, that person begins working towards citizenship. If there efforts reach a certain point (say 3/4 of the citzenship requirments/american political normalization), then the costs will decrease significantly. They can then continue through citizenship and become a citzen later on, or just push through with citizenship. There could also be a benifit credit once you are an immigrant worker (say 25 years) that gets a discount too.
Prison Reform
To give access to better jobs, America should work on a construction job training and supervision program for some of our prisoners. They should earn this privilege, but those who want to earn their keep on the outside should get that chance.
Immigration
Here's a principle to apply creatively to Immigration policy
If there has been a long period of work, don't want permanent "guest worker." So either put them on the path to citizenship (lower fees if taking right steps). If not, raise fees to encourage a return. Immigrants/guest workers as incubators of democratic and governmental norms, so that they will return to their home countries with both capital and with reformist, democratic ideas.
Democratic Refom/Immigration
Encourage demcroacy, especially through internal reforms. One benefit of teaching demoractic ideals to registered immigrants combined with a felixable fee system is that if after a few years (and Liberty based classes focused on civil rights and capitalist efficency) when the guest worker goes home, they will be "infected" with the great ideals that buttress free societies. Even if only 20% of the guest workers actually go home, it will be the spread of great ideals to areas of the world lacking in enlightenment advocates.
Immigration
Immigrants should be able to come to america the capitalist way, by paying a fee (and passing a security clearance). Smugglers get all the money from the trade in illegal entry. We should bring it out of the shadows and capture that revenue stream to help immigrants ajust. Naturally, citizenship would have to be earned (and paid for).
First year immigrants would have to pay a certain amount. The next year, it would be slightly less, it decreases another 2 years, then starts going up slowly. This will increase to a certain point until it is equal (or maybe a bit higher) than a new arrival. Unless, that person begins working towards citizenship. If there efforts reach a certain point (say 3/4 of the citzenship requirments/american political normalization), then the costs will decrease significantly. They can then continue through citizenship and become a citzen later on, or just push through with citizenship. There could also be a benifit credit once you are an immigrant worker (say 25 years) that gets a discount too.
Prison Reform
To give access to better jobs, America should work on a construction job training and supervision program for some of our prisoners. They should earn this privilege, but those who want to earn their keep on the outside should get that chance.
Immigration
Here's a principle to apply creatively to Immigration policy
If there has been a long period of work, don't want permanent "guest worker." So either put them on the path to citizenship (lower fees if taking right steps). If not, raise fees to encourage a return. Immigrants/guest workers as incubators of democratic and governmental norms, so that they will return to their home countries with both capital and with reformist, democratic ideas.
Democratic Refom/Immigration
Encourage demcroacy, especially through internal reforms. One benefit of teaching demoractic ideals to registered immigrants combined with a felixable fee system is that if after a few years (and Liberty based classes focused on civil rights and capitalist efficency) when the guest worker goes home, they will be "infected" with the great ideals that buttress free societies. Even if only 20% of the guest workers actually go home, it will be the spread of great ideals to areas of the world lacking in enlightenment advocates.
Public Works and the New Deal of the 21st Century
What is the purpose of a good government? What should its aims be? I think the best investment for the future should be guided by two key aims. A more comprehensive, American public transit infrastructure and a massive investment in energy and generally hard science research.
Introduction
To help create the new deal of the 21st Century, we need both investment in ideas and investment in infrastructure. In a quick and simple sense, government should develope the systems and structures that will help build a strong, essentially free market system for the future. This is not the abstract future of our grandchildren, but that of our own future, 5 years, 10 years, and 25 years from now. Now, this discussion could devolve into a sort of philosophical discourse on what is appropriate for the federal government to undertake, but I leave that for my post on a New Federalism (see sidebar). The current policy of the government seems to be to operate more like a patronage machine for the favored doners. See (http://agorabum.blogspot.com/2006/09/patronage-machine.html). Clearly, that's a philosophy of "I'll get mine now, and let's not think about tomorrow.
We like to belive in the power of the market, but there are certain large scale enterprises that benefit the commons that the market cannot feasibly handle. This is where the government should step in to help direct investment to plan for the civic future. This is not to suggest a planned economy, but more of to help guide fundamental realingments of policy, into which private funding will then flow. For example, I need only point out our current highway policies. We expand and build, and the private market fills in with certain developments suited to our arterial highway system expansion. The public sector leads with a certain key development, and private investment exploits the opportunities this creates. Another good example is the Hoover Dam and Las Vegas, or the Tennessee Valley Authority and the South. Even the development of early America was spurred by the construction of the Eire Canal and the transcontinental railroad.
Unless you subscribe to the most extreme libertarianism, there is a recognized need for public sector investment. This is recognized through investment in Universities, roads, public health, police, fireman, schools, etc. This is necessary to defeat the problem of free riders, and also to destroy negative incentives that could, for example, encourage people to not pay private fees to send their children to schools or pay for fire protection. A self interested person could choose to reject such payments for short term gain. Regardless, sometimes investment is best served by the market, other times it is of a scale and scope that requires national investment, as in investment by the government.
Energy
When Sputnik entered the stratosphere, there was a general recognition in America that a new focus was necessary to prove the superiority of the free mind. The same challenge exists today, witht the omniprescent existence of oil-based regimes that export demogaugery and fundamentalism much in the same way the Soviet Union sought to export communism. We helped bypass the claims of superiority of the USSR by putting a man on the moon. In the same way, we should bypass the smug preaching of the oil regimes by undercutting the basis of their power: energy in a hydrocarbon society.
The development of alternative energy is not a matter of preference. It is a matter of survival for liberal democracies. Our economies, in this post-industrial age, are energy. We use it in every facet of our existence, from the internet, power to our PC's, our cars and trucks that transport ourselves and our goods, and even the toast we have for breakfast. Our use of energy in the future is something that is not in doubt: we will continue to use it, and the world will undoubtedly seek to use more. There must be freedom from the oil we pump from the earth to a harnessing of the energy which is the source of oils power: the power of molecular connections and the power of the sun.
The only way to do this is to spark a new scientific race in America. This should be done in three key wasy: the construction of new, government sponsored research facilities, new engineering universities focused on improving the studies of sheer energy itself, efficent use of energy, and general scientific applications; and the establishement of a massive scholarship program focused on the youth of America to funnel them into these new instituitions.
Government Energy Research
It is a key national security goal that America have baisc energy independence from non-democratic regimes. These countries focus on one thing: slavish support of those in power. In a free market, we have little to fear, but in a system based on obeying the will of one individual over those of the general populace, there is no way a market based system can efficently devine the future. The only solution is to trade energy needs with other free market systems (and a system can only be free if there is no undue political inteference with the means of production by non-market forces). Such a system is essentially impossible today, because the entire system is based on hydrocarbons (oil, natural gas, coal, etc.). Institutions devoted to pure research of energy must be established, in numerous locations across America, to help wean ourselves, and the world, off hydrocarbons.
Oil is valuable. But it is also valuable as a manufacturable commidty. We should endeavor not to simply burn away this resource of many uses, but ensure it can continue in our manufacturing chain throughout numerous generations.
Another important factor in establishing these facilites is that they should be located in areas of America that have suffered recent economic depressions. As our economy evolves, it is tragically true that certain secotors are left behind. It is these areas that the government should invest to help create the industries of the future (which leads me to my next point).
New Energy Universities
When it comes to manipulating the elements to create new possibilites, nothing beats engineering. America has some of the best engineering instituitons in the world, but that doesn't mean we can't use more. We should encourage the founding of new state insitutions (especially in historically economically regressing areas), both through the use of state funds (see "new federalism" at sidebar) and through private encouragement. No reason for Bill Gates or Buffet not to found new universities for the 21st century, much like Rockefeller founded the University of Chicago for the 20th Century. There should be additions to current campuses, but there should also be entirely new campuses created, centered around research labs and the new governmnt research centers, that would provide a fulcrum to both provide jobs to the burgeoning new engineering professions in the public sector, and provide paternships with the private sector. The public sector resarch labs could be a valuable conduit between the Univesity education and private technology transfer initiatives.
Scholarship Program
We must encourage more American scientists. This is easy to accomplish. Heavy government funding for scholarships of disadvantaged youth. With such a progtam, if a student takes math and science in jr. high and high school and perform well, the enterprising child will go to college. This will apply to the traditional poor (both in neglected urban/inner city environments and rural areas), as well as offers to the children of workers who lose their job from globalization.
People like to talk about retraining 50 year old factory workers. That's a tall order, to push an industrial worker like that into the IT sector and expect a quick absorbtion of skills. But it may ease the pain if there is a promise that their children, if they only study in school, will be guranteed a college education in the hard sciences, which will teach them practical facts about the world they inhabit. One of the great existential worries that comes with a loss of a job is the question of the future, and a good parent worries more about the future of their children. Greater investment in the education of these children at the very least gives them the opportunity to succeed.
If we are to invent our way out of our current energy predicatment, we should invest in the intellectual structures that will encourage such investment, and provide the essential raw material of young and dedicated minds for our information economy.
Mass Transit
America's system of mass transit, aside from limited areas on the Eastern seaboard, are frankly embarassing. We had far better transit systems 60 years ago. But we choose to tear them up to build highways to create an Auto-topia. Instead, most cities now have bumper-to-bumper gridlock at rush hour.
The solution is obvious. A new transit paradigm. It should be based on differnet levels of distance and speed. Inter-city travel should be very fast (100 mph +) with very few stops. Slightly slower systems (50 mph +) should feed into these stations. Local feeder routes should feed into these mid-level stations (25-50 mph). Light rail/subway/bus to regional to national systems.
Naturally, this requires heavy investment by the public sector. And there shoudl be assurances that this work is done by Americans. Managers must swear, under penalty of law, that their workers are Citizens (or the appropriate level of immigrant worker: see Homeland security and immigration post). Willful ignorance will not be tolerated. To avoid complaints about companies unable to find competent workers, there will also be money available for training programs in the interested states.
With any large government project, there is always the danger of public investment pulling resources away from the capital and labor of the private sector. But there is also a danger that exists from inaction on this front. National Security dictates that a comprehensive transit system be developed, both for use in the case of national emergencies and to help America cope with its oil addicition. If costs are driven up in such a fashion as to discourage sprawl (as should be done with tax policy as well), and more energy efficent development is planned, then such an effect is actually a benefit. Already, road building sucks in a massive amount of money in America, so redirecting some of these emminent domain actions and construction costs to rail transit isn't really much of a change.
Most importantly, these acts will go slowly. Major transit systems will likely take many years to come online. The funds for this work will go only to states who are willing; the system should not be unilaterally imposed. This will allow for a variety of ideas and actions, and the "laboratory of the states" can hopefully lead the way, creating new efficencies. Additionally, the research of the new school facilities and grants can also focus on promoting infrastructure improvements.
Conclusion
America is a land of modernism and progress. But the acheivements that helped create the American 20th Century did not happen in a vaccum. They often happened with express or implied government support. The American people and the greater humanity deserve cutting edge energy research for a cleaner, more economical future. America also deserves a state of the art mass transit system. Government should support both of these laudable goals.
Introduction
To help create the new deal of the 21st Century, we need both investment in ideas and investment in infrastructure. In a quick and simple sense, government should develope the systems and structures that will help build a strong, essentially free market system for the future. This is not the abstract future of our grandchildren, but that of our own future, 5 years, 10 years, and 25 years from now. Now, this discussion could devolve into a sort of philosophical discourse on what is appropriate for the federal government to undertake, but I leave that for my post on a New Federalism (see sidebar). The current policy of the government seems to be to operate more like a patronage machine for the favored doners. See (http://agorabum.blogspot.com/2006/09/patronage-machine.html). Clearly, that's a philosophy of "I'll get mine now, and let's not think about tomorrow.
We like to belive in the power of the market, but there are certain large scale enterprises that benefit the commons that the market cannot feasibly handle. This is where the government should step in to help direct investment to plan for the civic future. This is not to suggest a planned economy, but more of to help guide fundamental realingments of policy, into which private funding will then flow. For example, I need only point out our current highway policies. We expand and build, and the private market fills in with certain developments suited to our arterial highway system expansion. The public sector leads with a certain key development, and private investment exploits the opportunities this creates. Another good example is the Hoover Dam and Las Vegas, or the Tennessee Valley Authority and the South. Even the development of early America was spurred by the construction of the Eire Canal and the transcontinental railroad.
Unless you subscribe to the most extreme libertarianism, there is a recognized need for public sector investment. This is recognized through investment in Universities, roads, public health, police, fireman, schools, etc. This is necessary to defeat the problem of free riders, and also to destroy negative incentives that could, for example, encourage people to not pay private fees to send their children to schools or pay for fire protection. A self interested person could choose to reject such payments for short term gain. Regardless, sometimes investment is best served by the market, other times it is of a scale and scope that requires national investment, as in investment by the government.
Energy
When Sputnik entered the stratosphere, there was a general recognition in America that a new focus was necessary to prove the superiority of the free mind. The same challenge exists today, witht the omniprescent existence of oil-based regimes that export demogaugery and fundamentalism much in the same way the Soviet Union sought to export communism. We helped bypass the claims of superiority of the USSR by putting a man on the moon. In the same way, we should bypass the smug preaching of the oil regimes by undercutting the basis of their power: energy in a hydrocarbon society.
The development of alternative energy is not a matter of preference. It is a matter of survival for liberal democracies. Our economies, in this post-industrial age, are energy. We use it in every facet of our existence, from the internet, power to our PC's, our cars and trucks that transport ourselves and our goods, and even the toast we have for breakfast. Our use of energy in the future is something that is not in doubt: we will continue to use it, and the world will undoubtedly seek to use more. There must be freedom from the oil we pump from the earth to a harnessing of the energy which is the source of oils power: the power of molecular connections and the power of the sun.
The only way to do this is to spark a new scientific race in America. This should be done in three key wasy: the construction of new, government sponsored research facilities, new engineering universities focused on improving the studies of sheer energy itself, efficent use of energy, and general scientific applications; and the establishement of a massive scholarship program focused on the youth of America to funnel them into these new instituitions.
Government Energy Research
It is a key national security goal that America have baisc energy independence from non-democratic regimes. These countries focus on one thing: slavish support of those in power. In a free market, we have little to fear, but in a system based on obeying the will of one individual over those of the general populace, there is no way a market based system can efficently devine the future. The only solution is to trade energy needs with other free market systems (and a system can only be free if there is no undue political inteference with the means of production by non-market forces). Such a system is essentially impossible today, because the entire system is based on hydrocarbons (oil, natural gas, coal, etc.). Institutions devoted to pure research of energy must be established, in numerous locations across America, to help wean ourselves, and the world, off hydrocarbons.
Oil is valuable. But it is also valuable as a manufacturable commidty. We should endeavor not to simply burn away this resource of many uses, but ensure it can continue in our manufacturing chain throughout numerous generations.
Another important factor in establishing these facilites is that they should be located in areas of America that have suffered recent economic depressions. As our economy evolves, it is tragically true that certain secotors are left behind. It is these areas that the government should invest to help create the industries of the future (which leads me to my next point).
New Energy Universities
When it comes to manipulating the elements to create new possibilites, nothing beats engineering. America has some of the best engineering instituitons in the world, but that doesn't mean we can't use more. We should encourage the founding of new state insitutions (especially in historically economically regressing areas), both through the use of state funds (see "new federalism" at sidebar) and through private encouragement. No reason for Bill Gates or Buffet not to found new universities for the 21st century, much like Rockefeller founded the University of Chicago for the 20th Century. There should be additions to current campuses, but there should also be entirely new campuses created, centered around research labs and the new governmnt research centers, that would provide a fulcrum to both provide jobs to the burgeoning new engineering professions in the public sector, and provide paternships with the private sector. The public sector resarch labs could be a valuable conduit between the Univesity education and private technology transfer initiatives.
Scholarship Program
We must encourage more American scientists. This is easy to accomplish. Heavy government funding for scholarships of disadvantaged youth. With such a progtam, if a student takes math and science in jr. high and high school and perform well, the enterprising child will go to college. This will apply to the traditional poor (both in neglected urban/inner city environments and rural areas), as well as offers to the children of workers who lose their job from globalization.
People like to talk about retraining 50 year old factory workers. That's a tall order, to push an industrial worker like that into the IT sector and expect a quick absorbtion of skills. But it may ease the pain if there is a promise that their children, if they only study in school, will be guranteed a college education in the hard sciences, which will teach them practical facts about the world they inhabit. One of the great existential worries that comes with a loss of a job is the question of the future, and a good parent worries more about the future of their children. Greater investment in the education of these children at the very least gives them the opportunity to succeed.
If we are to invent our way out of our current energy predicatment, we should invest in the intellectual structures that will encourage such investment, and provide the essential raw material of young and dedicated minds for our information economy.
Mass Transit
America's system of mass transit, aside from limited areas on the Eastern seaboard, are frankly embarassing. We had far better transit systems 60 years ago. But we choose to tear them up to build highways to create an Auto-topia. Instead, most cities now have bumper-to-bumper gridlock at rush hour.
The solution is obvious. A new transit paradigm. It should be based on differnet levels of distance and speed. Inter-city travel should be very fast (100 mph +) with very few stops. Slightly slower systems (50 mph +) should feed into these stations. Local feeder routes should feed into these mid-level stations (25-50 mph). Light rail/subway/bus to regional to national systems.
Naturally, this requires heavy investment by the public sector. And there shoudl be assurances that this work is done by Americans. Managers must swear, under penalty of law, that their workers are Citizens (or the appropriate level of immigrant worker: see Homeland security and immigration post). Willful ignorance will not be tolerated. To avoid complaints about companies unable to find competent workers, there will also be money available for training programs in the interested states.
With any large government project, there is always the danger of public investment pulling resources away from the capital and labor of the private sector. But there is also a danger that exists from inaction on this front. National Security dictates that a comprehensive transit system be developed, both for use in the case of national emergencies and to help America cope with its oil addicition. If costs are driven up in such a fashion as to discourage sprawl (as should be done with tax policy as well), and more energy efficent development is planned, then such an effect is actually a benefit. Already, road building sucks in a massive amount of money in America, so redirecting some of these emminent domain actions and construction costs to rail transit isn't really much of a change.
Most importantly, these acts will go slowly. Major transit systems will likely take many years to come online. The funds for this work will go only to states who are willing; the system should not be unilaterally imposed. This will allow for a variety of ideas and actions, and the "laboratory of the states" can hopefully lead the way, creating new efficencies. Additionally, the research of the new school facilities and grants can also focus on promoting infrastructure improvements.
Conclusion
America is a land of modernism and progress. But the acheivements that helped create the American 20th Century did not happen in a vaccum. They often happened with express or implied government support. The American people and the greater humanity deserve cutting edge energy research for a cleaner, more economical future. America also deserves a state of the art mass transit system. Government should support both of these laudable goals.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Just how do terrorist win in Iraq?
This is an important question. The administration likes to define terrorists winning if Americans do something he doesn't want us to. Like dissent, or call on a pull-out of Iraq. But if we leave Iraq, do the terrorists actually win? What do they define as a victory? Could Al-Queda turn Iraq into another Afghanistan before 9-11? Of course not.
I do not want to make the mistake of claiming that all who use the tactic of terror are united. So let us look specifically at our enemy of september 11, Osama and Al Queda. How do they win?
Well, they define it as creating a theocratic, Sunni fundamntalist state. Something like the Taliban. That was a win for them, and they wanted to spread it from Afghanistan and the border areas across the Islamic world. So, if we pull out, do they win? Of course not.
The foreign terrorists comprise only about 7% of the fighters in Iraq. Additionally, the Al Queda types are the enemy of: Bathists, Secular Iraqis, Turkomans, Shi'ites, and the Kurdistan north. Who does that leave on their side? Some of the Al Queda inspiried sunnis (not much), and some foreign trouble makers. Could they actually conquer Iraq? When they consist of only a small number of the population, and are actively hated by the vast majority because of their Sunni religious extremism and acts of terror?
Of course not. There is no way for the terrorists to win. There is no way the terrorists can win in Iraq if we are there (because we have the firepower to destory them if they sieze command of even a sizeable municipal government). There is no way they can win if we are gone, because the Sunnis, Kurds, and even Bathists would not let them. Furthermore, if there is no US in Iraq and there is constant acts of terror, I believe that the general Arab community would be repulsed and more border countries would take action to help stabalize Iraq.
As usual, the president is giving Osama and Al-Queda the one thing they don't deserve: our respect, and fear of their power.
Now, why can't anyone in the media ask this simple question? "How is it even possible for Al Queda to take over Iraq when A: the vast majority of Iraqis hate them, and B: the vast majority of Iraqis are heavily armed?"
I do not want to make the mistake of claiming that all who use the tactic of terror are united. So let us look specifically at our enemy of september 11, Osama and Al Queda. How do they win?
Well, they define it as creating a theocratic, Sunni fundamntalist state. Something like the Taliban. That was a win for them, and they wanted to spread it from Afghanistan and the border areas across the Islamic world. So, if we pull out, do they win? Of course not.
The foreign terrorists comprise only about 7% of the fighters in Iraq. Additionally, the Al Queda types are the enemy of: Bathists, Secular Iraqis, Turkomans, Shi'ites, and the Kurdistan north. Who does that leave on their side? Some of the Al Queda inspiried sunnis (not much), and some foreign trouble makers. Could they actually conquer Iraq? When they consist of only a small number of the population, and are actively hated by the vast majority because of their Sunni religious extremism and acts of terror?
Of course not. There is no way for the terrorists to win. There is no way the terrorists can win in Iraq if we are there (because we have the firepower to destory them if they sieze command of even a sizeable municipal government). There is no way they can win if we are gone, because the Sunnis, Kurds, and even Bathists would not let them. Furthermore, if there is no US in Iraq and there is constant acts of terror, I believe that the general Arab community would be repulsed and more border countries would take action to help stabalize Iraq.
As usual, the president is giving Osama and Al-Queda the one thing they don't deserve: our respect, and fear of their power.
Now, why can't anyone in the media ask this simple question? "How is it even possible for Al Queda to take over Iraq when A: the vast majority of Iraqis hate them, and B: the vast majority of Iraqis are heavily armed?"
Saturday, September 09, 2006
The Patronage Machine
Today, we have a federal system of Government. There is a national income tax, so the governmental system with the most money is in Washington D.C. It also is the most powerful, accoridng to the Constitution and the Supereme Court's interpretations thereof. So just what is it supposed to do with this money and power? Currently, the idea is Patronage.
What it has Done:
Since the Republicans took Congress in 1994, the stated policy was that Government is no good. The private sector, affected by the "invisible hand" of the market, can always do a better job. And so taxes have been cut, and services privatized. However, the Government is still distorting the market. It does not demand accountability or stringent audits (like a responsible private sector contractor would). In fact, the practices of Congress and the current administration shows that efficency and low costs are not a goal. The goal is patronage. The use of earmarks (where a congressman adds provisions to a bill that basically serves to send money to one of his friends) has ballonned at an astonishing rate. Vast programs have been proposed and initiated that do not work, but do employ Republican donors. A good example of this is the missle defense shield. Every test the Air Force sets up for this program is rigged, and about half the time, they fail. Nonetheless, we are building and investing in a massive deployment of this system. Presuming that the government is a rational actor (a big presumption), the only plausible purpose for rewarding such a failure is to bribe their defense contractor buddies. Who will then donate generously to electoral campaigns
The current crop of Republicans have even downsized the military and sent many former military jobs to contractors. It actually didn't seem like a terrible idea in the 90's. The military can be lumbering and ineffecient, and every soldier knows that its just Uncle Sam footing the bill, and that he can afford it. So cost is often disregarded. But the soldiers do understand following orders. So the right solution was not to privatize, but make officers more accountable on costs. They would then order their subordinates to keep those things in mind. These orders come in handy in a war zone as well. Contractors don't mind working when its quite, but when the bullets fly, it takes a soldier.
So when our soldiers went to Iraq, so did the contractors. And they needed massive pay raises to work in the war environment. Suddenly, these "savings" became losses. It also became huge profits for the politcally connected companies, like Halliburton. Indeed, the US began sponsoring private militas to protect these contractors, since the soldiers were busy. More profits for companies, but still, no efficency.
Another example is health care. When someone had the idea to reform Medicare, the Republicans didn't examine the system and try to devise a way to deliver the most care for the least cost to the US taxpayer. Instead, the forbid the government to act efficently by negotiating for drug prices. It allows deceptive and confusing advertising for competing drug plans. It encouraged private sector bureacracy and paperwork. Why? Because there were big companies, in the pharamaceutical and hospital industry, that wanted a big injection of taxpayer money to boost their bottom line.
This is patronage government. By the party, for the friends of the party, in order to keep the election campaigns of the party filled.
The professional nature of the government burecracy was created to avoid the problems of patronage. Certainly, the top positions are always open to the friends of the politcal party, and especially to the friends of a victorious president. But the actual employees, the people who run the system through fair weather and foul, have to pass certain tests to get their job. They are also "professionalized," so to speak, in that they will work for the U.S. people and the citizenry instead of the political ledaer of the moment. In practice, they often work in their own interests, in order to make their own job easier. The solution to that is to demand higher standards and better management. The "privitization" of these jobs just ensures one thing: that the people running the programs care about profit most of all.
The private sector cares about profit. That is the reason for its existence. To make money. All other concerns are secondary. Even if a bureacrat is lazy, he can't pad his bills. And without oversight, which is woefully lacking in the current government, the privatized worker can be lazy as well. But by permitting these false invoices, the patronage machine continues.
A government of patronage is the enemy of any patriot. It is not wrong to ask for good government. Every citizen should ask no less. But the current Republican refrain is that government is no good and it can't be trusted. They then go out and prove this to be the case by delibertly subverting good government in order to provide patronage. The hold no hearings to investigate the corruption, but instead participate (see Delay, Cunningham, etc.).
There is only so much money the government has to spend. This money can go to worthy projects that help build a stronger nation ready for the challenges of the coming years. Or it can go into the pockets of the wealthy and corrupt. The current Republican Party has choosen the later. Congressmen hold lavish parties for their cronies, and buy gilded commodes out of the Palace of Versailles. And the patronage machine rolls on.
What it has Done:
Since the Republicans took Congress in 1994, the stated policy was that Government is no good. The private sector, affected by the "invisible hand" of the market, can always do a better job. And so taxes have been cut, and services privatized. However, the Government is still distorting the market. It does not demand accountability or stringent audits (like a responsible private sector contractor would). In fact, the practices of Congress and the current administration shows that efficency and low costs are not a goal. The goal is patronage. The use of earmarks (where a congressman adds provisions to a bill that basically serves to send money to one of his friends) has ballonned at an astonishing rate. Vast programs have been proposed and initiated that do not work, but do employ Republican donors. A good example of this is the missle defense shield. Every test the Air Force sets up for this program is rigged, and about half the time, they fail. Nonetheless, we are building and investing in a massive deployment of this system. Presuming that the government is a rational actor (a big presumption), the only plausible purpose for rewarding such a failure is to bribe their defense contractor buddies. Who will then donate generously to electoral campaigns
The current crop of Republicans have even downsized the military and sent many former military jobs to contractors. It actually didn't seem like a terrible idea in the 90's. The military can be lumbering and ineffecient, and every soldier knows that its just Uncle Sam footing the bill, and that he can afford it. So cost is often disregarded. But the soldiers do understand following orders. So the right solution was not to privatize, but make officers more accountable on costs. They would then order their subordinates to keep those things in mind. These orders come in handy in a war zone as well. Contractors don't mind working when its quite, but when the bullets fly, it takes a soldier.
So when our soldiers went to Iraq, so did the contractors. And they needed massive pay raises to work in the war environment. Suddenly, these "savings" became losses. It also became huge profits for the politcally connected companies, like Halliburton. Indeed, the US began sponsoring private militas to protect these contractors, since the soldiers were busy. More profits for companies, but still, no efficency.
Another example is health care. When someone had the idea to reform Medicare, the Republicans didn't examine the system and try to devise a way to deliver the most care for the least cost to the US taxpayer. Instead, the forbid the government to act efficently by negotiating for drug prices. It allows deceptive and confusing advertising for competing drug plans. It encouraged private sector bureacracy and paperwork. Why? Because there were big companies, in the pharamaceutical and hospital industry, that wanted a big injection of taxpayer money to boost their bottom line.
This is patronage government. By the party, for the friends of the party, in order to keep the election campaigns of the party filled.
The professional nature of the government burecracy was created to avoid the problems of patronage. Certainly, the top positions are always open to the friends of the politcal party, and especially to the friends of a victorious president. But the actual employees, the people who run the system through fair weather and foul, have to pass certain tests to get their job. They are also "professionalized," so to speak, in that they will work for the U.S. people and the citizenry instead of the political ledaer of the moment. In practice, they often work in their own interests, in order to make their own job easier. The solution to that is to demand higher standards and better management. The "privitization" of these jobs just ensures one thing: that the people running the programs care about profit most of all.
The private sector cares about profit. That is the reason for its existence. To make money. All other concerns are secondary. Even if a bureacrat is lazy, he can't pad his bills. And without oversight, which is woefully lacking in the current government, the privatized worker can be lazy as well. But by permitting these false invoices, the patronage machine continues.
A government of patronage is the enemy of any patriot. It is not wrong to ask for good government. Every citizen should ask no less. But the current Republican refrain is that government is no good and it can't be trusted. They then go out and prove this to be the case by delibertly subverting good government in order to provide patronage. The hold no hearings to investigate the corruption, but instead participate (see Delay, Cunningham, etc.).
There is only so much money the government has to spend. This money can go to worthy projects that help build a stronger nation ready for the challenges of the coming years. Or it can go into the pockets of the wealthy and corrupt. The current Republican Party has choosen the later. Congressmen hold lavish parties for their cronies, and buy gilded commodes out of the Palace of Versailles. And the patronage machine rolls on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
