The Angry Moderate

Republicans vs. Democrats

2009-11-18T21:59:00.005-05:00

Well, The Angry Moderate is back from his self-imposed year long exile. I don't know how these states with off-year elections can sustain it. They must feel like they have an election every year. Oh yeah, they do. More power to you Virginia and New Jersey. The Angry Moderate needed a break.

Anywho, I'm back and ready to get back into the swing of things. It's not as though I retreated to small island in the South Pacific away from all media and news, although I fantasize about that a lot. No, I have kept right up to speed on the mind blowing amount of events that have happened since I last blogged. Economy and financial system crashing around our ears, pandemics, rising unemployment, still mired in 2 wars, etc.. No, we won't have a lack of things to talk about.

The topic I wanted to start with is related to climate change, but not really about climate change per se. Let me explain. It seems that in the climate change bill that is before Congress something very funny has happened. Funny odd, not ha ha. It seems that the Democrats have embraced a Republican idea that the Republicans forgot they had.

Back in the 80's when Reagan was in office, a remarkable thing happened. There was a meeting of minds between Republicans, who were naturally opposed to regulation, and Environmentalists, who were trying to come up with a solution to acid rain. I can't really do the story justice, so here's a link to an article in the Smithsonian Magazine from August of 2009 that describes it perfectly.

The Political History of Cap and Trade

It seems that Cap & Trade, which at the time was derided by Democrats and liberals, actually worked. Spectacularly. It was a market based solution that truly delivered.

Fast forward to 2009, the Democrats have embraced Cap & Trade as the center piece of their efforts to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions to help alleviate global warming. Now, there are some on the left that still object that it doesn't go far enough and won't work, as before. The Republicans in the meantime, forgetting that this was originally a Republican idea, now blast it as socialism and a job killer. To me, the proof is in the pudding. We've tested this once, it worked. Let's put the ridiculous name calling aside and get it done.

Most importantly, it shows that when two people work together, even when coming from completely polar approaches, you can come up with creative ways to solve problems. The current Congressional Republicans have taken to just obstructing everything, instead of trying to make things better. Compromise and working across the aisle have become anathema. This is not how to run a government. If your only strategy is to obstruct, it is bad for your party, bad for the Country, and frankly just lazy. What the country needs is politicians that are creative and not afraid to work with people they don't agree with. Another fine reason to abolish the two party system, in my humble opinion.

What it means to be an American

2008-10-21T21:54:00.003-04:00

I was quite moved by General Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama over the weekend. Less because he supports Obama and more because of the way he eloquently expressed dismay over the tactic, implicit or explicit, from some Republicans that being a Muslim is automatically associated with being a bad person.

If you did not see it, please take a moment and watch this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_NMZv6Vfh8

I think that what makes this country truly great is the ability to take in people of all different cultures, religions, and elasticities and instill in them the values of what this country and our constitution was founded on. Liberty.

This country was founded on the principle of religious freedom. Sometimes that means freedom from religion, but this is a nation that has welcomed people of all faiths to practice their religion without the fear of the state oppressing them.

What is wrong with a Muslim American youth growing up believing that he or she can be president? I can't think of anything more American than that dream.

We the People, and Socialism

2008-10-21T21:48:00.002-04:00

To begin I want to extend my thanks to our Blog host, the Angry Moderate, for allowing me to use his forum. Once and for all, let’s put to bed that he has a need to be anonymous on his own blog! I have come to start thinking of myself as an almost columnist, and the Angry Moderate as my editor/publisher.

OK, days to go before the election. If you are not swayed by one candidate or the other by now you are not likely to be swayed. However I wanted to address this biting rhetoric of “socialism” in our current political environment. It has been thrown around with little support in terms of academic fact. The ideas that it is “un-American” (another rhetorical buzz word this year) to be for things that use tax money to help out the less fortunate, and that only a strict constructionist/Federalist view of the Constitution is “pro-American” (a strange choice of buzz-words in an American election), both fail to get to the simple root of the issue. First let’s get rid of the word Socialism. Not because Socialism and Marxism and Communism don’t have some of the same ideas that are at the root of social programs, but because social programs, welfare programs, do NOT share most of the traits of those isms. Those programs do not prohibit free speech, freedom of association, etc. What they do is to provide some relief from the extremes of things like being born into poverty, being an unwitting casualty in unrestrained free market economics, being a victim of poor health, etc., and, arguably, set the grounds for future prosperity.

First let me say that nowhere in the Constitution does it explicitly say that capitalism, as we know it, is “American” nor does it say the opposite. It is important, as with all documents, to read the US Constitution in the context it was written. It was a document intended to protect Americans from the oppression of oligarchies, particularly, but not exclusively, those of Europe. It was by its very nature intended to enfranchise the disenfranchised, protect the weak, and foster the success of all citizens. So that must be our starting point.

For those that are strict constructionists, like those that argue the placement of the commas in the Second Amendment prevent any gun laws (more on that subject in another column), consider the following argument:

Like the more difficult to define idea of “context”, a preamble in a document by its nature and definition explains a documents purpose, underlying philosophy, and/or intent. In other words, in a very legal sense, the preamble of any agreement or contract is the lens through which all else that follows must be viewed. And in our country the Constitution is the ultimate binding contract. I know there are those that take umbrage with this interpretation, but they are also the ones that ask for the widest interpretation of the Second Amendment (Again more on that in another column – and, no, I am not “anti-gun”). The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America is very familiar to most of us:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, to ordain and establish this Constitution for the Unites States of America.”

Nowhere does this preamble explicitly say it is to promote our Prosperity. Now before you attack me, the idea of prosperity is wrapped up, implied, in that short phrase “general Welfare.” And later in other parts of the Constitution, Prosperity is further implied in the protection of private property. In no way am I saying that Prosperity is NOT part of the American fabric. My point is that Prosperity, and all that means, is only IMPLIED. So absolute Free Market Capitalism, a system set to create individual prosperity, is not sacrosanct in the Constitution, but rather a subject of interpretation. Therefore how we use our national treasure is also subject to some interpretation against that preamble, in particular the phrase “general Welfare”.

So what does the word Welfare mean? And no, I do not intend the pejorative use regarding social programs. According the Merriam Webster “Welfare” is “the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity.” Note that Prosperity is but a small portion of that definition, included to be sure, but not to the exclusion of the other portions. So “well-being” is an equally important part of that definition. Well-being can extend to a myriad of topics, health, education, housing, etc. Again it is another subject of interpretation, not of absoluteness.

Consider that the Constitution was written and debated by some of the most learned, and courageous, men of their time, perhaps of any time in American history. They did not choose words frivolously. So the choice of the phrase “general Welfare” over the potential alternative “individual Welfare” is important. It therefore EXPLICITLY states that the Welfare in question is that of the body politic, the fullness of “We the People”.

So from the outset, everything the Constitution proscribes from the preamble forward, must be of benefit to the greater masses, not just the privileged few. And it is the privileged few, the 5% of our country netting more than $250,000 a year, more specifically the 1% that net more income than the lower 50%, that are most opposed to anything other than the current state of interpretation. Our modern American version of an oligarchy.

The phrase “general Welfare” is used only twice in the Constitution. First in the Preamble, and then in Article 1, “The Legislative Branch,” Section 8, Clause 1:

“The Congress shall have the Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the Unites States.”

Now don’t get to excited about that “shall be uniform” part, it does not mean that progressive Income Tax is unconstitutional. It just means that taxes on goods and services will not be set to favor one State over another within the Union. More importantly note that in the Preamble, and in Article 1, the first place taxes are discussed, everything is in the context of the “general Welfare”. So as with any legal document, it follows that all else in the document must continue to be viewed through the lens of the initial clauses. At this point it becomes clear that taxes are for the “common defense and General Welfare” of the people.

The framers of the Constitution were brilliant, if all too human, men. Their brilliance was in recognizing that a document that is absolute, with no room for interpretation, will not bend far before it breaks. They used the structure of the Constitution to set out the hierarchy of priorities. First there is “We the People,” then “The Legislative Branch, THEN the Executive. Each suborned in one way or another to the preceding. They were brilliant in understanding that the men who pass the laws will not always know how the men who execute them will interpret those laws. So they provided our 3 branches of government to keep each other in check. Their all too human flaws allowed for slavery, suppression of women, and other sins to remain encapsulated in law. But their brilliance outshines their flaws, as we have, by design, continued to refine both the letter of the Constitution and the interpretation of that letter over succeeding generations.

So my point, again I ramble before getting to it, is that while the last 25 years have been dedicated to one interpretation of the “general Welfare”, and to one form of capitalist prosperity, that does not preclude other options. The overall wealth of our nation has grown in these 25 years, but, that wealth has become more concentrated in the top 1% of Americans (both in relative and absolute terms), while the laws passed and the rules applied have served to shift the money from the pockets of the weakest to the pockets of the strongest. The vast majority of us are not better off now then we were 25 years ago. Our founding fathers would have found that state of affairs “un-American.” They would have welcomed an experiment in alternatives to rectify it. After all, they themselves saw this Union as an experiment, THE experiment, in equality and humanist principles. Principles based on, but not exclusive to Christian teaching, and THAT is also another subject for another column.

-ARC

The Weather Underground Velvet Girls

2008-10-19T22:01:00.005-04:00

I have remained cautiously quiet on the blog about the presidential race, so far. There has been one current issue that is getting me off my duff to actually blog about. The issue has been beaten into the media by the McCain campaign. McCain has recently been robocalling, which basically means a robot dials all the phone numbers in its database and plays a recorded message. The message is that Obabma "palls around with terrorists". Additionally, McCain and Palin have been making the same arguments on the stump.

Here's the background. Barack Obama and John Ayers served together on a board on issues surrounding education. The board was for the Annenberg Foundation, which is one of the largest philanthropic organizations in the country. Mr. Annenberg was the United States Ambassador to the Court of St. James for the Reagan administration. For laymen, that's what the Ambassador to the United Kingdom is officially called. So, Annenberg was a Republican. Also serving on the same board with Mr. Ayers were many other Republicans, including the president of Northwestern University, which Obama pointed out during the last debate. Mr. Ayers was apparently part of a group called the Weather Underground that during the 1960's practiced domestic terrorism to try and end the Vietnam War. He apparently took a different direction later in life that he was nominated and elected to serve on a Republican board focusing on education. McCain's insinuation is that because Obama served on a board with Mr. Ayers, he must therefor share his same values in all respects. The classic guilt by association.

I want to share my own personal perspective on this issue. I recently completed serving on my local community's board on issues revolving around redevelopment. I was privileged enough to serve as the Chair in the final year of my term on the board. I served with about 20 other people from the community, both business leaders and residents. I enjoyed working with these people who shared a passion on making a difference and donating their valuable time toward forwarding our common goals for the community that we all love.

With all due respect to the people with whom I served, I don't really know them all that well, beyond, obviously the issues that we were working on together. For all I know, they could have been convicted felons. I doubt it, but my point is, as a member of this board, am I expected to do personal background checks on everyone that I serve with, in case I might want to run for higher office (which I don't by the way)?

Honestly, Bill Ayers himself could have come up to me on my first day on my board and said, "Hi, I'm Bill Ayers, from the Weather Underground." My response probably would have been, "Was that the group that had the song It's Raining Men or Sweet Jane?" And that brings me to my next point. I think you have to be over 45 to know who the Weather Underground even are. I can honestly say that I've never heard of these people before this campaign. Barack Obama was 8 years old when this group was active. I don't really remember who was active when I was 8 years old; do you?

When are we going to stop fighting the Vietnam War? I will share with you that I am just south of 40 years of age and the Vietnam War and the baggage that goes with it, means nothing to my generation. You baby boomers and older, really need to get past this. It's beyond old. We have so many problems facing us as a country, the wars, the economy, etc. I can't believe we have to go back to the 60's to conjure up old problems.

Ultimately, this smacks of desperation from the McCain campaign and the Republican that want this brought up. I am disappointed, frankly. I voted for John McCain in 2000. I thought he would run a better campaign for this. To see it come to this is a let down because I thought that he was better than this. I didn't like it when Bush's campaign took similar tactics in 2000 against McCain and I don't like it now. This tenuous guilt by association is petty and stupid.

For this and many other reasons, some of which ARC has articulated in his posts, I am voting for Barack Obama. It's time for a new generation to lead. Whatever conclusion you come to, please vote on November 4th.

Pearls Before Swine (he said intending irony)

2008-10-19T21:57:00.002-04:00

Like many Americans I have been following the “debates” with interest. As anyone who reads the Angry Moderate knows I am already coming down on the Obama side of the discussion. But that does not mean I am closing my mind to the logic of each camps arguments. I am annoyed by the rhetoric and at this point will only reiterate the conventional wisdom that those that live in glass houses should not throw stones. But as usual I digress here at the beginning, so back to the argument. The two big debate points on the economy are revenues (taxes) and expenditures or more specifically earmarks (pork). I want to take up that second one in this piece.
I agree with most of the American public that earmarks as a concept are not a great idea. They are tagged on to bills that have nothing to do with the earmark and slip in as if they are skulking through the dark to sneak into your basement and lie in wait. And let’s face it, while the “Bridge to Nowhere” that was not built was a waste of tax payer money, it pales in comparison to the “Road to the Bridge to Nowhere” that WAS built despite having no bridge to feed. On the other hand there are no doubt earmarks that pay dividends well beyond the investment; ones for museums and parks come to mind. But put the debate on the value of this earmark or that aside and take as a given, for the purposes of this discussion, that we are better off without them. I want to take, as I am wont, a simplified and quick look at the US budget for one year. As the most relevant Fiscal Year (FY), 2008 (Oct 1, 2007 to Sep 30, 2008), is also just completed, I will use that budget year to illustrate the relative position of earmarks in our current financial climate. The numbers are rounded off, and no doubt there are some variations but I tried to use numbers that are easy to use for discussion that are still accurate, while being from easy sources to find.
Color By Number
To start with consider the funded US Budget for FY 2008. It amounted to $2.9 trillion ($2,900,000,000,000). It is hard number to get your head around so think of it as about $9,570 for every man, woman and child in the country (based on a population estimate for 2008 of around 303 million). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2008)
Out of that budget earmarks amounted to approximately $16.5 billion ($16,500,000,000). Again, putting it another way, that is about $54.45 per person or just over ½ of 1 percent of each person’s obligation. (http://earmarks.omb.gov/2008_appropriations_home.html)
Now consider that the budget does not include all government expenditures. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are funded as supplemental above and beyond the budget. I would not be surprised if there are other supplemental appropriations to take into account but I will stick with those for simplicity (and again for ease of finding source material). The 2008 approved or allocated supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan amounted to about $182.5 billion ($182,500,000,000). That cost comes to about $602.31 per person. (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf)
The total amount of revenue for FY 2008 was $2.66 trillion ($2,660,000,000,000) leaving a budget deficit of $240 billion ($240,000,000,000) or $792 of each of us. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2008)
Stay on Target
But don’t forget the budget and therefore the budget deficit do not include those supplementals. So, a little quick math shows that a closer figure for the actual federal deficit for FY 2008 of $422.5 billion ($422,500,000,000) or about $1,394 for each US citizen.
This means the percentage of the total federal expenditures ($3.082 trillion) in FY 2008 taken up by “pork” ($16.5 billion) was almost exactly ½ of 1 percent. It would have reduced the deficit to $406 billion or to $1,340 for each of us.
So if you, like McCain, think that this is a focal point of fiscal responsibility in this election year you are, as the adage goes, “Penny wise and pound foolish.” (And don’t EVEN get me started about the nearly $1 trillion we have already obligated to the financial bailout)

-ARC

The Most Important Election in Our Lifetime (so far)

2008-10-01T22:49:00.003-04:00

The race for the White House has been heating up lately. As a consequence emotions have been running high as both sides have been using emotional rhetoric to try and gain an edge. Nothing divided the two camps more than Governor Palin being selected as the Republican Nominee for Vice President. But like all other emotional propaganda that was just so much window dressing, meant to distract from the issues, and both sides are at fault for that. However, along came an even bigger news item which has begun to move the discussion back to real issues. The economy, specifically the “Wall Street Meltdown of 2008” (that’s mine, do you like it?). You would think 5 million average Americans in foreclosure or receivership would have got our attention, but no, it took malfeasance and mismanagement of some of the richest people in our country to make us sit up and notice. But see, even I am giving in to the emotional diatribe. So I thought I would put us through a short exercise to separate the emotion from the analysis. This is going to come in two parts. The first is a look at the five most important economic crises in the US over the last 80 years, and the second is a look at who we are turning to for ideas and guidance to end the latest. Let us see if we can determine some pattern, and a possible way forward.

“Those Who Cannot Remember the Past, Are Condemned to Repeat It” - Santayana

I believe that this election is the MOST important national election in 45 and possibly even 60 years. Given the market crisis, the global security situation, the growing negative consequences of the energy situation and the environment, and given US dominance and World reliance on the PAX Americana since the end of WWII, this may even be the most important election/political succession in the history of the modern (post Westphalia) world.

I do not throw that out as hyperbole. I believe it is a defensible thesis. Consequently we have a moral/ethical obligation to try and understand the history that got us here so we can find our way forward to a more stable, prosperous and safe future.

Consider before we move forward the supposition that in so far as the President, or Congress, affects the economy, it takes 2-3 years for their policies to have an effect, therefore they cannot take credit or blame in that "grace period". I am sure that this is debatable, but I think it is accurate. Clinton did not deserve credit for the economic up tic in 93 and 94; any more that Reagan deserved the blame for the economic malaise of the first couple of years in the 80s. So if we are too look for the root of any positive or negative long term or deeply impactful economic event we need to look at the people and policies in place 3-5 years before the event in question. So let’s start with today and work our way backwards.

The Wall Street Meltdown of 2008
I have been saying privately that we were headed for fiscal catastrophe since at least 2005. I sold my house in February of 2006 in part because I thought it best to get out with some equity. So if my gut was right then, it is more aptly named the crisis of 2005-2008 and we need to look at the period of 2002-2005 to find who was making the decisions that led us here today. Well it’s obvious to everyone that we have a Republican President and have had one since 2001. What is lost in the debate for some reason I cannot fathom is that Congress (both the House and the Senate) were dominated (I use that word because having a slim voting majority as the Democrats have now in the Senate does not constitute control) by the Republicans from 1994 to 2007. So both the legislation (Congress), and the interpretation and implementation that legislation (The White House) was controlled by the Republicans, meaning they must bear the full weight of the Government’s failure. Note I specify Government, because there is plenty more blame to go around, but this is already going to be a long piece.

The 2000/2001 Bursting of the Tech Bubble
Here we see that both sides of the political debate in the US must own up to some responsibility on financial mismanagement. When this mini crisis occurred the White House was long in the hands of the Democrats. However, as noted above the Congress had been in control of the Republicans for 6 years already. So, as Congress passes the legislation that either weakens or strengthens oversight and regulation, the Republican’s carry the largest blame, but the President can and should stand up and fight back if he or she disagrees. Therefore, the Democrats get to take about 25% of the blame on this one in my book. Mitigating factor – two other economic crises, largely out of the control, but not beyond the influence, of the US government contributed to this financial fiasco, those being the market crises in Latin America and Asia over the 4 previous years.

The 1988 Fender Bender
Let’s face it, it was not a crash, 1929 was a crash, 2008 will be remembered as a crash. 1988 was the second worst economic crisis of post agrarian America until this year, but now it is third. At the time the Republicans had held the White House for nearly 8 years. Additionally from 1981 to 1986 the Republicans also held the Senate, splitting control of Congress. So once again the Republicans had the controlling hand, but the blame is split because the Democrat controlled House went along. 60% Republican, 40% Democrat. No mitigating factor I can think of, but the handling of the crisis into the GHW Bush administration set up the economic recovery that Clinton capitalized on in the 90s.

The Mid 70s Recession
Now here is the beginning of the scary stuff. This recession came after 6 years of Republican control of the White House but the Democrats had and would hold control of both houses of Congress from 1954 till the Republican takeover of the Senate in 1981. But I have to withhold a verdict because of mitigating factors. The US had just come out of a long (nearly 10 years) undeclared and expensive war and OPEC manipulated oil prices to cause steep increases in the cost of everything imaginable. I remember Walter Cronkite lamenting gas going over 50 cents a gallon and wondering aloud how that could mean the end of the American way of life “as we know it.” Sound familiar? Replace Vietnam with Iraq, replace OPEC with oil speculators, replace 50 cents with 4 dollars and throw in the subprime debacle and you can see how the next decade could make the 70s smell like a bed of roses. And if you remember the 70s it was no bed of roses.

The Crash of 1929 and the Depression
Consider the symmetry as we review the political situation preceding the 29 market crash. The Republicans had taken the White House in 1921 and held it till 1933. They also controlled Congress, both House and Senate, from 1921 till 1931 (the first National election period after the crash). In this case it is obviously a Republican failure.

One last set of general observations on the history we so quickly and simplistically reviewed above. Today in the US more wealth is concentrated in the hands of the financial top tenth of 1 percent of Americans than since 1928. Additionally, those same people are taxed LESS than at any time since 1932. Think about that, and all it implies.

Those Who Would Save Us

Treasury Secretary
Well here we are September 2008 and Wall Street is a mess, average Americans are scrambling to figure out how they are going to heat their home, if they can keep it, while still putting $4 a gallon gasoline in the car to get to work. Who is going to save us from ourselves (a little sarcasm)? Right now our knight in shining armor is allegedly the current Republican Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson. Secretary Paulson was confirmed into his position in 2006 so he is not the architect in any way of this calamity right? Remember how I said there was plenty of blame to go around, not just in the Government? Well Paulson could be the poster boy for that shared private sector blame. He was with Goldman Sachs since 1974, and held ever increasing positions of responsibility and influence in the firm until becoming CEO in 1998, when the company went public, until leaving for public “service” in 2006. So he is the main decision maker that took that company to the point where it joined the ranks of so many other overextended financial houses. By the way, Mr. Paulson is personally worth at least $700 million dollars and has suggested a federal bailout that would leave Goldman Sachs in private hands but receiving federal money. Let’s not get into his time during the Nixon Administration as assistant to John Erlichman and what that suggests about Paulson’s ethics.

McCain’s Economic Adviser
Ok, so Paulson is a Bush man you say? Let’s look at McCain’s first choice to help him sort out a subject he readily admits is a weakness for him. Who is the mentor of choice? Phil Gramm former Representative and Senator from Texas. Currently Gramm is employed as the Vice Chairman of the Swiss based USB Investment Bank. As of April of this year USB had the dubious distinction of being the European financial firm WORST hit by the subprime collapse in the US. He was also one of the 5 co-authors of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 that created what is now known as the “Enron Loophole”. Two quotes from Mr. Paulson shed some light on his concern for average Americans:

“Most people don't have the luxury of living to be 80 years old, so it's hard for me to feel sorry for them." - (in response to a statement that a Social Security proposal would hurt people over 80)

"I recently told Ed Whitacre (former CEO of AT&T, who retired with a $158 million pay package) he was probably the most exploited worker in American history.”

Obama’s Advisers
Lest you think I only throw punches at the Republicans (true most are aimed that way) let’s look at Obama for a second. First, let’s address the allegation that his adviser is Franklin Raines, former Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae. Both Obama and Raines deny that Raines is an adviser. Though Raines does indicate that they have discussed the economy. So while not a damning indictment of Obama it does indicate he may reach out to some of the same ilk of tainted individuals that are found advising McCain. Finally, Obama’s declared “senior” financial economic advisers are Jason Furman and Austan Goolsbee. Not being an economist myself, I have NO idea who these guys really are. They are relatively young and there is not a lot out there to judge them by. That might be a good thing, as the old crowd got us in this mess. But it might be bad too. I just don’t have enough to judge, and that in itself is a bad thing.

Conclusion
Yep, this was all leading someplace! The bottom line is that the majority of the time the Republicans have been the ones to lead this country, in the last century, into economic chaos. Chaos that has had disproportionate impact on the middle class and working poor, while barely touching the rich. At the same time it has been the ones with their hands deepest in the laissez faire market economy that have shaped and overseen the markets when the markets have let America down the most. So, if this is potentially the most important election in our lives, and if the economy is the most important issue, then I have to take sides. It has to be someone new(er). It has to be someone most unlike those that have put us in this position time and again. It has to be Obama.
-ARC

Georgia On My Mind

2008-08-12T22:30:00.008-04:00

In case you've been living in a cave for the past week or so, Russia invaded Georgia. No, not our Georgia. This Georgia is a former Soviet republic. Previously and currently, it's own sovereign nation. A bit of trivia for you. The Georgians were one of the earliest civilizations on the planet that gained wealth and made jewelry out of gold. In fact, they invented wine making, so the next time you are enjoying that glass of burgundy, raise a glass to the nation of Georgia. Especially since we're not quite sure how much longer there will be a Georgia.

Some background. Georgia, in 2003 elected Mikheil Saakashvili president. He was re-elected again last year. This election marked a marked turn toward not only democracy, but also the west. Saakashvili was educated in the west and was outwardly open toward his intentions on trying to join the E.U. and NATO. Incidentally, his election was known as the Rose Revolution, which deposed the semi-despotic rule of former Soviet Foreign Minister Edvard Shevardnadze. A second bit of trivia for you; I was actually on the same flight as Edvard Shevardnaze once, so I can honestly say that we are like brothers.

I digress. With Georgia turning toward the west, following Ukraine's Orange Revolution and turn toward the west with E.U. and NATO aspirations, this did not sit too well with Stalin, I mean Putin. Third bit of trivia, Stalin was born in Gori, Georgia, which the Russians were bombing for the last few days. He was the one that actually divided the Ossetians into North Ossetia, a republic of Russia and South Ossetia, a republic of Georgia. OK, I promise the last bit of trivia. I was reading a timeline of events and it started in the 13th century when Genghis Khan drove the Ossetians over the Caucasian Mountains and divided them. (And we wonder why some people in this country in the south refer to the Civil War as "the recent unpleasantness). Ill deeds in history are never forgotten or forgiven in the Old World or the Middle East.

Russia has apparently been operating as "peacekeepers" since the Rose Revolution and been handing out Russian passports to not only South Ossetia, but also the other break away province of Abkhazia. Russia is all for break away provinces, as long as their not named Chechnya, oh, and not actually in Russia. If you get the sense that I am dripping with irony, you are correct. I just bathed in it. I didn't really mean to turn this into a history lesson, though it is fascinating and I do after all have a degree in International Affairs, with a focus on Russia, so you will have to indulge me.

On August 8th, the Georgian army overplayed its hand by entering South Ossetia and trying to retake its capital by force. The Russian's contend that it was naked aggression by Georgia, attacking civilians and those poor defenseless Russian
"peacekeepers". The only problem with that story is that there are reports that the Russians started shelling Georgia first and that Georgia responded. As I stated, they overplayed their hand. On top of that, some U.S. internet security firms have uncovered the fact that Russian servers started a cyber-attack against Georgia on August 4th. They used their servers to command denial of service attacks against Georgia's parliament website, the president's website, and completely flooded the internet within Georgia to render it unusable. Now if this is too technical, suffice it to say, it shut down the internet which mean no email, no chat, no nothing. You can't work in 2008 without the internet. So Russia can claim that Georgia started this war, but the evidence points to other conclusions. Even if Russia did, it doesn't excuse their actions since that time. Did I mention that Russia just happened to have about 120 tanks sitting on the border waiting for something to happen. How convenient.

So now, France has taken the lead on negotiating a cease fire. They hold the current presidency of the E.U. President Sarkozy has been shuttling between Moscow and Tbilisi and has brokered, on paper a cease fire. The problem is, that while Russia tells the world that it accepts the cease fire agreement, which requires them to pull back to their August 6th positions, they are in reality pressing on further into Georgia. As of right now, it appears from reports that they are not only occupying the aforementioned Gori, but also the port town of Poti. They are cutting off the main east-west highway in the country.

The question remains; what does Russia want? Do they want to re-absorb Georgia, just destabilize it, overthrow the democratically elected government, or what? In my mind, this is about oil. The only pipeline from Kazakhstan to Europe that doesn't run through and controlled by Russia is the one that runs through southern Georgia. This is about the control of energy to Europe. Russia wants all the leverage. It is also about sphere of influence in the former Soviet republics. Russia can't stand western leaning governments on their border. The Baltic states and Ukraine should be peeing in their collective pants right now. They have all been the victim of destabilization efforts from Russia, in the past few years.

Yesterday, the Bush administration potentially upped the ante. He announced that we are fully committed to standing by the democratically elected government of Georgia and that we were immediately going to be sending humanitarian aid to the region. Oh and by the way, we're going to have it personally delivered by our military and we expect the ports, roads, and airports open to receive it. Now, nobody thinks the United States is going to go head to head with Russia militarily. It is not going to happen. But the idea of the Russians blockading our warships from entering Poti would make for some interesting drama.

Some commentators have argued that Russia's actions and interests are the equivalent of our Monroe Doctrine, which for over a hundred years we have used to justify U.S. action in "our" hemisphere. I'm sure Latin America and the Canadians are thrilled. My position is that the Monroe Doctrine is wrong and misguided, therefore Russia's similar actions are equally misguided and wrong. The U.S. has partaken in covert actions to destabilize or outright overthrow (excuse me, I suppose inflict regime change is the current vogue) more governments in the western hemisphere than we can shake a stick at. To what end? Castro retired a sick and old man. Some of our allies in Latin America are beset by drug lords. I just read of how in the 50's we overthrew the democratically elected government in Guatemala because the newly elected president, who himself was very wealthy, had a plan to redistribute land, a lot of which was at the time not being used for farming, in order to prop up crop prices. He was even willing to pitch in his own land into the bargain. United Fruit, an American company that controlled 85% of the farming in Guatemala at the time, complained to the American government, and I suppose, under the pretext of the Monroe Doctrine, sent in the CIA.

The bottom line is bad behavior does not justify bad behavior. Norms evolve. We cannot in the 21st century sanction illegal invasions and ethnic cleansing. No matter who is perpetrating the cause.

Which brings me to a larger point, though, and one that I am not admittedly altogether comfortable with. I think the U.N. is broken. Normally, this is a position taken by Neo-cons and Libertarians that see the U.N. as some step toward World Government, which I don't really buy into. The U.N. is way too ineffective to ever achieve something that lofty. No, my problem is it doesn't really work. With China and Russia as permanent members of the Security Council, you have two countries that while trying to exercise their global muscle. Frankly, the same holds true when we want to do something stupid, like invade Iraq. The U.N. is powerless to prevent anything. I'm not sure what the U.N. is good for except for perhaps, humanitarian purposes, which they can do well, when the Secretary General's family isn't skimming off the top.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a unilateralist. I do believe, however, that we should be working within a framework of a community of nations with common principles, goals, and aspirations. Right now, the only one I can think of is NATO. We should put our energies and resources into NATO instead of the U.N.. We should also open it up to other countries that share our democratic principles. I must say, I find it a bit ironic, personally, that I have come to this conclusion. In my last year of college, the Soviet Union had disbanded and nobody knew what was going to happen. I was wondering, at the time, if NATO even had a future. The consensus at the time was that NATO would fade into irrelevance. I now could not imagine a more different outcome. I do not envision this organization to be dominated by the United States. I think that by working with countries that share common values, we will be able to come together more frequently.

In the meantime, many, especially on the right, such as Charles Krauthammer, Robert Kagan, and George Will, have called for direct consequences for Russia, should they not back down and honor their cease fire agreement. Some have called for the dissolution of the G-8 and ultimate reconstitution of the G-7 without Russian participation. Another idea is for the U.S. to block Russian entry into the WTO. I believe that while our options are limited, we must take these steps if Russia absorbs Georgia or part of its territory back into Mother Russia or overthrow the democratically elected government of Georgia. (Yes, it makes me nervous when I agree with these folks.) Beyond that, there's not much we can do except make it painful for them. Russia controlling all of the oil and gas pipelines to Europe will give them a huge strategic advantage.

Another reason to fast track alternative sources of energy. It is a case of not only national, but global security.

Snake Oil

2008-07-31T21:55:00.006-04:00

I've been reading a book called American Creation: Triumphs & Tragedies At The Founding Of The Republic, by Joseph J. Ellis. You may know him for writing Founding Brothers, for which he won a Pulitzer. I just finished the chapter on the creation of the two-party system. Ironically, the person most responsible for its creation would also condemn the very demon he released from Pandora's Box. I refer of course, to Thomas Jefferson. I won't go into the gory details of how it call came to pass. That will be for another post. But in reading about the creation of the two-party system and watching the current events on the news, I am reminded of this creation's insidious nature.

To my overall point, I want to look at the debate that is going on right now in Washington between the Republicans and the Democrats over the price of oil and what can be done about it. It's boiled down to two positions. The Republicans are pushing for opening up offshore drilling and the Democrats want to release oil from the strategic reserve both in the name of lowering the price of oil.

Apparently, both parties think we are morons. Let me be quite clear on both positions. Neither one would have an impact on oil prices. NONE.

Let's start with offshore drilling. We would not see any impact toward an increase in supply for a decade or more. How does that help? There are already countless land leases in the United States for oil companies to drill, that are going unused. Why is that? Have they explored the land and deemed it dry? I honestly don't know the answer to that question. Discussing this with a friend and colleague today, he suggested that offshore drilling may just be easier for the oil companies. It was a hypothesis on his part, but probably right on target. I would like to know the answer to that underlying question before we give license to open up more areas to drilling.

Now, the idea of releasing oil from the strategic reserve is just as idiotic. First of all, the whole idea of a strategic reserve is preparedness for a national emergency, like a military invasion, or a natural disaster calamity, not price stabilization. The idea that this would be a reasonable alternative to help bring down the price of oil is laughable. Even if we came to a national consensus that releasing oil from the strategic reserve was a good idea (and you will never convince me short of an actual emergency), there isn't enough oil to make a dent in the price of oil.

So while both parties are blustering and billowing at each other, pretending to get something done for the American people, the real problems are being ignored. "What are the real problems?" I'm glad you asked. How about starting with refining capacity. The biggest problem is not lack of supply. The biggest problem is we don't have enough refineries to process the oil. Why don't we have enough refineries? Because there are too many communities that don't want them. They fight them tooth and nail and then they complain about the price at the pump. We haven't even mentioned the fact that some states have different requirements on how gasoline is refined. Having a national policy on refining standards, would also help. There is an example where a lack of national regulation is actually costing the consumer more money, if Exxon has to refine oil for California one way, and another for New Jersey, and another for Florida. Pick the state that has demonstrated the most success with its standard for oil refinement and go with it. How about the low dollar policy that we've had for the last 7+ years? Guess what? The dollar goes down, the price of oil goes up, as does the price of ALL imports. Nobody in Washington is talking about how devalued the dollar has become on international markets.

In the meantime, there is a total lack of leadership on this issue. Where is the president, like Kennedy did with challenging the nation to put a man on the moon in 10 years? Where is Congress? With the demise of the Cold War, have we completely lost all motivation as a nation to accomplish great things?

The reality is we have to have all options on the table. If we need more domestic production, then let's find out why these oil leases are being unused. If we need more refineries, we need to build them. Do we need alternative energy? Absolutely. This isn't just an environmental issue. This is an issue of national security. We will never have enough oil to be self sufficient. So we keep importing oil from nations that hate us. Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia, just to name a few. We are funding nations that work toward subverting us. We need to stand up and challenge ourselves to find sources of alternative energy that can support us in the long run. Again, everything is on the table. Solar, electricity, wind, even nuclear have to be an option. In the meantime, we have to bridge the gap with oil and there are no easy answers to bringing the price down.

The two parties are trying to distract us from reality. Don't buy into it. There is no third party that can balance out the dialog and say, "Hey, wait a minute. None of this makes sense." I once had a co-worker share a salty euphemism from her youth. She said her momma told her, "Don't [pee] on my head and tell me it's raining." That's what the two parties are doing to us on this issue. Thanks Mr. Jefferson.

Detour to Crazytown

2008-07-06T16:42:00.004-04:00

The Angry Moderate is furious. In fact, please indulge me whilst I take little detour to Crazytown. What has me so furious? Well, it's probably a story that most people in the U.S. have paid little notice. The story is the tragedy that has unfolded in Zimbabwe culminating in the recent fraudulent run-off elections that resulted in Robert Mugabe being sworn in to office for a sixth term, as President of a country that used to be the breadbasket of Africa and now he has run into the ground to the point where they cannot produce enough food to feed their own people and inflation is so out of control that it costs $6 Billion Zimbabwean dollars for a loaf of bread, if you can find one.

For those of you who have not been following, it's simply too long a story for me to sum up, but here is an excellent recap from the Washington Post from 7/5/08 that describes in greater detail what happened. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/04/AR2008070402771.html

The first principle of any government is to protect their own citizens. The purpose of democratic, republican government (emphasis on the little d and little r) is the protection of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Zimbabwe, and also recently Burma (Myanmar)'s purposeful lack of warning and aiding their people from one of the biggest typhoons in their nations history, serve as stark examples of governments that have blatantly ignored these fundamental principles.

My answer to this is where most of you will probably think I've gone off the rails. If I were president, the first thing I would do is revoke the Executive Order that forbids the CIA or any government agency from actively or covertly participating in the assassination of a foreign leader.

Yes, I am perfectly aware that this was put into place precisely because the United States participated in some assassinations in the past that did more harm than good. Two examples would be, the assassination of Salvador Allende in Chile and the backing of the ruthless dictator Augusto Pinochet and our backing the coup that lead to the installation of the Shah of Iran, whose overthrow by the Iranian Revolution of 1979 we are still paying for.

But I am too disgusted to be swayed. The only answer for Zimbabwe is to assassinate Mugabe and his comrades. He will never relinquish power until he dies and then one of his cronies will assume power. Meanwhile, the African Union stands by and does nothing, mostly because many of its members have the same track record on elections and their own rule. Most disappointing is South Africa's Tabo Mbecki, who is supposed to be mediating, but instead does nothing. It is puzzling how quickly South African forgets the aid of pressure and sanctions from democratic western nations that helped end Apartheid and give Mr. Mbecki the opportunity to even serve as head of state.

Africa claims it can solve its own problems and does not want to be dictated to by the west, but more often they ignore their problems and use anti-colonialist rhetoric to hide behind their inaction. Equally, the U.N.'s effectiveness is strangled by China and Russia who hide behind the concept of self rule to avoid real sanctions. Once again, themselves not wanting to one day be held to account for their own actions toward their respective people. Ironically, China's response to the earthquake in the Sichuan Province was a shining example of how a government should respond when their people need them. They are no democracy, but still upheld the primary basic principle of government. This does not however make up for the anemic response by the international community to stand up to rogue governments who torture and murder their own people. The international framework has failed.

How many lives and dollars would have been saved by simply assassinating Saddam Hussein instead of invading Iraq? Yes, it's a total hypothetical, but still it bears thinking about.

I know there are plenty of reasons not to have a policy of active or covert assassination, but I am in no mood to be rational. Perhaps tomorrow.

What are WE going to DO?

2008-07-05T13:03:00.004-04:00

Today's post comes from our regular contributing blogger ARC (A Radical Centrist).

Gasoline is over $4 per gallon and the push for ethanol is driving global food prices higher (no it’s not just the recession). What are we going to do about it?

That is the important point in any problem. What are we going to DO? We can keep talking about “energy independence” and alternative or renewable energy. We can keep hoping the market will fill the need. Or we can DO something.

The US Department of Energy has a great website, though I doubt it is oft visited. On that site you can find information on solar(1) and wind energy and even wind maps(2) indicating the areas best suited for wind farms. Elsewhere you can find maps indicating average solar intensity for use in generating power(3). The market is barely starting to turn to these sources AFTER we have entered a real decline in oil availability(4) and a spiking of prices. But the “market” is not geared for long term thinking. It is a short term system based on filling an existing need and profiting off of it. So this image of going green is more PR than substance. Often the market actor who anticipates a trend or need looses out on market share. Just look at BetaMax, Apple (particularly in the 90s) Computers, or the Tucker automobile. And frankly that is just how the market should be, profit driven. So as long as these alternatives remain more expensive (and more inconvenient for industry) than traditional generation methods they will not go mainstream.

But government is different, government should be solution driven, forward thinking, forcing the market to respond to conditions that improve our standard of living and our society as a whole. Government should protect us, the market should enrich us. Much like scientific and religious views of creation both should be taught in school, just not in the same classroom, these two systems are not necessarily mutually exclusive. In fact they can each benefit from the other. Government enacted safety regulations for automobiles were anticipated in the Tucker (seat belts, safety windshields), but the industry did not adopt them ‘til they were forced to. When they were made to do “the right thing” they still managed to make money.

In what may be a bad example, the auto industry took off on two pillars in the 1950s. First the market drove auto and oil companies to buy up commuter rail systems and shut them down all over the country (more than 5000 miles in Los Angeles alone) in order to force people to use cars(5). Second, and to my point, the Federal government, under first Franklin Roosevelt and, to a greater extent later, Dwight D. Eisenhower, started building the national highway system(6). That highway system promoted the use of cars, and increased interstate commerce. If we had built the highway system based on “market” actors taking the initiative we would be driving around on 2 lane highways and paying tolls for the privilege.

I know highways are a pedestrian example to use here, but it gets straight to the point. Government can and should set the conditions to steer the market to our benefit not just our short term profit. Energy is the biggest problem we face right now, driving up prices, driving up our cost of living, making us more dependent on others. Stop incentivizing the market status quo with oil company tax breaks. Create competition and force them to change their business paradigm.

A solar farm, using existing photo-voltaic cell technology, measuring 100 miles by 100 miles (that is a lot I know, 10,000 square miles) placed in the desert southwest would more than meet the peak electrical demand for the entire United States during daylight hours(7). A farm only 10 miles by 10 miles would meet more than 1% of our demand. It does not sound like a lot, but it would be a BIG start. Expensive, probably, but if the government does it, they don’t need to make profit, they need only charge the national average per kw/h in order to give the market a push, and start getting us off fossil fuels. Any financial return on the investment could be reinvested into sustaining the system and developing newer solutions. If it pays for itself great! If not, it is still cheaper than the alternative of doing nothing.

An average 1 MW wind turbine can provide power day and night, year round (as long as the wind is blowing) for over 200 homes(8). Again, not a lot, but if each subdivision had one, wow, what an impact that could have.

I could go on and on and on. And that is part of the problem. We could TALK about hydro power, thermal energy, even new technology nuclear power, or hydrogen. Then we could TALK some more about bird strikes on wind turbines, the cost of solar cells, how ethanol is driving corn (and indirectly wheat) prices up, the dangers of nuclear power, nuclear waste, or how we are running out of water so making hydrogen is foolish. Meanwhile oil gets scarcer, the climate gets warmer (which will kill a LOT more birds than any wind turbines) the market gurus get richer, and the average American gets poorer.

To paraphrase a once popular and altogether kitschy television show, “We have the technology; we can make it better…” We just need to do something. So what do Senators Obama and McCain propose we do?

ARC

(1) http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/
(2) http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/wind_maps.asp
(3) http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/solarenergy.html
(4) http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/research.aspx?Type=msspeeches
(5) http://www.urban-renaissance.org/urbanren/index.cfm?DSP=content&ContentID=508
(6) http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/interstate.cfm
(7) http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/releases/2004/renew-energy-batt/Stirling.html
(8) http://www.citizensenergy.com/english/pages/28/about-wind-energy

4th of July

2008-07-04T13:27:00.004-04:00

Greetings everyone. Sorry, it's been a long time since I've posted, but I have been recuperating from surgery. In honor of Independence Day, here is a special post befitting the occasion, by guest author Thomas Jefferson with assistance by John Adams and Benjamin Franklin. If you prefer, here is a link where it is being read by celebrities.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxTvS-kyHzs

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton

Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton

Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean

Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark

Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton

One Party Rule

2008-05-19T19:21:00.006-04:00

There is a trend in politics today that disturbs me greatly. In case anyone has not been paying attention, the Republicans have just lost 3 special elections in a row of seats that they've held for decades in areas of the country, like Mississippi and Louisiana that have no reason being competitive. The one special election was for the former seat of Dennis Hastert, the last Speaker of the House. Times are not good for the Republicans. A solid of majority of people think the Republicans, particularly the current Bush administration, has taken the country in the wrong direction. I think generally, the Republicans are reaping what they have sowed. If they are in a crisis of public confidence, they have earned it.

But... What does this result mean? Well, in this country, it means the other party reaps the benefit. Not from being better or having different ideas, but by not being the party who is out of fashion. This has been a story that has repeated itself through our history. Some parties have fallen so out of fashion that they have dissolved and reformed as something else, as in the middle of the 19th Century when the Whig party was remade into the Republican party by Abraham Lincoln. It started with the founding of the country. While both Washington and Adams tried to be above party, the Federalists fell out of favor with the electorate and Jefferson came to power. The unfortunate consequence of our electoral system is that it only allows for two big parties to dominate. This is something I believe we desperately need to change.

So now the Democrats are in a position to reap the benefits of the Republicans implosion. Even though all indications point to a very tight presidential race, Democrats are setup for bigger wins in the House and the Senate than they saw in 2006. The Republicans are desperately trying to figure out what is wrong with the Republican brand. Some are arguing that the party is not conservative enough while others feel they need to throw their president overboard in order to restore their trust with the public. David Brooks had an excellent article on the same process that the Tories have gone through recently, after being out of power for the last couple of decades. The Republicans could learn a lot from the changes they have implemented, but they probably won't.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/opinion/09brooks.html

In the meantime, the Democrats may rack up enough seats to have veto proof power in Congress, with an even or better chance of capturing the White House as well. I hate to play the role of Captain Obvious, but this is not a good thing. One party rule is bad for the country. One party rule is bad for any country. I can list about a dozen examples off the top of my head, from Robert Mugabe's ruination of Zimbabwe to Lenin to Mao, the results are usually disastrous. Now, of course, one could argue that we are a democracy, after all, not a dictatorship, but when you look at the results of the Republicans having one party rule in the earlier part of this decade, the dividends are abismal. The old adage that absolute power corrupts absolutely is the only thing certain in this world except death and taxes. No matter how benevolent a party goes into power, unchecked it will over reach and eventually become corrupt. The best you can hope for is a longer period of benevolence than you expect.

My ultimate solution to this problem is two-fold. First, amend the Constitution and eliminate the electoral college. This, in my humble opinion, is the main barricade to giving people more than two options. In my heart, I will never believe that two parties can truly represent the needs and hopes of all the citizens of this nation. Second, eliminate the gerrymandering that both parties shamelessly pilfer every decade after the census comes out. If districts could be drawn by a non-political independent local body, it might give people more of a chance to defeat incumbents in national elections. Right now, both parties are carving out their own territories in order to give their incumbents the best chance to be re-elected. Of course it doesn't always work, as has been seen with the last three special elections, but it would help. These solutions are obviously not easy to implement, but if the citizenry rises up and demands change, it is possible.

In the meantime, we need to keep the pressure on people of both parties that stand up for good government and fiscal sanity. Those people are an endangered species no matter what party label.

A Case for Regulation

2008-04-17T22:22:00.002-04:00

There has been a lot of items in the news lately that in my mind make the case for government regulation. The case against government regulation is that it stifle innovation and that the market is the best ultimate regulator for business. But let's look at 3 specific examples of current issues.

First, take all the toys (and other products?) that are being imported from China that contain lead. Most of the lead in the toys come from lead paint used because it is cheaper. Now who should be held accountable? The companies like Fisher Price who are outsourcing the manufacturing of their toys over in China? The problem with the global economy we are now participating in is that there are more and more layers of outsourcing. Trying to track down the proper company to manage and then make sure that their products are safe would be burdensome to the company at the top. Also, countries like China and India that are taking more and more of manufacturing does not have any concept of quality control. On the evolutionary scale of capitalism, they aren't yet beyond the concept of you can't poop where you eat.

A second example which is even more current is the thousands of flights that have been canceled because airlines neglected to maintain proper maintenance on their aircraft. In this case, it is an example of lax regulation and companies taking advantage of that lax oversight to save money. In the meantime, there were planes flying with cracked fuselages.

Finally, there was a meat processing plant that was forcibly putting downer cows into the food chain. This caused a massive recall of beef mostly from school systems that were feeding the beef, unknowingly to children. This was another example of oversight that needed to be better. The company was waiting until the inspectors had left before they purposely put in the downer cows. There has been a lot of discussion about the worry that terrorists could do something to harm the food supply. Apparently, we don't just need to worry about the terrorists.

I'm going to make an assumption that the government should have a role in public safety. The level of that role is always going to be up for debate. In all the examples, you have to ask what is the best way to accomplish protecting the public. I would argue that proper government regulation is more efficient than letting the market take care of things. It's really the difference between being proactive or reactive. Being proactive you find out about issues before they end up on the front page. That to me makes the most sense. I have a job in the service sector. The more we are proactive with our customers on issues, the more profitable our business.

I would also argue that it does not behoove businesses to try and regulate themselves for public safety. The job of a publicly traded company is to maximize profit for their shareholders. That means that there is constant search for ways to be more efficient and push prices down. That is the opposite of the mission of public safety. That mission does not take into account the cost of public safety. The government's mission is public safety. A properly run government should be able to do it more efficiently than companies. It also saves the company the cost of self regulation (a big assumption that they would comply). The problem with the current administration is that is not competently run, as has been proved by Katrina among a long list of deficiencies. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy if you come in saying that the government cannot do anything right and then set off and prove that theory.

Ultimately, I think there is a balance both from trying to be over protective from the government and being mindful of the burden. However, the above examples do not even pass the common sense test. Our children should not have toys with lead paint, we should before that the planes are safe BEFORE one falls out of the sky, and we should make sure that the food supply is safe. Those are pretty basic. As usual, a little common sense goes a long way.

Boycott China, not the Athletes

2008-04-08T21:53:00.002-04:00

Regular Contributor - A Radical Centrist posts on the Olympics -

All this talk of boycotting the Olympics is, well, distracting from the point really. In the past the end result has never been a real impact on the nation in question, but always on the athletes. It is China, not the Olympics we should be talking about.

Okay, so the athletes in the Olympics are not just “amateurs” anymore. Many of them will and have found recognition elsewhere. But most of them will get one shot at being on the world stage as one of the, if not the, best in their sport.

Let’s start sending a message to China. Regardless of your position on Tibet (me, I tend to sympathize with the Tibetans) China could have avoided this row during all of the international scrutiny. The leadership there could easily have found a way to calm the Tibet issue for a couple of months and get past the Olympics without a real fuss. But they chose a typical totalitarian regime response and now blame Tibetans and Buddhists for damaging the reputation of the country and sabotaging the games.

Here is my centrist take on the whole thing. First picketing and demonstrating might get you on the 5 o’clock news in your town but won’t make a bit of difference. Second, boycotting the games will only hurt the athletes. Third personally boycotting the games is silly, how many of you were planning to fly to Beijing?

If you want to send a message, if you want to make a difference, boycott the sponsors and the suppliers. Take money from them. It’s too late to keep them for paying for the rights and getting the licenses needed for doing business in Beijing. But if you send them a financial message, impact their bottom line enough, they will stop doing business there, or at least will advocate on behalf of human rights and that will make some, even if not much, difference to China. I know it helped a little in South Africa in 1980’s. Coke lost a lot of market share over apartheid.

To that end here is a list of the companies you most likely will be able to boycott (there are others but I can’t get my keyboard to type Chinese characters, and most of us will not be traveling to China so won’t have a chance to not use those companies):

Coca-Cola (RC gets new customers)
GE
Johnson & Johnson
Kodak
Lenovo (the Chinese state owned firm that bought IBM’s PC division)
Manulife
McDonald’s
Omega (guess I’ll have to get that Rolex now!)
Panasonic
Samsung
Visa (Master Card and American Express could really do well on this one)
Adidas
Volkswagen (too bad too, they are about to make a diesel hybrid that gets 79.9 mpg!)
UPS
Budwieser
Snickers
Staples
PriceWaterHouseCoopers

If the US lawmakers and presidential hopefuls want to make a difference maybe they should boycott these companies that are helping China financially, and profiting off of a China that is oppressive.

Just a thought.

ARC

Being a Moderate & the Falacy of the Mean

2008-04-05T18:14:00.007-04:00

Today I have another guest blogger that writes about what it means to be a moderate.

I want to describe two ways to be a moderate in politics. The first, what I'll refer to as the political centrist, believes that the right solution to problems is found in the middle of extreme views. This idea goes as far back as Epicuris in Ancient Greece who taught that the best way to live was a life of moderation. This was later refined into a moral theory by Aristotle who wrote that morally correct actions are those performed by a person whose disposition or character trait falls in the middle of two extremes. For example, the virtue of courage is a moderate disposition between the two extremes of cowardice and foolhardiness.

In the US, the political centrist adopts a similar stance for political solutions. A political centrist argues something like, "The correct solution to problem x is to find the middle ground between the liberal and conservative and adopt that position since either extreme is, by their nature, incorrect."

The other way to be a moderate is to recognize that joining political parties or embracing their claimed ideologies are not the way to decide social, economic, and diplomatic issues. Rather, this moderate examines the specific situation, examines the political views, and adopts the position that has the most weight of reason behind it. I will refer to the adopter of this position as a rational moderate.

The first view of being a moderate, the political centrist view, is fallacious. It succumbs to what is known as the "fallacy of the mean". Stated simply: just because a presented conclusion is in the middle of two extremes does not make it the correct conclusion.

For example, the seemingly never ending debate between teaching intelligent design and evolution in public school science classes across the country can be seen as two extreme positions. On the one extreme are the creationists, gussied up in the smarter clothes of intelligent design, arguing that evolutionary theory is incorrect. On the other extreme are Darwinists who think that intelligent design is pseduo-science at best and religious propaganda in public schools at worst. The centrist position would adopt a compromise view, such as either teaching both extremes, "teaching the controversy", or allowing some formal announcement deriding evolution as "just a theory" by administrators or stickers in textbooks. The problem with the centrist view in this situation is that it is wrong. The weight of the evidence that gives us the fact of natural selection based on biological research as well as the explanatory and predictive power of evolutionary theory coupled with the weight of reason that shows us that science should be taught in science classes and religion should be kept out makes the centrist conclusion the wrong conclusion. It doesn't help the centrist that every claim that intelligent design proponents make has been thoroughly dismissed and debunked by the scientific community. (Just Google "Project Steve" to see what I mean.)

The rational moderate would look at this and be swayed by the weight of logic and evidence on one side over the other. Some might argue that this shows a an inherent bias that a rational moderate is attempting to hide. Like our romanticized ideal of journalism, a true moderate should keep an open mind and remain impartial to both sides. Truth, however, is biased. Some positions are objectively better than others. And so rather than pull out our college football pennants with "Republican" or "Democrat" printed in large block letters and wave them wildly in the air for the current political speech regardless of the content of the message but simply because they're on our team, the rational moderate actually listens to what the speaker is saying and makes a rational choice based on logic and evidence.

The country could use a lot more of them. And the ones that are here should be really, really angry.

The Rational Moderate

The Passing of the last of the "Big Three"

2008-03-20T18:59:00.003-04:00

A second post by our guest blogger, ARC.

The Passing of the last of the “Big Three”

I was saddened the other day when I learned of the death of Arthur C. Clarke. He is one of five science fiction authors who helped shape my worldview, and one third of the triumvirate (that included Isaac Asimov and Robert Heinlein) that presided over science fiction for more than half a century. By far he was not the most prolific; he did not delve the most deeply into controversy or sociology. In fact he represented the middle road, the centrist position among the five. And now in his passing he remains the middle man, not the first to go, and not the last. Here, for those who may be so inclined, are the five authors with reading recommendations:

Robert Heinlein (1907-1988) – “Stranger in a Strange Land”; “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”; “Starship Troopers” (read it, skip the movie)

Isaac Asimov (1920-1992) – “Caves of Steel”; “Foundation”; “I, Robot”

Arthur C. Clarke (1917-2008) – “Childhood’s End”; “2001: A Space Odyssey”; “The Fountains of Paradise”

Ray Bradbury (1920- ) – “The Martian Chronicles”; “Fahrenheit 451”

Ursula K. Le Guin** (1929- ) - “The Dispossessed”; “The Lathe of Heaven”

** Ms. Le Guin is the daughter of the man who is arguably the founder of American Anthropology Alfred L. Kroeber – another good source for reading.

I think being a centrist or a moderate requires balancing the present and the future; people and resources; science and society. The list goes on, but the point is simple. We are not people of bumper sticker slogans; we are people who understand that when the explanation is complicated it is because the thing being discussed is likely complicated. Most important, I want to believe, we are people of the future. We represent the consistently constructive part of society. These authors showed me that path. With the passing of each I feel the heavier burden of keeping the faith with what they helped teach me.

ARC

Roads for the Rich

2008-03-20T18:55:00.002-04:00

This post is by a guest blogger today. Enjoy.

I am a moderate – always have been, always will be. That often is not a good thing to be in the American discourse on politics. No matter what you say as a moderate you are likely to be branded by one side or the other if not both. This disposition is probably a consequence of being a real GenXer – by “real” I mean the generation that was labeled X in the late 80s not because we were extreme but because we were lost between the demographic bubbles of Baby Boomers and the Children of Baby Boomers, we had no public face, no representation.

Back in the 80s and 90s I favored the caution and fiscal restraint of Republican rhetoric (and even the military spending that contradicted the concept of fiscal restraint) over the more unrestrained domestically focused isolationist direction of the Democrats. As a consequence I know I disappointed many friends and family. Now they are shocked, having previously branded me as “Alex Keaton”, that I am more often (though not always) in the Democrat camp on issues of foreign affairs and civil liberties.

Now along comes an issue that makes me wonder if the world (or at least the US) is finally being affected by all those pharmaceutical traces in the drinking water. One that will probably get me labeled a Trotskyite.

First there was the addition of special security lines, manned by TSA personnel, for people flying first class. Being rich means you are not subject to the same inconveniences for security the rest of us must face, obviously. So, paying for those extra TSA people out of tax money to service an elite minority is perfectly reasonable.

Then comes a recent report (“Letting the Market Drive Transportation”, Washington Post, 17 March 2008) indicating that the Department of Transportation, lacking specific legislative guidance to do anything with $1 billion in discretionary funds, has decided to “experiment” in 5 major municipalities by charging tolls during peak traffic hours to ease traffic congestion. I imagine this will be in the form of some decal you will need to purchase on a periodic basis.

Now I am all for reducing emissions, easing commute times, improving quality of life, etc. But instead of funding things that might actually work like a gas guzzler tax (smaller cars on the road is the same as increasing available road miles), new mass transit systems, or even something as radical as banning commuter traffic from 7 pm to 7 am and banning commercial traffic from 7am to 7pm (why not try a different approach in each place and see which has the most positive impact), they (the DoT) choose to tax the working man and woman at a time of spiking fuel prices and an impending (some would say already underway) recession!

The Wall Street Journal should have called the article “Roads for the Rich.”

-ARC (A Radical Centrist)

Ready on Day One?

2008-03-09T21:21:00.003-04:00

The video may need to be setup a bit for all you non-political junkies out there.

Picture it, the White House, 1999. Bill Clinton is President, Hillary Clinton is the First Lady, and Wesley Clark is Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. The United States through NATO decides to start a bombing campaign to force the Serbs from Kosovo. The White House phone rings in the middle of the night. A decision needs to be made...

Sorority Girls

2008-02-23T15:25:00.002-05:00

This post is by guest blogger, Mrs. Angry Moderate:

I have been pondering what it is about Hillary Clinton that annoys some but not all people, but particularly men. Here goes--she is not a tough broad. Who is a tough broad? I got to thinking about Margaret Thatcher. I can imagine the Iron Lady sitting down and having a scotch straight up with Winston Churchill and holding her own with the guy. She was tough but in a tough broad kind of way. Who are other tough broads? Katherine Hepburn. Barbara Stanwyck. Betty Davis to name a few actresses. Ann Richards was a tough broad. The Prime Minister of New Zealand, Helen Clark, is a mountain climber. I think that definitely qualifies her as a tough broad. The Queen of England is a tough broad. I don't think there is any doubt about that. Sandar Day O'Connor is a tough broad. Think of the school teacher who could dismiss you with a flick of the wrist. I had a few. My guess is that Nancy Pelosi is one behind that smile. I bet she can rule with an iron fist. These are women who you just do not want to mess with. Being a tough broad is part genetic, part environmental, but however it is arrived at, you can sense it immediately. You can see it in their dress, in their demeanor. They like hanging around men and men like hanging around with them. They are tom boys perhaps, and they have more manly traits than womanly traits. They can wear a dress or a suit all right, but you can just see the steeliness in the eyes, the "don't bother me with nonsense and get on with it" attitude. They have no patience for chit chat. They mean business.

Hillary says she is tough but her toughness is not in a tough broad kind of way. I simply cannot see Hillary Clinton having a scotch, let alone one with Churchill where they shoot the breeze and maybe smoke cigars. She has many more womanly traits. She went to Wellesley, an all girls school. She likes to hang around with women. I imagine her as being way more into having tea parties with her sorority sisters than say, joining a softball league. Her idea of being tough is by relying on cliques to surround her and pulling out the claws when necessary. That is so like a girl. When I hear her idea of being tough I feel like I am in the school yard at recess. Am not. Are too! Am not. Are too! You can imagine that if she ran for class president her idea of winning was to spread rumors about her opposition. If I had to name women in power who are the Hillary type of woman, I would nominate Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. She is smart but she is no Sandra Day O'Connor. Another might be Barbara Boxer from California. I like her, she seems to be fun and smart and I agree with her about a lot of things, but I don't see her as a tough broad.

There is no way out of this for Hillary. She is what she is and all of her declarations of toughness will not make her Margaret Thatcher. That is why I say, we need a woman to be President, just not her. I like Susan Collins of Maine myself. She seems sensible and tough. Some of these women Governors may be up and coming. The lady from Arizona, Janet Napolitano, is pretty cool. We need to let them get battle tested and ready to go. They are out there. Let's hope they bubble to the top and succeed. But whoever it is, I think there can be no doubt, to be considered electable by most men and some women, the first woman President will have to be a real tough broad.

And where is Martha Stewart and Oprah Winfrey in this assessment? I actually peg them both as tough broads. Oprah is a little more touchy feely but my guess is that she has it in her to be steely. Martha is definitely a tough broad. She might be a home maven but I would not want to mess with her. As for chatting with the ladies, Martha could never do that. I don't see it unless she is chatting about stock options and how to make more money.

Over Stimulated

2008-02-11T22:10:00.000-05:00

Last week, the Senate basically passed the stimulus package the was crafted by the White House and the House of Representatives. Interestingly, nothing brings our two parties together like giving away free money in an election year.

I find myself agreeing with Mike Huckabee's take on this. He was the only candidate running for president, with the possible exception of Ron Paul (I can't remember), that came out against the stimulus package. He stated in the debate before the Florida Primary;

"One of the concerns that I have is that we'll probably end up borrowing this $150 billion dollars from the Chinese. And when we get those rebate checks, most people will go out and buy stuff that's been imported from China. I have to wonder who's economy is going to be stimulated the most by the package."

He went on to argue that the money would be better spent by adding 2 lanes to I-95 from Maine to Florida, which would have a better impact on the economy. [On a totally separate note, he noted that 1/3 of the total US population lives within 100 miles of I-95, which I did not know.]

If you think about it, it makes sense. Government should spend money in an economic downturn and what better way than infrastructure projects such as roads, bridges, etc. It's when the economy is good that government should spend less. It's clear that both parties forget that part. I don't think this generation of Republicans will be able to run as the party of fiscal prudence after the last 6 years of their running Congress. The Democrats are no better, albeit they are more transparent in their earmarks. I won't get started on earmarks. That will be a separate blog.

Looking back at infrastructure projects versus giving people money and hoping they will spend it. It just seems clear to me that Huckabee was right. Which has the greater impact. By doing infrastructure projects, we take care of legitimate needs that need to be done by the government. Some of the water systems and sewer systems in this country are over 100 years old. Roads are inadequate in many (most) metropolitan cities. Bridges are old need to be inspected and replaced. On top of that, it would create jobs. Construction workers who are out of work because of a housing downturn, go build roads. Seem obvious.

On the other hand, giving out money accomplishes exactly what Huckabee says it will. People will go by crap made in China. You really don't have much choice. Most everything is made overseas, a lot of it from China. I actually heard some government official saying that there was a fear that people would get the money from the stimulus package and pay down debt and save it instead of spend it. Good lord, how awful!! There is something fundamentally wrong with our economy when the government is worried that we will save our money or try to pay off debt. Isn't that why China is buying up our debt to begin with because we don't save?

Maybe I am missing something obvious, but I think a little common sense goes a long way and there is a dearth of that in both parties.

Don't Look Back

2008-02-10T15:56:00.000-05:00

As I have watched a couple of the debates for both the Republican and Democratic primaries, one thing that has struck me is how backward looking both parties are. The Republicans try their hardest to be the one who emulates all the qualities of Ronald Reagan, while the Hillary supporters on the Democratic side want to restore the Clinton years. I find this a little sad in both regards. It's not that I'm not in favor of learning from history. History was one of my favorite subjects in school. Also, if there was ever a time to look back at history (particularly recent history) and learn over arching lessons, this would be it. Still, I can't help but be moved by the candidates who represent a break from the past.

If you look at both people who are being revered, if not outright worshiped, you can't help but notice that they both broke from their parties past to create something new for themselves. Now I am not going to pass judgment on either Reagan or Clinton, but the one thing they have in common is moving their parties in a different direction and create a new dynamic. Reagan, ran several times for the Republican nomination before winning the presidency in 1980. Each time, he ran into the establishment of the party. I'll use the term Rockefeller Republicans, even though it probably over simplifies it. Reagan created a new coalition of economic conservatives and social conservatives that created a core group of voters that was very difficult to defeat. By appealing to both types of voters, he managed to attract many middle of the road voters, Reagan Democrats, as an example. Bill Clinton did something similar when he ran in 1992. He established himself as a member of the DLC, a movement created by the conservative, mostly southern wing of the Democratic party. He had to break from the old establishment of the Great Society and New Deal Republicans that had served as the bedrock of the Democratic party for over 50 years. By running as a fiscally conservative, socially liberal Democrat, he was able to reach back to the people who had abandoned the Democratic party. Now, we can argue the finer points of the background and who was more successful, but I think both presidents owe their fortunes to breaking with the past.

Now, fast forward to today's election. The Republicans are all trying to be Reagan, going so far to even hold one of the debates at the Reagan Library. I was waiting for someone to pull out a ouija board and consult him directly. It seems clear to me that none of the remaining candidates, McCain, Huckabee, and Ron Paul are him. Ron Paul represents the Libertarian wing of the party, Huckabee is socially conservative and fiscally moderate, and McCain has spent his career poking people in his own party in the eye when they didn't agree with him. The reality is that Reagan wouldn't have even passed this test. Former governor of socially liberal state who had signed the most liberal abortion law in the history of California. You can hear them raking him over the coals now. It's time for the Republicans to move toward the future. Make your own mark. Transformational figures like Reagan come once every 50 years.

The Democrats have a similar problem with their one candidate. Hillary Clinton is counting on people looking back to her husband's term and her supporters do so enthusiastically. Her whole campaign is based partly on her "record" as first lady. Obama is the one person in this race that represents a look to the future. That was then, this is now.

Perhaps it is natural for both parties to want to look to the past, but I do not think it is healthy. Time to write our own story.

Attack Politics

2008-01-22T18:04:00.000-05:00

I was watching the news the other day and two items struck me as something that I wanted to blog about. The first one was how John McCain had to hire an entire phone bank to refute malicious charges that were being put out there by mail, robo-dialing (a measure in which a machine randomly calls phone numbers in an area and then plays a recorded message, should the call be answered). The second story was about Bill Clinton's role in Hillary's campaign. I find both of these items connected.

Now let's look at this closely. Here we have a man, who is a decorated war veteran, a former POW, and someone that has served 22 years in the Senate. This man runs for president and has to devote thousands of dollars toward defending himself from spurious accusations being made by some "third-party" supporter of one of his opponents. This is all taking place in South Carolina, which if you recall from the 2000 campaign ran pretty much the same way. Someone who supported George W. Bush had a campaign to call people and suggest that John McCain's daughter, who was adopted from Bangladesh, was actually John's from an interracial adulterous affair. It was appalling...and it worked. Bush trounced McCain. So this time around, McCain was not taking any chances and hired a anti-hit squad. I'm pretty jaded and cynical, but I find this beyond the pale. What is wrong with South Carolina? Or is this indicative of our system of smear and burn? I just want to in the end pick the best candidate.

It has apparently become the Clinton strategy to deploy Bill as the attack dog. Bill Clinton has been vigorously attacking Barack Obama on the campaign trail. He is distorting what Obama says and his positions. I personally find this offensive. I think it is unseemly for a former president to be running around the country campaigning in this manner. It cheapens the dignity of the office and lessens his own legacy. You can see it in his face that Bill Clinton is angry that Obama is standing in the way of Hillary. I personally don't like it when people think they are entitled to something they have not earned. Bill Clinton thinks his wife is entitled to the presidency because it was apart of their lives' plan. It is not right.

On a side note, Fred Thompson dropped out of the race today, but couldn't be bothered to endorse anyone. I'm going to miss him. He is truly a scion of the ambivalent. I raise my glass to you sir. Well, metaphorically, I don't really want to make the effort...

Redefining the Election

2008-01-04T15:55:00.000-05:00

Now that the first Caucus and the first Primary in the nation is finished, what does it tell us? (I mean, beside the fact that we really shouldn't have to worry about elections before the holidays...sigh.) Here are some random thoughts on how things are shaping up in the two parties, third party restlessness, and general political mood.

Democrats:

Barack Obama -

OK, he proves he can win, albeit in Iowa. It does show that his message at least resonates in a primarily white rural state. Now some, mainly the Clinton campaign and their supporters, have challenged that he really doesn't have a message except that people should have hope. I disagree. I think that a message of uniting the country's divide between red states and blue states is very compelling, particularly to independents and people that are just sick of the rancor. I certainly count myself among those ranks. It used to be, in modern times (20th Century) that partisan ideology was healthy. If you had Republicans (who used to stand for fiscal responsibility and small government) come together with Democrats (who used to believe in ways to have government help people), you found that with a little compromise, you could come up with legislation that actually got passed and might have even worked. Somewhere along the way, the word compromise, began to mean surrender as the ideologues from left and right began to take control of their respective parties. The reality is the Senate cannot function without this arrangement because you need 60 votes to get anything passed. It is my belief that this is why so little gets done in Congress and why the public is so deeply unhappy with their lack of action on any issue. It is no accident that Independent or Decline is the fastest growing party registration in the Country. I think Obama speaks directly to that group and the group of Democrats that want to see the country move on.

Hillary Clinton -

Hillary Clinton manages a big comeback and ends up winning New Hampshire. Now all the pundits are asking why. Why were the polls wrong? Why was the coverage wrong? Why were the pundits off the mark? Much was made about her getting choked up in the diner when "someone" asked her how she goes on. Was it staged? I'm cynical enough to think it was, but it is ultimately unimportant. People will not remember that scene in another couple of weeks. In election years, people have even shorter attention spans than normal. Mostly because the Media has beaten it out of us. What was I talking about again...? Oh yes, Hillary. I must say, I am mystified. I cannot understand her appeal. She claims to have experience. What experience would that be? She's served about a term and a half in the Senate, which is nice, but hardly overwhelming. And before that? Well, she tried to reform healthcare, which was a disaster, she was a successful attorney. OK, fine. She was First Lady of Arkansas for 12 years and First Lady of the US for 8 years. Um...OK, is she claiming that as experience? I don't think that counts. I've been married to my wife for almost 13 years and I am not experienced in what she does for a living. I know the highlights of the issues we've discussed, but that does not give me experience. Some people counter that with Hillary, you get 2 for the price of 1. Well, how extra-constitutional. Shhh, I think I hear George Washington rolling over in his grave. So, a vote for Hillary, not only gets me one president, but also a former president, who by law cannot serve again, to come back as well. No thanks. We're not some kind of banana republic! Why is this even under consideration? I have read a lot about the Founding Fathers and the War for Independence recently. While I am no expert, I think I can safely say that the Founders would be appalled by the idea. In fact, I'm pretty sure if someone asked them "What country will have been ruled by 2 families for potentially two and a half decades?", they would probably respond, "Um...England?" This and the fact that I simply cannot live through another 4-8 years of the Republicans frothing at the mouth. It would mean the country would not move forward and I simply cannot abide that.

The latest is now Hillary was being questioned by some in the media about her comments regarding Obama and his message of hope. She spoke about how Martin Luther King, Jr. had hope, but it took the power of the presidency in LBJ to actually pass the Civil Rights Act. Now she is complaining that the Obama campaign is making a big deal about this. From everything I have seen and read, it is not Obama that was bringing it up, but the Media. Now just so I understand this, Hillary seems to be saying that it's not enough to be like MLK and inspire people to demonstrate and stand up for themselves. In short, a message of hope for a nation deeply divided by racial tensions. No, it took a white guy to come ride to the rescue, as president, to actually get something done. I can't imagine why people took offense at that. Then other's in the Clinton campaign have made snide allusions to Obama's admitted drug use in his youth. I have read what Obama has said on this issue. He said he wanted people to know about this part of his past, particularly youth. His message is, that if you make a mistake in life, you can still turn your life around and accomplish something. Life is not one strike and your out. Well, that's just a terrible message... I am embarrassed by the Clintonites making this an issue in a derisive way. I am particularly angry to see someone like Bob Johnson make snide references to it. Let's see; what is is Bob Johnson's great contribution to the African American community. Oh yeah, it's a television channel that plays mostly music videos featuring scantily clad dressed women. You're a great example Bob. Now I've been told that the Clintons have done a lot throughout their careers to help further the African American community. If that is true, and I will take it on their word that it is, then they are in danger of squandering all the good they have done by engaging in gutter politics to try and bring Obama down. It's shameful.

I simply will not vote for her, if she is the nominee. Are you listening Democrats?

John Edwards -

Why is he still in the race? Didn't he have to win Iowa? Wasn't that his strategy? Psst, John, you didn't win. Now please bow out graciously.

The rest -

Let's see the 3 candidates that have actual experience - Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, and Chris Dodd have dropped out. I guess that blows the notion that experience counts. I think Biden or Richardson would have been fine. If I had to listen to Chris Dodd talk for 4 years, I might go mad. He bores me to tears.

I think Dennis Kusinich and Mike Gravel are still in the race, but it's not clear why. I have mixed feelings on that. I think on one hand that at this point they are up against Quixotic odds of going anywhere and on the other hand, it is really not good that the Media has anointed 3 people as this horse race. Nobody can be heard above the din. It's not really a good thing. It keeps people out of getting their message across. But, we are where we are and these gentlemen need to give it up.

Republicans:

Mike Huckabee -

Well, well. He wins Iowa and the Wall Street crowd goes into a panic. This is a guy who came to Iowa with no money and no organization and beat Mit Romney by 10 points. Wow! Now, what's so horrible about Mike Huckabee. Well, he has the audacity to have raised taxes as governor of Arkansas. Now what did he do to waste the taxpayers money? Why it was a reckless spending program of roads and schools. Also, Huckabee has the crazy notion that some government programs might be able to help people, if their run effectively. Heavens to betsy...run for your life. Guess what folks, roads cost money. We don't live in a Communist society where we can compel people to build the infrastructure for the good of the motherland. When did proponents of smaller efficient government turn into anarchists?

Of course, Mike Huckabee is right there on social issues; hates abortion, thinks gays should stay in the closet, thinks we live in a Christian nation, yada, yada, yada. Now he's being accused of destroying the Republican coalition of fiscal conservatives (where were you hiding from 2001-2006?), social/relgious conservatives, and libertarians (kept neatly in a lock box until they need them). It seemed like a pretty weird coalition to begin with, but who am I to say. The bottom line is, even though I may disagree with most of what Mike Huckabee stands for on social issues, [The Angry Moderate's takes a fairly libertarian stand there] there are many things he says that makes sense. I'll give you an example. Voter ID laws. Conservatives love them, Liberals hate them, and the Supreme Court is looking at them right now. Now Liberals will argue that Voter ID laws, which require a voter to show state issued picture identification before your vote will be counted in an election, does nothing but intimidate and suppress the vote among poor, elderly, and minority voters. Conservatives argue that states need these laws to combat rampant voter fraud. Now, surprise surprise, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The fact is that rampant voter fraud is a myth. Sure, some fraud happens, but it is extremely rare and is usually done with absentee ballots, not with voting in person. Second, is it unreasonable to ask for identification to a voter? Probably not. Mike Huckabee's solution to this was to have voters have their picture taken, right when they register to vote. Just like the DMV. In fact you could do it at the DMV. Sure, not everybody drives, but you can still get a state issued ID that is not a driver's license. Huckabee's solution seems eminently reasonable. The other thing is, he's just a nice guy. I've seen a couple different interviews with him on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report and he always comes off as a likeable guy. Don't underestimate that appeal with voters. People want someone they can relate with in the Oval Office. This guy has that.

John McCain -

New Hampshire seems to have saved his bacon. Once again, New Hampshire has given McCain's all but left for dead campaign a new boost. I think it just goes to show how fluid the Republican side is. Nobody is totally happy with any of the candidates. John McCain has angered a lot of Republicans a long his career with the stands he has taken. Particularly with the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill, which is anathema to the Republicans. My theory is it is anathema to all establishment people left or right, which probably makes it great legislation. Not a week goes by where George Will isn't railing against McCain on this issue. Move on George, you're boring me. The bottom line is that McCain appeals to a lot of people because he is independent on his decisions even when they aren't popular, but not in a George W. Bush kind of way. I think people have had it with that. McCain taps into a lot of independents and people who value his strong military support. If McCain wins Michigan, it will be a 2 man race between him and Huckabee.

Mitt Romney -

See John Edwards. OK, I guess he can conceivably win Michigan and have a lease on his campaign. Like Hillary, I fail to see the appeal. He seems like a used car salesman. A flip-flopping Massachusetts politician. How can that go badly? On a side note, someone asked Romney, who touts his executive experience early and often, what he would think about someone in business that spent $300K and another person that spent $30 million and achieved the same result. Great point.

Ron Paul -

I like Ron Paul. I can't help myself. I'm not a libertarian or anything, but you have to respect someone that says what they believe and stands up for it, no matter what. I think he's a real dark horse that could hang around a long time in this race asking the other candidates questions they don't want to hear. I love it. Go Ron!

Rudy Guliani -

I can't really understand his strategy. Forget about all the early contests and wait for Florida. OK, I know they have a lot of delegates, but everyone will have forgotten he's in the race. Well, it's your bed. As for Rudy, he would normally be the Angry Moderate's kind of candidate, except for the fact that he frightens me. I just don't trust him. He has a lot of shady characters associated with him and his foreign policy doesn't bring me comfort. I actually saw Norman Podhoretz, who is Rudy Guliani's senior foreign policy advisor, on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer debating Fareed Zakaria, who is the Editor of Newsweek International, on action against Iran. It was pretty scary. Podhoretz was arguing for immediate strikes on Iran (this was about 4-months ago). That was frightening enough until he started arguing that Reagan was soft on Communism. Yes, that pinko Reagan, soft on communism. What madness. The guy was a complete lunatic. You could see the look of exasperation on Zakaria's face. It was really something.

Fred Thompson -

Why is this man running for president? He barely seems interested. Some pundit on the news was saying that he decided to sit out the New Hampshire primary. Wow...couldn't be bothered to show up, huh? This man is fast becoming my hero. I'll get to it later; what's the rush? I will say that I was disappointed in his showing at the Republican debate in South Carolina. He actually seemed like he wanted to win. Too bad, I think he had a real shot at the apathetic vote. Not that they would've shown up.

Duncan Hunter -

There was a story where John McCain's 2 campaign buses, followed by 2 press buses were cruising down a New Hampshire street when they passed Duncan Hunter and his one aid waving to cars passing by. Mr. Hunter, please take what's left of your dignity and go home. Thanks.

Michigan Primary is 1/15 for the Republicans and South Carolina is 1/19. That will hopefully make things a little clearer on the Republican side. For the Democrats, Michigan got stripped of their delegates, so it doesn't count. The South Carolina primary for them is 1/26 and Nevada is 1/19. Does that make sense? Why would a state elect to hold a primary on 2 different days?

The Independents -

Moderates from both parties gathered on January 7th at the University of OK to discuss (lament) the current state of politics. A lot of the big names were there; Chuck Hagel, Sam Nunn, William Cohen, Bob Graham, John Danforth, among others. Of course the 800 lb. gorilla in the room was Mike Bloomberg, the current mayor of NY, who is considering a third party run for the presidency. This meeting wasn't about Bloomberg. It was about the need for a bridge between the red/blue gulf in the country.

Their goal was to get both parties to pledge that they would appoint a bipartisan cabinet, no matter which party won the presidency. This follows closely to movements like Unity08.com that wants to nominate over the internet a person from each party to run together as a third party ticket. I think that both of these groups represent an undercurrent flowing through the populous. There is a huge desire to move past the stagnating partisan politics that both parties can't seem to find their way out of.

Now as important as I think moving past the partisan rancor is, I ultimately do not think that these efforts will be successful. I personally think that we need to break the 2 party system, once and for all. And I don't mean, let's replace one party with another, like in past times. We need more options than just 2. It would be good for America and good for the existing two parties. The more competition, the more the Democrats and Republicans would be unable to play only to their bases. So, what do we have to do to break the 2-party system? My first proposal in this; I would abolish the Electoral College. The Electoral College was dreamed up because the Founders were unsure how the elections were going to go. Would they be able to trust the people? They weren't sure, so they hedged their bets and came up with the Electoral College. The system is designed to dilute the areas of the Country where the most people live; i.e. cities and more populous states. It has had the effect of keeping the 2-party system in place. You need to get 270 to win the presidency. If you have a third party that actually siphons off some electoral college votes, then what? Let's say for example that Mike Bloomberg runs and wins NY. That could mean that up to 31 electoral college votes could be off the table. Would the election be sent up to the House of Representatives to settle who wins the election? Would anybody really want that?

The parties have worked in concert with each other in modern times to keep 3rd party candidates out. They work to keep them off of ballots, out of debates, and out of the picture. To me, that is undemocratic. We need to have a credible third party. (I could be talked into more) I would like to see a Centrist party to represent the middle. Bring back the Whigs! I don't think it's good enough to have a bipartisan ticket or cabinet, though I would welcome the opportunity to be proven wrong. There have been examples in the past where bipartisan cabinets worked well - Lincoln's "Team of Rivals" to quote Dorris Kearns Goodwin's book and examples where it didn't work - the first cabinet, Washington's where Jefferson worked to undermine him at every turn. I think that the ultimate solution is to break the duopoly and get more choice. More choice is healthy.

Discuss...

TOPIC NUMBER ONE - OPEN LETTER TO ALL DEMOCRATS

2007-12-04T22:22:00.001-05:00

OK, I’ll admit it. It is December of 2007 and I’m already sick of the ’08 elections. With the Writer’s strike, not having the Daily Show, Colbert, or Bill Maher means that it’s all news and no jokes. If this strike isn’t settled soon, I may go mad.

So down to business...

An open letter to all Democrats,

I will not vote for Hillary Clinton. I’m very sorry, but I just will not vote for her. Don’t get me wrong, I am not a Bill Clinton basher. Thought he was a fine president. It’s time to move on though. Time for a change. I don’t want to see anymore presidents named Clinton or Bush. The Country needs to look ahead, not to the past.

I say this because, as an independent, I don’t think I’m alone in this. If you nominate this person, you will blow your best shot at the White House in years. Stop thinking she is the most qualified. She isn’t. Being first lady doesn’t count. I don’t have experience in my wife’s profession even though we’ve been married over 12 years. It just doesn’t count. If you want the most qualified person, it’s probably Joe Biden, but nobody pays him any attention.

Now don’t get me wrong. I am not piling on Hillary just to pile on. I think there are a lot of people out there that just hate her for little to no reason. I am not one of them. I don’t hate her; I just don’t want her to be president. If you want to attract independents, pick someone else.

Sincerely,

The Angry Moderate