A Republic, If You Can Keep It

So said Benjamin Franklin after the Constitutional Convention, when asked what kind of a government the delegates had given them.  Today, 18 December 2011, the last American troops left Iraq and, at 6:59 a.m. EST, Secretary of Defense Panetta signed Mod 9 to EXORD 1003 Victor, formally ending Operation New Dawn—and by extension, the Iraq war.

This seems like a good occasion to write again, if only to record my thoughts.  I stared at the Defense Press Secretary’s tweet for some time (@PentagonPresSec), thinking of something substantive to add, and then simply retweeted it.  It seemed like something that shouldn’t just be a passing comment.

Which leaves us with the question, “What next?”  Last week, President Obama thanked returning troops, and in what may be the ultimate irony of his administration, praised them for leaving behind a sovereign, independent, democratic Iraq—the exact end state formulated by President George W. Bush and derided by the left, including candidate Obama.

Apologies in advance for politicizing this moment, but there are a couple things about this week that are bothering me.  I won’t go as far as some pundits who’ve said the President was trying to take credit for our success in Iraq.  (He wouldn’t say victory.)  Still, I find it interesting that he’s the President is quick to blame his predecessor for the economy being worse than he thought when taking office, but doesn’t seem to blame (or credit) Bush for saddling him with an Iraq withdrawal timeline.  I’d like to think otherwise, but I suspect we’ll hear reelection candidate Obama point out that he brought the Iraq war to a conclusion, as promised. 

That should be a mistake, because any opponent should quickly ridicule any such claim—this President withdrew the troops on the exact timeline established by his predecessor, three years after taking office, not the 18 months he kept repeating during the 2008 campaign.  The only thing substantive he can claim credit for is failing to reach an agreement to let the troops stay longer.  If I can make the argument, a Presidential candidate should certainly be able to.  (Add a couple quips about a pattern of diplomatic failure, etc., until the “time’s up” chime rings.)

But, with that off my chest, I will give President Obama some credit, on faith.  There is a reasonable intellectual argument that the only way we could ever prove to the Iraqis that we would leave—is by leaving.  Perhaps Iraq will be fine; perhaps the Iraqis will be asking us to return in 2014, but even the Sadrists can no longer claim we’re an occupation force. 

The Iraqi military and police probably aren’t as ready as we, or they, would like—but it’s their country, and they’ve stepped up, and you can’t always wait until everything is ready.  They still have to worry about Iran, but that will be a continued counterinsurgency fight.  Iraqi Freedom may not be the last state-on-state conventional land attack, but there won’t be another one for a while.  Most Iraqis may be Shia, but they don’t want to be ruled from Tehran any more than they want to be ruled from Washington, DC.  Why do you think Sadr called everyone liars when they said he was hiding in Iran?

So, while the politics of this day are inescapable, I’ll close with some thoughts of hope.

I think Iraq will be fine.  In fact, despite its rough neighborhood, I think Iraq is going to thrive.  And, I’ll stick to the prediction I made in May 2008—when Iraq looked into the abyss and stepped back—within 10 years, Iraq will be one of our “go to” partners when a coalition is needed, because of the tenacity, skill, and courage of their new army.

Some of which, I’d like to think, we taught them.  And some of which, they just needed to be shown they had, all along.

A New START for a New Year

I recently finished George Friedman's "The Next 100 Years." I recommend it, not because I agree with most of it, but because it has some excellent nuggets, and the author does a superb job walking through his logic. That makes it easy for the reader to determine where he and Friedman diverge.

Friedman's major point is that geopolitics will dominate the next century, just as it did the last.  While that initially seemed a sound point, he then makes a too-literal argument for geopolitics--that nation-state war will continue just as it did in the 1800's and early 1900's. That's where he goes wrong, and where the New START treaty comes in.

The argument most opponents of New START make is that it doesn't restrict tactical nuclear weapons. (The other argument is that missile defense is discussed in the preamble, which the Senate, in its ratification, specified is not legally binding.)  It doesn't, but the lack of limits on tactical nukes really shouldn't be a surprise in a treaty called the STrategic Arms Reduction Treaty.

While Russia can certainly invade Georgia if it wants to, it doesn't need tactical nuclear weapons to do it.  It can do so simply because of its size.  It cannot, however, invade a NATO member.  Or, more precisly, it dare not.  Russia invaded Georgia for many reasons, but not the least of which was making the point to NATO that they should choose their friends carefully.  True, but the reverse is also true--it is unlikely Russia is willing to risk war, let alone nuclear war, by challenging NATO so blatantly.  The Soviet Union never risked it.

And, if Russia won't risk nuclear retaliation, what good are its thousands of tactical nukes?  I think Friedman goes wrong when he thinks European nations will return to their pre-World War II ways because of "geopolitics." In the world he supposes, possession of nuclear weapons becomes the guarantor of national survival, and any advanced nation-state can develop a nuclear weapon in a matter of years, not decades.  But--and this is key--nukes are not a weapon that can be used to coerce.  Doing so is simply not credible. 

It is possible, however unlikely, that nation-states might risk the 21st century equivalent of a conventional "border war," but Russia threatening to use tactical nukes in any situation is simply not credible--the risk is too great.  The last thing Russia wants is NATO members abandoning the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and developing their own defensive nuclear arsenal.  So, given that, Russia's tactical nukes are a threat only as far as they are at risk of loss or theft.  That certainly has a probability greater than 0, but the logical follow-on to that concern is that anything we can do to reduce the Russian nuclear arsenal equals progress.

Russia may not see it that way, but ultimately, that doesn't really matter.  What does matter is that Russia has made clear they wouldn't be interested in a New START follow-on if they couldn't count on the US to ratify the deal they negotiated.  Geopolitics aside, that's actually a pretty reasonable position.  Would you talk to a car dealer or realtor that offered you a deal, and then reneged without good cause? Doubtful.

So, ultimately, New START simply restarts old START, and shaves a few more warheads off the Moscow Treaty limits negotiated under the Bush administration. Yes, there are some limits on launchers, but those are questions the military has dealt with since the original SALT talks.  There are many good questions about whether we negotiated the best deal possible, but that's a separate issue.  The Senate can certainly address that later, if they're really interested.  Secretary Clinton will certainly testify next year on many things, and that might be an excellent question.

But, ultimately, ratification was an easy choice--little downside, a necessary step to further progress, and lays the foundation for the real conversation yet to come.

Happy New Year.

Rivera and Steele: You're Missing the Point

In keeping with my rule to blog only when my thought isn't yesterday's news, memo to Geraldo Rivera and Michael Steele:  your argument on whether to raise taxes on the "rich" completely misses the point.  (Some would say you're accepting their premise, but that's not my point, either.)

This isn't about philosophy; it's about economics.  Philosophically, we can argue all day about whether the "rich" can "afford" to pay more, and where the line should be drawn.  Wrong argument.  Cutting taxes on the middle class increases demand, because they'll spend the money (or so the theory goes).  Ditto for cutting taxes on the poor. (Oops, they don't pay income taxes.  Withdrawn.)  Cutting taxes on the "rich" increases investment.  And, no, I don't mean, "Let's go buy some stock."  I mean capital investment, as in, "I think I'll open that new store this year.  I think I'll buy that new machine this year.  I think I'll invest in Bob's new idea.  I hope there's labor available, because we'll need five more workers."

It's an old saw, but I really never have seen a poor person create a job.  You need "extra" money for capital investment--you have to pay your rent, pay your employees, pay yourself, and pay your taxes.  Then, if you have some income left over, you can expand--and create jobs.

Republicans haven't made this argument yet, but they need to.  When the President says, "We can't afford to give this money to the rich!" they need to cut them off with economics, not ideology.  The ideological response is, "Mr. President, it's not your money.  It's theirs.  You're not giving them anything; you're choosing not to take it.  Let's cut spending, instead."  Good answer, but not the winning one.  The correct, winning response is, "We can't afford not to.  Your idea, sir, is that government spending will create jobs.  We've tried that.  It failed (again).  The only way to create jobs is for the private sector to do it--and they can't do it if you take away their capital."

Still Here; Just Busy

Just a note to anyone looking; I haven't stopped blogging, just been a bit busy.  Unfortunately, that means every time I see something interesting, it's been analyzed to death by the time I get back here.  And who wants to read a fresh blog about yesterday's news?  (Or, equally important, who wants to write one?)

I would like to point out one item, now that President Obama has discovered there's no such thing as a shovel-ready project.  Really?  I'm pretty sure I said that about a year ago.  I can't help but wonder if that says something about real-world experience having some value.

That said, it's going to be a very interesting election.  (No, I haven't been busy campaigning.  Interesting idea, though.)

Undocumented Pithiness

If I were to sum up the Left's recent comments decrying the vitriole, hate speech, and incivility of the Right, I think it would be, "Nothing says hypocrisy like one journalist accusing another of sedition."  Following his remarks on Chris Matthews' show, Klein has tried to justify his remarks, claiming that "dissent" isn't the same as "sedition," conveniently ignoring all the claims from the Left that George W. Bush was illegitimate--so, I suppose he would argue that those remarks were also seditious?  (Let's recall the Supreme Court settled that issue in a Consitutional manner, so if you don't like it, your recourse is to vote four years later, not to insist that he's not your President.)

But, the real reason for this post is to recognize true pithiness (with a nod to Mr. O'Reilly) when I read it.  I found this on bookwormroom.com (see "My Blog List"), but the quote is Mark Steyn in National Review:

"Nothing says sedition like citing the U.S. Constitution and quoting Thomas Jefferson."

Mrs. Clinton couldn't have said it better herself.

Nuclear Posture Review: A Whole Lot of Nothing

From Charles Krauthamer on the right to Newsweek on the left, everyone seems to be freaked out over the Nuclear Posture Review. President Obama has either given away our safety or made the greatest strides towards world peace since nuclear weapons were invented.

I think the NPR is a bunch of nothing. In the NPR, President Obama commits the United States to not using or threatening to use nuclear weapons any non-nuclear state that uses chemical or biological weapons against us, as long as they are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Special exceptions are carved out for Iran and North Korea.

Seriously? And, which countries, exactly, are we worried about that 1) don't have nukes, 2) are in compliance with the NPT, and 3) might attack us with chemical or biological weapons? Oh, let's not forget the caveat that we might change our mind.

By my count, we're talking Syria now, Iran in the next few years, and maybe Burma (excuse me, Myanmar). Does anyone seriously think we'd attack Syria with nukes because they attack Israel with chemical weapons? I think Israel might solve that little problem. Iran? Self-solving. They either aren't a threat, or aren't in compliance with NPT. Burma? Same deal. So, the NPR actually says absolutely nothing that couldn't be said by the most right-wing President ever. That also means it's as meaningless as could be--it doesn't change our actual policy one whit. It sounds nice. But, re-read the Bush 2002 National Security Strategy, and ask whether it could have just as easily been written by President Clinton.

Let's not get overly excited, disappointed, or emotional about the NPR. It doesn't really change anything.

Health Care Redux

I'm still pondering what to say about the health care bill that's now law. Plenty of pundits have weighed in, and I'd rather not repeat what they've said. That said, I can't help but note 1) no one cared when Congressman Stupak received threats when he was voting against the bill, 2) if this is such a great idea, why does the majority of the American people oppose it, 3) how on Earth can spending a trillion dollars decrease the deficit? (Unless, of course, we're massively increasing taxes...?)

Democracy in Iraq

This month, Iraqis went to the polls, again. Key word, again. There's an old saying about authoritarian regimes, "One man, one vote, one time." Iraqis have now voted in as many elections as many adult Americans. (Given the 62% voter turnout in this latest election, they've voted in more elections than many Americans. Or Europeans, for that matter.)

It was just a few years ago that the intelligentsia spoke smugly about how silly George W. Bush was to believe that democracy could survive, let alone flourish, in the Middle East. This foolish man simply didn't understand that...well, these people just didn't have a culture that could support democracy. There were plenty of highbrow explanations--decades of living under dictators, the belief among some (radical) Muslims that a government created by Man was questioning God's will, or some other story.

It really came down to one thing: many of these elites didn't think (whisper) Arabs were up to it. The soft bigotry of low expectations doesn't stop at the water's edge, sadly. I was ready to celebrate how obviously wrong they've been proven, until I read the comments posted online following a New York Times article about the Iraqi election. I wasn't sure whether to laugh or cry.

Overwhelmingly, the posters ridiculed the notion of Iraqi democracy. They were apparently still living in 2005, when the Iraqi army and police forces resembled Barney Fife more than competent organizations. Bush Derangement Syndrome was on clear display. (How long has he been gone?) Even after Newsweek acknowledged that victory in Iraq is finally close at hand, the smug, self-proclaimed, smarter-than-you-because-I-read-the-Times were insisting that the US military is still in the lead, it still occupies the entire country, and Maliki is a hand-picked stooge.

Ask any vet who's been to Iraq since the surge, and he or she will tell you the Iraqis have been in the lead for quite a while, the army and police are getting there, and Maliki is nobody's stooge but Maliki's (Basrah, anyone?). Frankly, a lot of them probably wish he was ours, because he causes them a lot of grief (albeit nothing like Afghanistan's Hamid Karzai). Of course, what would they know? They've only been there. They aren't writing comments from Massachusetts or California, so how could they know anything?

The really sad part wasn't the leftover BDS, or the tired claims we went there for the oil. (Wow, that worked out well, didn't it?) The sad part was the continuing, subtle racism on the part of these leftist elites. I say leftist based on the overall context of their comments, and I mean racism. The notion that these people could possibly understand democracy still seems absurd to them. These people are just fools under America's imperialist boot; fools who would reelect Saddam if he hadn't been hanged.

Which, of course, is the point--these people are religious (doesn't matter which one); these people are obviously right-wingers (Saddam and W were both dictators, right?); these people don't understand they aren't smart enough to govern themselves, and should be living obediently under their masters like the rest of the Middle East. Yet, some of the smuggest writers couldn't even keep straight which sect of Islam is the majority in Iraq (Shia, for the record) and which one Saddam belonged to (that would be Sunni).

Fortunately for the Middle East, and the world, these people don't listen to the naysayers. Last I checked, they had a civilization 5000 years ago. Iraqi democracy may or may not survive, but I seem to recall some European countries that have had similar problems. I think the Iraqis will do just fine.

Note to GOP: Stay on Message

If the Republicans in Congress have any sense, they’ve taken this week’s blizzard in Washington, DC, as an opportunity to hole up in a conference room somewhere and really think through what they’re going to say at their "bipartisan" health care meeting with the President.

The President has already telegraphed that he intends to call them obstructionists with no ideas, and then argue that we’re way too far down the track with the current bills to even consider starting over. If they’re going to counter him, Republicans will have to be a lot more agile than they have been. They’ll have to know their message and stay on it, which will mean figuring out who is quick enough on their feet to be the talking head. It might be better if they used some bench strength and left the CEO-lookalikes in the cloakroom.

First issue: that they have no ideas. They have to slap that one down, hard, fast, and relentlessly. If the President says it, the President must be mocked—politely, but mocked. They were successful in their last meeting with this technique. “The President says we have no ideas, and then reads from our plan to explain why it's wrong? Didn’t his staff tell him he was reading from our plan? ” Keep it light, but stay on that talking point until the interviewer acknowledges it. Better yet, replace, ‘his staff’ with ‘Rahm Emmanuel’ or ‘David Axelrod’—not likeable figures, but not targeting the President. 'Rules for Radicals' works both ways.

Second: that the train left last year. The American people pulled the emergency cord on that train. They don’t like it; they like it less every day, and Republicans aren’t about to help the Democrats pass something the American people don’t want. Democrats didn’t fail to pass their bill because of Republicans—they had all the votes they needed. Democrats failed to pass their bill because even their own members didn’t like it. Why would anyone with sense sign on to that? That’s like the captain of the Titanic complaining Republicans won’t help him rearrange the deck chairs!

Third: Republican ideas. Pithy, clear, and specific, but it’s also time to be a policy wonk. The ideas have to be completely spelled out, in advance, in legislative language, or it’s a return to issue #1. They can’t be a hodgepodge of “ideas.” They have to be a complete package, one that addresses or refutes every aspect of the Democrats' argument. No weaseling; no deliberate ambiguity; no assuming the American people are idiots. Pound ‘em with substance. To wit:

Cost versus price. Democrats argue they want to keep costs down. A: No, Democrats are trying to control price. That’s not the same thing. Price controls lead to rationing. Everybody knows that. (Don’t forget the “everybody knows that” part.) The solution is really to control costs. Cut costs, and competition will drive down prices. So, the goal needs to be to drive down costs.

Cutting costs. A) Malpractice reform. (Stop calling it tort reform. I took civil law and still think it sounds like we’re talking pastry.) Get some doctors to work through the “But what about…” arguments, or just accept that tough cases make bad law. For that matter, go after the lawyers—argue we should cap their fees. Why does John Edwards deserve $28 million for winning a case? Any case? B) Let insurance companies compete across state lines. How can Democrats oppose that? Their bill requires everyone to buy insurance from those companies, so why wouldn’t they want everyone to get the best deal possible? No weaseling here—defend the insurance companies? Yes. “Folks, the President want you to think the insurance companies are evil. He’s been demonizing them and their profits. We recognize they may drive you nuts, but the reality is their profit margin is about 2%. 2%. If you make them completely non-profit, that isn’t going to save you any money. They aren't the problem, but they can be part of the solution.” C) Time for “the vision thing.” Here goes—

Vision. Health care ‘costs’ are climbing, with no end in sight. Democrats’ solution is to cap prices, and guarantee rationing. Even the President has acknowledged that we might have to cut back on end-of-life care. (“Maybe your grandmother should just take the pain pill.”) No, no, no. Republicans absolutely do not, will not, must not ever agree that the solution is for government to ration care, or for government to suggest that doctors ration care. Wrong approach. Dangerously slippery slope. Immoral. But…what about cost?

Here’s where it comes full circle, and Republicans haven’t yet answered the mail. Yes, end of life care is the most expensive, so pretending there isn’t a cost issue suggests this is all just cynical political positioning (or naiveté). And the answer is…Capitalism. With a capital C.

The solution to making end-of-life care more affordable is to make all care more affordable. To encourage research and development into new, cheaper drugs; new, cheaper treatments. To allow patients to pick insurance plans that only cover what they need. To figure out whether there are real things government can do to help out—say, by encouraging new medical research reactors to bring down the cost of radiopharmaceuticals. (You think radioisotopes grow on trees? Why do you think Iran claims it wants one?) Or, by allowing hospitals to depreciate new equipment faster. Or (gasp!) by making all hospitals tax-exempt. There's more, but this is getting long enough already.

On that last idea—cutting business taxes on hospitals—here’s the real trick. When Democrats argue, “But how will we pay for that?” do not accept the premise of the argument. This discussion is not about keeping tax dollars rolling into the Treasury. It’s about getting medical costs down. “How will we pay for that?” is a deliberate distraction.

Stay on message.

Democrats: The Party of "No"

No sooner had Scott Brown won the special election in Massachusetts, pundits began rerunning their schtick that the Republican party was, "The Party of No."

Actually, they have that backwards.

Brown's election means that the Democrats no longer have 60 seats in the Senate. Since 60 votes are required to cut off debate and call a vote, they must now get at least one Republican to agree with any legislation they intend to pass.

One Republican seems a pretty small requirement. When the Republicans controlled the Senate in a 50-50 tie, they needed 10 Democrats to invoke "cloture," and the people's business still got done.

The difference was that the Republicans listened to the Democrats' cries about the "rights of the minority." They had to, even if they thought those cries were disingenuous. But, Democrat Senators have gotten in the habit of saying, "No," every time the Republicans wanted that legislative body to perhaps consider something that some of them could support.

Democrats didn't need Republicans over the last year, so their answer was, "No. No, we won't consider your ideas; no we won't reach a compromise the American people might prefer; no, we won't even acknowledge that you have ideas." They ran with that last comment to every journalist they could find, pretending that the other side didn't even offer ideas. Sadly, too many journalists let them get away with it.

So, when your opposition won't listen to you, about all you have left is to say, "No. No, we don't agree with where you're going, and, no, we can't stop it, but, no you can't make us vote for it, either."

Republicans have had ideas all along, and have been offering them. Whether they're the best ideas ever, or utterly foolish, isn't the point. Democrats will now, at least, have to stop saying, "No."

Time to Reconsider the World View

Although I have some rather substantial policy disagreements with President Obama, I don't doubt that he's an intelligent person. Furthermore, I think he's spent a lot of time thinking about his world view--how he sees the world; how he sees others; what he thinks others think of him and, by extension, what they think of the United States.

Unfortunately, I don't think he's subjected that world view to a lot of criticism. My sense is that he is surrounded by people who either aren't his intellectual equal or simply don't think carefully about what their world view is. As a result, the President seems lost when others act in ways he doesn't expect.

I saw this pretty clearly when he tried to rethink his Afghanistan strategy--it took 100+ days to come up with a strategy that didn't seem particularly coherent, and that wasn't sold particularly well. It's almost as if his advisors can't communicate with a military that they think is still living in 1985. In fact, the military leadership today probably understands nuanced diplomacy better than the State Department.

But, we saw a similar incoherence this week, in the wake of the failed Northwest airline attack. The President stayed on vacation--that makes sense; you don't want to encourage the enemy by making this larger than it already is. But, his advisors seemed to stay on vacation, too. It took 3 days for Secretary Napolitano to admit security had failed--seriously? Now a group is claiming credit. Are they involved? We have the terrorist in custody--what does he say? If the group did it, we should've been blaming them first, to send a strategic message that we know. If the terrorist acted alone, we should already be ridiculing the Al Qaeda group's claim. But, we're not doing either. We're letting the other side set the communications agenda.

No one in the administration seems to have thought about what the world is really like, and the fact that the administration is expected to have answers for everything, all the time. That's not fair, and it isn't even reasonable, but it comes with the office. They aren't just a domestic administration; they have to deal with foreign policy, too. And that means more than platitudes about how everyone loves us now that George W. Bush is no longer President. It seems like there are a lot of people who hated us under Clinton, and it seems that they still exist.

Love him or hate him, Bush had a clear world view, that he intended to make "Islamo-fascism" simply unacceptable to civilized peoples everywhere. Pretty heady; maybe arrogant. But, at least he knew what he wanted the world to look like when we were done. Any military planner will tell you that's the first step in outlining a strategy--define the end state.

Time for the Obama administration to start thinking a little more about what they want the world to look like, or some very unpleasant "others" are going to offer their version, instead.

Climate Shame

So, thousands of emails between climate scientists are either hacked or released by a whistleblower. What to make of this?

First off, a caveat--I'm not going to offer my opinion on climate change, since by remaining anonymous, my opinion is no more or less authoritative than any other layman's. But, I will say this--I was taught the scientific method in school, and I read. A lot.

A couple weeks ago, Paul Krugman assured us on ABC's "This Week" that this was just the normal course of academic discussion--that we need to understand academics get fired up when they are arguing their case internally. I'm not clear why an economist's opinion is any more valid than mine on climate change, but I'll take that for what it's worth.

Which is not much.

Sorry, Mr. Krugman, I've read the emails. Not all of them; I have a day job. But to claim this is just the normal course of scientific research is to damn all science. Saying you will delete data before releasing it isn't hyperbole; it's misconduct. Refusing to honor Freedom of Information Act requests because you believe you're just being harassed? I can't speak for the UK's version, but in the United States, the whole point of FOIA is that the holder of the data doesn't get to decide whether you're worth the bother. They want it, you've got it, hand it over. Period. That's the law. Or, to put it a bit more indelicately, it's NOT YOUR DATA. Unless you personally funded your research out of your own pocket, IT ISN'T YOURS. It isn't yours to withold, and it isn't your position to pass judgement on anyone asking for it--whether they have a Nobel Prize or are a kook in the basement.

Since we're talking about scientists, not lawyers, I could perhaps excuse their lack of understanding. What I can't excuse is the very idea that a scientist would find it acceptable to pressure others to boycott opposition, suppress research, or hide behind anything in a quest to keep data hidden. The whole point of scientific research is that it has to be repeatable. Once is a fluke, and if data doesn't fit the theory, then the theory has to be reworked. Perhaps the underlying hypothesis is still correct, but your desire on the matter is irrelevant. If you want to prove the doubters wrong, you'll have to give them your data, publish their research, and then demolish it. Anything else simply encourages conspiracy theorists.

So, forgive me if I don't just relax, now that the Associated Press has read all the emails, sent them to "experts," and concluded that these scientists were "overly generous" in their interpretations, but that we shouldn't conclude they were wrong about climate change.

It doesn't work that way. They have demonstrated a lack of ethics. As a result, I can't believe any of their conclusions anymore--all the more so because I'm not a climate scientist, so I can't personally verify their data, methods, and conclusions. Neither can these "experts" in the course of a couple weeks--so they are simply siding with colleagues, whether they know them or not. Until all the research is meticulously, laboriously reviewed--decades worth, by experts from both sides, in open forums, which will cost billions--then we are simply taking it on faith that the underlying science must still be sound. After all, there's consensus on this, right?

Just like there was a scientific consensus, for about a thousand years, that the Sun went around the Earth. Until someone took another look at the data.

Conspiracy and Absurdity

First, let me allay any concern that I can't praise President Obama when he does something right. In that, I am wholeheartedly agreeing with Dana Perino that the President did an admirable job calling out Iran on their second, hidden uranium enrichment facility. Despite Iran's attempt to preempt the news cycle, and their attempt afterwards to change the subject with missile tests, the President, along with the president of France and prime minister of Britain, did a nice job.

Next, on to former President Bill Clinton, who has decided that the right wing conspiracy is back, and it's the cause of all President Obama's problems, just as it was the cause of all his. Really? I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the whole point of the 9-12 Tea Party protests is that there is no leader of the opposition. It's just a popular movement--which is ironic, since President Obama's schtick is to be a populist. ("I'm the only one between you and the pitchforks." Remember that warning to the banks?)

Right wing conspiracy. Okay, just for fun, let's play along. In that case, I suppose Mr. Clinton would agree that there's a vast left wing conspiracy that was opposing former President Bush? No? Then, is it a vast left wing conspiracy that's preventing President Obama's 60 vote majority in the Senate and huge majority in the House from attaining his goals? Again, no? It's...the right wing? The Republicans? Who don't have the votes to stop anything?

Sorry, Bill. That's so silly, it's not even up to Jimmy Carter standards. In fact, it's so absurd, I have to wonder, why you would even say such a thing? Is it simply that you assume the press will dutifully report whatever you want? In that case, shame on both of you.

ACORN: Slavery Is Okay

Nothing quite like an incendiary headline to make the point--as long as it's accurate. I think it is.

The current blowup between ACORN, a couple undercover journalists, and Fox News (who simply reported a story interesting enough that it got immediate action in both houses of the US Congress) utterly misses the point.

The journalists and Fox point out that the hidden camera video shows ACORN is corrupt. ACORN insists the journalists are somehow entrapping them. There is a ridiculous charge that the journalists broke the law--if that's the case, then the law is so obviously unconstitutional, its supporters should be embarrassed. Neither is asking the most important question.

Why do the ACORN employees seem to think human trafficking--a.k.a. slavery--is okay?

Serious question. The undercover journalist/activist said he was going to bring underage El Salvadoran girls to the US to be prostitutes. And, by "underage," they didn't mean seventeen-and-a-half. They said 13 to 16. THIRTEEN. There's a word for that--SLAVERY. But, the ACORN employee (who was interestingly enough, black) didn't seem to have a problem with that.

I am truly stunned. I have long concluded that most racism exists on the left. I have always accepted that the left has different standards of acceptable conduct, and that maybe they could consider prostitution a victimless crime. Reasonable people can disagree about that.

But, to blithely accept the idea of sex slavery as something that doesn't even merit a comment? A remark? The slightest objection? What kind of person could do that?

That, frankly, is a lot more interesting to me than some corrupt organization. No one seems horrified. Why not?

Maybe that explains why human trafficking still exists. It's much more popular to talk about a slavery that ended 150 years ago than it is to talk about the slavery that's still going on. Easier, too--because there are things, besides talk, that can be done to end something that's still occurring.

I think they call that an inconvenient truth.

Dissent is Racist? You can't be serious.

I normally prefer the long form for blogs, but this one is just too infuriating not to just vent.

So, former President Jimmy Carter says that opposition to President Barack Obama is racist? Are you kidding me? Let's see where that logic goes: If I oppose President Obama's ideas, I'm racist. If I oppose Hillary Clinton's ideas, I suppose I must be sexist. And if I oppose John Edwards, I'm...against big hair? Against philandering? Against having affairs with your wife when she's in remission from cancer?

Are you kidding me?

I recall then-Senator Clinton arguing that, "We have the right to debate, and to disagree with any administration!!!!!!!" I add the screamers because--well, because she was yelling. But, she had a point, it works both ways, and I've since adopted her comment as this blog's subtitle. So, I will politely respond...

President Carter, if you have racist guilt about your Southern upbringing, I'm sorry. But, please don't project that guilt on me. I lost several bets in 2008 because I was certain Condi Rice would be the Republican VP candidate. If that's not enough for you, let me make it crystal clear:

Rice/Cheney 2012.

Is that enough?

The Fallacy of Stimulus

Like many people, last year’s collapse of the financial system led me to take another look at the economics I learned in college. In earlier posts, I’ve mused about the notion that we’re all missing something—that there’s some subtlety that it takes a Keynes or a Krugman to figure out.

I’ve changed my mind. This plan is ridiculous, and it takes nothing more than common sense and experience to see that.

Over the last six months, the Obama administration and Congress have poured trillions into the economy in an attempt to avert more serious recession. The idea was that Roosevelt didn’t ‘spend enough, fast enough,’ and that was a major contributor to the Great Depression. My gut and my study of history told me that was wrong—it's pretty obvious that Roosevelt's tax policies prolonged the Great Depression, and only World War II pulled us out. Moreover, I’ve worked in government, and with government, so I was immediately suspicious of the concept of “shovel ready” projects. No one—no one—plans, designs, and approves a project knowing they don’t have money for it. Oh, sure, you can find the one exception, but even money says that “exception” is actually a project that was funded that lost its funding.

The crux of the problem came home last week when Vice President Biden made a comment that the government would have to reinvigorate its efforts to get the stimulus money spent—that only some $40 billion or so of the $787 billion authorized had actually been spent. For me, that was the alarm bell that finally made me realize all those (mostly conservative) pundits were right—most of this “stimulus” won’t be spent until 2010, well after it could do any good. In fact, it will be spent just in time to help with the 2010 elections, and if the incumbents are lucky, just before too much money in the system sparks inflation. (Although the President has a plan to curb inflation—he will be raising taxes in 2010, by letting the Bush tax cuts expire.)

The simple truth is that governments cannot spend billions extra in a matter of weeks. The system just doesn’t work that way. Even after the money is authorized by Congress, it takes months just to get it obligated on a contract. It takes more months to get it expended—and until it’s expended, it isn’t stimulating anything. And, while “months” is really, really fast when you’re building something, it’s far too slow to have any relevance to the business cycle.

I don’t know if the Keynesians just don’t understand the reality of bureaucracies, or if their faith in theory has simply blinded them to it. I do know that common sense tells me there are two ways to get money into the economy rapidly: 1) cut taxes, 2) hand out cash.

It has become popular to argue that this collapse has “proven” supply-side economics doesn’t work. I have yet to see anyone actually make that case with anything other than partisan talking points, and I don’t think they can. Instead, they rely on the populist argument that cutting income tax only helps the rich—because half of Americans pay no income tax at all. Um, okay—I thought we were talking economic stimulus? When did we switch to social policy? We can certainly have that discussion, but conflating the two issues suggests the redistributors have a not-so-hidden agenda.

But, if you’re worried about getting money into everyone’s hands, it isn’t just income tax that can be cut. Slash the corporate income tax, and 1) companies can cut prices; which 2) makes goods more affordable; which 3) increases demand; which 4) increases the need for labor. It isn’t just shareholders who benefit—everyone does. But, of course, that’s not popular to say in these populist times. (And shareholders benefiting just creates stimulus, too--because they either spend or invest their profit, and if they invest it, that just gives it to someone else to spend. Stimulus all around.)

This leads us to consider option two: handing out cash. That will certainly get money into everyone’s pockets, but there’s an obvious problem—for the 50% of Americans who pay no income tax, you’ve simply taken capital out of the system, because you have to borrow that money to pay them off. (And, please, spare me the argument that these folks pay Social Security taxes—they will get that back fivefold when they retire, and again, we aren't talking social policy here.) So, you may get a very short term stimulus from the demand, but you’re choking the engine that will ultimately create more jobs.

Finally, that brings us to the ultimate Keynesian argument—that deficit spending is okay in a recession, because the capital you’re borrowing isn’t being used, anyway. While that might be the case in some recessions, it certainly is not the case now—the major argument the populists are making against the banks is that they aren’t lending. Of course, they aren’t lending because they’re scared to death about what's next and what's really on their balance sheets, so they are keeping higher reserves. How, exactly, does government stripping those reserves out of the system improve confidence? It doesn’t, of course.

Which is why I am, just now, starting to worry about stagflation.

Piracy on the High Seas

The recent capture of the Maersk Alabama off Somalia put a spotlight on a problem that the shipping industry has been dealing with for years. For most people, piracy is something from the history books, but may I recommend John S. Burnett’s Dangerous Waters: Modern Piracy and Terrorism on the High Seas for a more up-to-date look. Burnett focuses on the piracy problems in and around the Straits of Malacca, between Indonesia and Malaysia, which will lead to some interesting observations.

Piracy exists because piracy pays. Modern ships, and modern cargos, are enormously expensive, and no ship moves without insurance. Given a choice between paying a $2 million ransom and risking a $100 million ship and cargo, the cost/benefit answer is easy. Of course, paying the ransom just tells the pirates that they have a good business model—that crime pays.

An interesting aspect of piracy is that it is one of two crimes defined universally. The other is human trafficking (a.k.a. slavery). In other words, it is defined as a crime worldwide, and every nation has jurisdiction under the International Convention on the Law of the Sea. The United States hasn’t ratified ICLOS, but the UN assures us that the treaty has become customary international law. Interesting, but it doesn’t really matter, because Title 18, US Code, defines piracy as a crime punishable by life in prison.

So, what is piracy? Well, obviously, taking over or robbing a ship on the high seas. But, an important aspect is that if a ship is captured by pirates, it becomes a pirate ship. So, you don’t have to “catch them in the act” of taking over a ship. And, since a captured ship becomes a pirate, its flag no longer matters—you don’t legally have to ask permission from the ship’s flag state to take action.

Then, why is piracy so politically charged? Well, the first problem is that no one wants to take the pirates into custody. While any nation can legally prosecute pirates, few want a bunch of Somali teenagers in their prisons. Kenya is an exception—it has recognized that piracy will affect it directly. If insurance companies insist ships take the long route around the Cape of Good Hope, the ships no longer call at Kenyan ports. So, Kenya has been willing to take captured pirates and put them on trial. (There are other nations that will take them, but they skip the trial part before passing sentence. That discourages a lot of countries from letting their navies participate in counter-piracy operations.)

The other problem is the worry about injuring or killing the merchant crew. If they are hostages, then even though a warship has a legal right to intervene in the pirate situation, it gets diplomatically complicated when a warship from nation A injures a crewman from nation B are on a ship flagged in nation C, owned by a company in nation D. And warships, generally, don't like anything that smells like "law enforcement"--even when they're allowed to do it.

There are also some limits. For instance, under ICLOS, only a warship can investigate an unknown vessel to determine whether it’s a pirate. Any ship not flying a flag on the high seas may be investigated, but only a warship can determine whether the suspect is a fishing trawler or a pirate mother ship (or a drug runner).

Who besides a warship would want to do that? That’s more interesting. The US Constitution authorizes Congress to define piracy and felonies on the high seas, and to grant letters of marque—which is a government authorization for a private ship to conduct specific warlike activities (boarding, seizing, sinking, etc.) At the Treaty of Paris, signatory nations declared that privateering was abolished, but the United States—and a lot of other nations—aren’t signatories, and abolishing privateering was more about ending commerce raiding than anything else. US law still describes how to obtain a letter of marque.

What’s really interesting is that under Title 33, US Code (Chapter 7, Section 386, if you want to look it up), the President is specifically authorized to use warships or private ships to deal with pirates!

So, what happened to piracy in the Straits of Malacca? It still happens, but this is the most important lesson: Malaysia decided it had had enough, and sent its navy to deal with the problem. It didn’t take long for pirates (many from across the strait in Indonesia) to get the idea that the business model had changed. That tells us that this isn’t an impossible problem—it isn’t a war on drugs, or poverty, or whatever. Piracy can be solved, or at least contained—after all, murder is illegal, but it happens. But it will take more than talk and hand wringing. It will take international will, or at least the will of a few nation states, for that to happen.

The Trouble with Closing Gitmo

In one of his first acts upon assuming office, President Obama ordered the Guantanamo Bay prison closed within a year. The detainees there were to be…well, that’s still a little unclear. The President seems to have run into the same problem as his predecessor. President George W. Bush also wanted to close Gitmo, but said, essentially, that no one could figure out what to do with the people there. Apparently, President Obama’s staff decided they were much smarter. If only the lawyers had bothered to read a little law, first.

Let’s run a thought experiment. Suppose, for the sake of discussion, we all decide the folks at Guantanamo are all prisoners of war. That gives them certain protections, but also establishes that they may be held until hostilities are over. Hostilities, quite obviously, are not over in Afghanistan or Iraq. A reasonable person could argue that hostilities in Afghanistan may last for decades.

Can we keep these people in prison for decades? Without trial? Without any right of habeas corpus?

Um, yes. That’s the whole point of being a POW. You aren’t a criminal, but you will be held until the war is over. It’s also possible to be held by a neutral party (think Switzerland in WWII)—who has an obligation to inter you until the war is over.

But, you say, this war may last generations? Correct—that’s exactly what former President Bush said. It's not our fault that the enemy decided on a strategy that could take generations.

Wait, though—Bush argued that the detainees weren’t POW’s. They were “unlawful combatants.” What’s that about?

Well, the problem is that there are combatants and noncombatants. People in uniform are combatants. They have a right under international law to engage in combat, and to kill when operating under the lawful orders of their nation-state. When they kill, it isn’t a crime. (It goes back to the Treaty of Westphalia.)

Civilians are non-combatants. They have a right to be protected, and combatants must conduct themselves in a way that avoids unnecessary harm to non-combatants. But, here’s the key: non-combatants do NOT have the right to kill. They may NOT participate in combat. If they do so, not only do they forfeit their protections, but they may be considered criminals, and charged with war crimes.

The problem arises when people who wouldn’t normally have any right to be combatants decide to take up arms. The Geneva Conventions acknowledge this possibility, but they don’t really explain what to do. But, just ask the question logically—if a person with the right to engage in combat can be legally held for decades (as a POW), then why would a person with a questionable right to engage in combat get more consideration? That just doesn’t follow.

Bush tried to solve that problem with war crimes tribunals, specifically authorized by Congress, as specifically directed by the Judicial branch. The reason the tribunals don’t look exactly like US court trials is because they aren’t US court trials. Sorry to break it to the lawyers, but there is more to the US Code than Title 18. Specifically, there’s Title 10, which governs military operations. (There’s also Title 33, but we’ll talk about that next time.)

President Obama has stopped the tribunals, and is insisting that the detainees can be given trials under the US criminal system. Lots of folks have argued we should simply give them trials. Okay, then here’s my question…

What do you do when the jury finds a detainee “not guilty”? That’s the point of a trial, right? You have to consider that the accused might be “not guilty.” If you don’t seriously consider that, then you are engaged in a show trial.

If you start with the premise that the detainees are unlawful combatants, then “not guilty” simply means they had a right to engage in combat operations. They are not guilty of war crimes. That makes them POW’s. But, POW’s may still be held until hostilities are over, after which they will be repatriated. This isn’t a game; those are the rules of armed conflict. If you start with the premise that the detainees are ordinary criminals, then “not guilty” means you let them go. Immediately. Are we seriously considering that?

Suddenly Bush's argument doesn't seem so stupid, does it? It almost seems like he really thought about the problem. Maybe he shouldn't be the only one.

"A Time for Crisis"

What an interesting Freudian slip. At least, I assume it was a slip. I certainly hope it was.

At an address to the U.S. Conference of Mayors on March 20th, President Obama thanked the mayors for indicating they wanted to cooperate with his plans, and warned them that taxpayers were skeptical, particularly since federal money had been “frittered away before.” He insisted that taxpayers wanted to see their money spent “efficiently”—interesting that he chose that word, instead of “effectively.” Efficiently can imply ‘without waste,’ but it can also imply ‘without delay.’ Even the ‘without waste’ interpretation only suggests government overhead costs should be minimized. It certainly doesn’t imply spending money on the right things—but that really isn’t surprising, since at the Democrat’s Congressional retreat, the President insisted that stimulus is all about spend, spend, spend.

But, then came the interesting turn of phrase. “There’s little room for error here, especially in a time for crisis.” For? Not a time of crisis? For.

If President Obama was not so renowned an orator, I might just accept it as a misspeak. If he weren’t on a teleprompter, I could accept it as stream of consciousness. But, then there’s that nagging little phrase from Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” And Obama does use a teleprompter. So, I have to wonder—what did the prepared remarks say? And regardless of that answer, what does it tell us that he called this, intentionally or not, “A time for crisis”?

I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but I can add. 2+2 usually equals 4. If it doesn’t, then there’s another number in there somewhere. A lot of commentators, on both sides of the aisle, have been calling on the President to stop being so negative, that he’s making the situation worse. Obviously, the left thinks he’s just making a newcomer’s mistake; the right thinks he’s doing it deliberately.

But, as I look at the arguments from both sides, I can’t help but wonder if, just maybe, Obama agrees with his chief of staff—and that some of this hyperbole really is part of a plan. It hasn't happened yet, but I predict this phrase will come back to bite him.

Who Wants the President to Fail?

So, now we discover that, in August 2006, 51% of Democrats polled in a Fox News Opinion Dynamics poll wanted President Bush to fail. Let's be clear: the poll said they did not want him to succeed. That's the same thing--no mealy-mouthing here. They wanted President Bush to fail.

Now, why the mock outrage at Rush Limbaugh's statement that he wants President Obama to fail? Why the lies (see my earlier blog post) that claimed Limbaugh wanted the economy to fail? Love him or hate him, Rush has a website with transcripts of his show. It's at http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/, in case you've been living in a cave. I've checked--he was crystal clear, and anyone claiming he wanted the economy to fail...IS LYING. Not mischaracterizing, not spinning, not taking out of context. Lying. He believes the President's policies will wreck the country, so he doesn't want them to succeed. You can completely disagree with his opinion, but let's be realistic--which of President Obama's policies would you expect any conservative to support? For all the bloggers and posters saying, "You shut up! We won!" I would ask a simple question--was that really your opinion in 2004 when the Republicans won? Really? Really?

Oh, the reporters didn't actually check the transcript, they just believed the other reports? Then they are incompetent, and should be fired.

I'm serious. Fired. The First Amendment exists for a reason--because accurate reporting is critical for citizens to know what's going on with their government. As a reporter, you don't get a pass for being lazy. If I can check it out, so can you. I have a day job. If you don't have time to check it, then you don't have time to write your story.