Faith + Reason = Truth

Commit, or Keep Your Options Open? The Question of Immigration

A recent Catholic Stuff You Should Know podcast (I believe it was this one, but they are all worth listening to!) referenced the importance of the bond of marriage, the ultimate commitment of one's life to another. They beautifully express the benefits of such a commitment, in the face of the obvious "downsides" that many young people focus on. Only when one fully commits to something can he or she realize the fruits of its full development. Not until you walk through a door, by definition eliminating the other doors as options, can you experience the exhilaration, joy, and sometimes scariness of whatever awaits on the other side.

The U.S. immigration issue has been suddenly thrust into the limelight. It is not a new problem, but the manner in which we treat existing immigrants seems poised to fundamentally change. It is a matter of one person, President Obama, committing to a course of action and thereby forcing others to react, rather than keeping his options open. Robert Rubin would be appalled, which brings us to the subject at hand.

Important people, or at least people in positions of power and/or authority, often beget proteges. For better or for worse, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg (an extremely powerful and influential woman in her own right) was heavily influenced by her former boss Larry Summers, who was in turn influenced by former Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin.

Here is what Summers had to say about Rubin in a 1998 New York Times article:

“What so many people have a tendency to do is to lock into a scenario,” Summers says. “What Rubin will say, at times to the frustration of others, is that some questions don’t have answers – which is to say that just because a problem is terrible, we don’t have to act. It may not be the right time.”

Rubin believes that if you wait long enough, a better option will present itself. Perhaps many young men and women who are currently in relationships with the loves of their lives have the same thought in mind. Rubin did wait, in the example in the article, for a third option to the problem he faced, and he then acted on that third option. After which point, the crisis resolved.

To him, and to Summers, and to Sandberg, the lesson was and is, "wait, you don't have to act." But to me, the lesson is, "you must act if the situation is one that will not simply resolve itself; after all, the crisis was not averted until he acted, and there is no way to know that the course he eventually took was any better or worse than the others which were also available to him, while the problem continued to worsen until he acted."

It should be obvious that rushing blindly, headlong, uninformed, into a course of action is never advisable. To the contrary:  make every effort to inform yourself of the causes of the problem and the available options to deal with it.  Then, exert equal or greater effort on improvising possible alternatives. But recognize that waiting indefinitely, month after month, year after year, to resolve a purely political impasse that has real human consequences every day for millions of people is not a reasonable option.

President Obama, for all of his deplorable and despicable abortion support and dishonesty with the American people in regards to getting the Affordable Care Act passed in the manner in which it was, not to mention his co-leading role in the partisan chasm that has opened between the Executive and Legislative branches, has acted to force Congress to deal with the issue of how to treat the millions of illegal immigrants in America. Again, the manner in which he has done so is suspect. In this case, however, it does not appear that "waiting for another option" is viable, at least not when the lives of all of the families of these immigrants are at stake. To his credit, whether one agrees with him or not, he is a President that commits (and as a result, keeps no other options open). Sometimes, that is what is required. I believe this is one of those moments.

100 Years From Now

What will people look back on as obvious, universal truths in one hundred years that are currently divisive debate fodder?  Two things come to mind:  first, that abortion is barbaric; second, that ObamaCare, aka The Affordable Care Act, was necessary, despite the ugly, "un-American" way that it was enacted.

As a compassionate Republican (or conservative Democrat, even though I've only ever voted for Republicans; these party definitions are truly no longer useful for most thinking, reasonable Americans), there is a conflict between what I believe and what my political options are.  The pro-life Catholic that I am has no choice but to support Republicans, while the pro-humanitarian looking out for my fellow people and earth might gravitate to programs championed by Democrats.  The desire for small government, coupled with strong protection of the American way of life requires my weight to be thrown behind the Republicans, while the environmental, anti-big oil and anti-fracking citizen of the world can only, realistically, root for the Democrats.  Where will things stand in the year 2115 though?

Reading my 8th grade son's paper on the "barrier-crossing" topic of the 13th Amendment, I was struck by the simplicity of its one main, glorious sentence, a sentence which changed the course of an enslaved race, a whole nation, and the entire world:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

That is all there is to Section 1 of the 13th Amendment.  There is a Section 2, which simply states, "Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."  That's it.  Those two sentences comprise the entirety of the addition the Constitution of the United States to end the institution of slavery here.

Does that seem at all controversial, barrier-breaking, or otherwise worthy of the United States tearing itself apart over for four years?  Not in the least.  But I was once again moved by my son's words, where he stated all points of view admirably.  The enslaved were now free, with all that freedom entails.  Freedom to live, to move, to work, to get an education, to have and to raise a family as they so choose.  Another perspective was that of the liberators, the people with the power to fight on behalf of the powerless to right a grave wrong.  The third point of view was one that I have never really considered:  the people who came into a world, into a way of life, with laws and rules and customs, who proceeded to do the best they could with their lives under those rules, and who then found themselves facing an alien threat to "steal" or otherwise forcibly remove that which they had worked for.  These were people who did not consider slaves as fully human.  Just as you and I are free to purchase a pet or work animal and sell off the offspring with the expectation that no one is allowed to come and open up the barn or the gate and set all of our belongings free, slave owners operated and existed without regard for human freedom as it pertained to their "property."  They, if not rightfully, then certainly expectedly, fought anyone who tried to steal from them that which they had lawfully and at great economic cost to themselves acquired.

Which brings us to the present day "controversies" of legal abortion and affordable health care being made available to all Americans.  When I told my son that his paper had made me think, and that I could see parallels in the modern debate about ObamaCare, with we Republicans claiming that "they can't make us hard-working, successful people pay for other, poor people's stuff!" I followed it up with this:  when I look at it through another lens, that of one who thinks, "all people in America, the greatest nation in the history of the world, really should have affordable health care, even if it costs the haves more than the havenots, and to think otherwise kind of seems a little stingy, what do you think?"  He did not even take a second to think about it before replying, "well, YEAH.  It DOES sound stingy.  It is, isn't it?"  It is indeed.

I won't go into abortion here (you can see some of my other writings in this blog on that topic; it's no secret where I stand and how I feel).  I can only say, with great hope and near certainty, that one day people will look back on what we do to unborn babies with disgust, shame, and horror, wondering to themselves, "how did half of America in the year 2015 STILL think that was ok?  Are you KIDDING me?!?"  How did half of America in the year 1861 STILL think slavery was ok?  Are you KIDDING me?!?

 

 

Obama Isn't The Only Reason We Have Hope

Where would this nation be if either Al Gore or John Kerry had offered the kind of healing, unity-building concession that was proffered by John McCain last night?  I can't answer that, but I can say that it would be a better place than it is right now.  Divisiveness takes two, and no losing candidate has been as divisive, outwardly bitter, and harmful to national governance as either Gore or Kerry were.
McCain's honest, heart-felt love for his country first and his party second has started the ball rolling toward the ultimate shared objective of Barack Obama's presidency and the hopeful citizens of a nation and a world.  If only we could have been 8 years further along on this path than we presently are...but we are not, and we will do our best to make up for lost time.  Thanks to the infectious optimism and hopefulness of both John McCain and Barack Obama, we finally have an opportunity to realize the dream that we all share.

Obama's Only Chance

See here for other posts under "Politics" if you're interested in that sort of thing.  The thing that spurred today's post is a poll that has Hillary Clinton with 50% of the approaching Iowa caucus, followed by Barack Obama with just 22%.  I have liked Obama's chances since February or so, and I have actually liked some of what he's said.  He also seems more believable to me than Clinton, although they are both masters of this game and would both probably do whatever they feel necessary to win.  In any case, those poll numbers stunned me, even though it's been a runaway in Iowa for a while now.  After thinking how this could be, it occurred to me that Iowa is just not a state that he would be expected to do well in, which begged the question, "which states COULD he do well in?"  Well, not New York - Clinton should have that locked up.  Florida, I would also think Clinton would have (I'm sticking with the big states here, since they determine the winner).  Texas could go to Obama due to the innate loathing of Clinton that most Texans have.  Illinois is Obama's home state, so I'll give that to him.  The rest of the states, I'm not really up on, so we'll call those a tie for laziness's sake.
Which brings us to California.  California was her solid beachhead, her main source of funding, and it's got ALL of those electoral votes.  Then Obama came along and quickly garnered substantial star power of his own, with Oprah Winfrey being the 800-pound gorilla in his camp (her sway with the entertainment industry, with women, and with African-Americans is simply beyond measure).  She's not the only Hollywood heavy on his side though.  I honestly cannot give California to either Obama or Clinton at this point, and will state for the record that the winner of that primary will be the Democratic candidate for President and likely the next U.S. President.  If I were those candidates, I would be spending at least one day a week between now and the February 5 California primary in the state and rely on my political machine to handle the rest of the numerous states holding primaries on that same day.
As astounding as it may seem, we should know the identity of the next U.S. President by the time we go to bed the night of February 5, 2008, less than 3 months from now and a full 9 months before the election (not to mention almost a year before he/she is inaugurated).  For those who prefer stability and planning, life doesn't get much better than that.

Acceptable Loss of Civil Liberties

A comparison between a little-publicized episode of American private life during WWII and today's atmosphere of distrust and loss of some privacy and possibly civil liberties has been on my mind.  I was reminded of it while reading a line of this blog post  by Mark Cuban about what people can do to serve our armed forces:

"I wonder how future generations will look back at these Post 9/11/2001 years. Will they see us as Enlightened ? Barbaric ? Confused ?"

The WWII episode I refer to is the establishment of forced internment camps for American citizens of Japanese descent after the attack on Pearl Harbor.  "Better safe than sorry" was the approach, and you couldn't be too careful when it came to spies and espionage.  So, in the interest of national security, Americans (Japanese Americans, but still Americans) were rounded up and locked in camps, under armed guard, until as late as 1945.  Here's a snippet from infoplease.com:

"On February 19, 1942, soon after the beginning of World War II, Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066. The evacuation order commenced the round-up of 120,000 Americans of Japanese heritage to one of 10 internment camps—officially called "relocation centers"—in California, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, Colorado, and Arkansas."

Note that this was done through Executive Order, meaning that it took the signature of the President rather than legislature enacted by Congress, to begin this chapter in American history.  What would be the fallout if President Bush ordered this for Americans of Middle Eastern descent, or of Islamic faith?  I shudder at the thought.  But, in Roosevelt's defense, the order was only temporary, with a definite end to the war bringing a definite end to the camps (he actually rescinded the order before the end of the war, however).  With the present state of affairs, there is admittedly no end in sight to the war on terror, and presumably no end in sight to the erosion of civil liberties.

What's the solution?  And was Roosevelt right in issuing that order?  After all, it may well have prevented spying in the U.S. by some of those locked up in camps, and may have therefore played a significant part in our Pacific theater victory (and also in the secrecy of the D-Day invasion at Normandy, since any information obtained by Japanese spies in America would likely have been shared with their German allies).

But at what cost?  At some point, don't democracies have to endure sacrifices for the preservation of their citizens' freedoms at home?  What if internment camps for Muslims, say 120,000 of them for 3-4 years as was the case in WWII for the Japanese Americans, would have prevented the events of 9/11/2001?  Should it have been ordered?  I'm sure millions of people would scream "of course!" at the top of their lungs, and righfully so, if that's what they believe and how they feel.  But with freedom comes risk, danger, and trust in both those that grant and protect the freedoms as well as those who enjoy them.  Once they begin to be taken away, and with no timeline for their promised return, we are no longer enjoying all of the ideals and the promises of our American way of life, are we?

Washington "Outsiders" - Mythical Creatures, or Actual Beings?

Did you ever notice that, in order to fulfill their dreams of governing their fellow Americans from Washington D.C., political candidates do their best to convince the masses that actually having done exactly that is a terrible trait to have as a candidate and that they would never descend to such a level themselves? Not until they are elected, of course. And once elected and having gone through the fire of experience, they tout their incumbent status, along with the assertion that nothing can substitute for on the job experience!  Love them politicians, don't you?

Well, truth be told, I am one of those in favor of candidates who haven't been there, haven't done that. The trick is to find a viable one that really and truly hasn't.  Democrat Obama is running as such an entity, even though he is a United States Senator in Washington D.C.  However, if one pays attention to some of the outlandish things he says and promises to do, it quickly becomes apparent that he really does intend to go about the business of governing in an unorthodox manner.  Is that a good thing, or a bad thing?  It's a little of both.  When reading his assertions and ideas, the first thought that often comes to my mind is "that won't work, because...," after which I proceed to wonder why he doesn't realize that.  But in fact, he MUST realize it, and he is still attempting to change the ways of the world in spite of that realization and in spite of the likelihood of failure.

That is what is commonly referred to as "revolutionary thinking," and it is exactly what people who present themselves as "Washington outsiders" should engage in.  When more "practical" or "experienced" players attack the idea or the stance, fine; that is exactly what experienced people should and will do. And it's exactly why those people will never drive any change to the status quo.  They know that it would likely be a wasted effort to attempt something other than what has always been done.  They know that the senior members won't support it, because the party leadership won't support it, because the lobbyists and money and other influences that truly direct the government won't support it.  Now these ideas may be naive, they may be unrealistic or idealistic - they may even be dangerous.  But that is what the entire apparatus of the 3-branched United States government is in place for, to cull the harmful and implement the useful, provided that individual rights and liberties are not harmed in the process.

I cannot comment on whether or not I would support Obama, because I don't know yet.  I don't know if he'll pull out a crazy platform that I can't get behind, and I don't know if a Republican will trumpet something I care about more deeply.  I believe the War will define the President and not the other way around, so it's not much of a factor for me either way - it will end when it ends, no matter who threatens to end it immediately or prolong it indefinitely.  I do know that I've always voted for Republicans, but that I've also had fires lit by outsiders of all parties, from Bill Clinton of Arkansas to Ross Perot of EDS to George Bush II with his MBA and business ownership experience instead of a law degree and lawmaking/special interest-beholden background.  Bill and George quickly succumbed to the machinery, and perhaps Obama or anyone else would, too.  I know I'll never lose hope though, and the more Obamas or Perots to choose from, the better.

The Post On Petraeus

You will find a short post from me yesterday on the impressive qualifications of the top military man in Iraq, General David Petraeus (he of the Latin nomenclature - I think it's only a matter of days or weeks now before we start referring to the 3rd Infantry Division as the Tenth Legion, but that's another topic of yesterday's post if you're interested).  Coincidentally, Charles Krauthammer has an op-ed column in today's Washington Post (requires a free email address-based registration, which as always pointed out by myself, you ought to already have with the Washington Post anyway) that details the recent success we're having at turning the tribal tide against al-Qaeda.  Yet as Krauthammer points out:  "what cannot be said -- although it is now heard daily in Washington -- is that the surge, which is shorthand for Gen. David Petraeus's new counterinsurgency strategy, has failed. The tragedy is that, just as a working strategy has been found, some Republicans in the Senate have lost heart and want to pull the plug."

I have a cousin who has served in the National Guard, active duty, for 6 years.  I'm in Texas, he's in New York, but did a good deal of training in Texas, so he got to spend some time at Christmas and a few weekends here and there with us a couple of years ago.  I've known him since we were kids in New York (he's several years younger than me), and he's just a great kid who never really had any intention of fighting a war, as he joined well before 9/11.  He was looking for college tuition assistance and real-world skills, so it seemed like a good idea at the time.  In any case, we had a few scares along the way with him possibly needing to go to Iraq or Afghanistan, but his 6 years active was up in April I believe and he never had to go overseas; then we got word a couple of weeks ago that he had been extended and is now on his way to Iraq for a year's tour.  My 19-year old niece, a sophomore in college who's very family-oriented and feels pretty deeply connected to all family, even those that are thousands of miles from here, said "they can't do that!"  To which the only response from older, wiser, sage Uncle Tom (that's me) was "apparently they can."  He shipped out last weekend.  His specialty is explosives ordinance something or other - not a good specialty to have in Iraq.  Not good at all.  Would I give everything to not have him go over there and do what he does?  Of course I would.  I'm selfish that way, as we all are.  And I'm sure parents and wives and siblings and friends felt the same way in World War II and every other war.  But loved ones are not the ones making these decisions, so they must go, and we must hope for the best.  I would like nothing more than this to end, with total victory however it is measured, and be done.  That's not going to happen if we trickle along indefinitely, and it's not going to happen if we just say "we're done" and quit and come home.  If that occurs, we'll be right back over there in a matter of years, starting from scratch.  I happen to think that al-Qaeda's really got not much left in the tank, that they are unwelcome and unwanted, and that they are on the verge of not only defeat but also total collapse and extinction in Iraq, along with their Iranian and Syrian semi-covert backing.  Let's just call their bluff, go all in, finish the job and get everyone home, can't we?

Questioning the Founding Fathers

This might be a stupid question - and don't tell me "there's no such thing as a stupid question" - trust me, there are.  I've heard them.  They exist.  Ok, back to the potential assanine query at hand:  why are there no term limits for members of the United States Congress?  George Washington, great and wise leader that he was, set the precedent by refusing to seek a 3rd 4-year term as President, worrying that it would lead to despotism, abuse of power, and eventually another monarchy the likes of which America had just won its freedom from.  Franklin Roosevelt later ran for and was elected to 4 successive terms, with WWII as his reason for breaking precedent, but after him it was deemed a good thing to have no President serve more than 2 terms.  In more recent times, a relatively young Bill Clinton pondered whether it might sense to have the rule changed to "no more than 2 SUCCESSIVE terms," but the rule remains.  No more than 2 terms, period.

Yet it seems to me that the exact same rationale ought to, nay, does, apply to members serving in each chamber of Congress.  Times change, and so should Congressional representatives.  Incumbency is a much greater advantage to Congressional reps than it is to Presidents, effectively guaranteeing that a member will serve as long as he or she wishes.  No wonder we have such partisan animosity in this country!  How different would our system be, how much more effective and less pork-fed, if members were only allowed to serve a maximum of 6 years?  I'm sorry, but I don't care who you are, if you serve with people for upwards of 6, 8, 12, or 40 years, you're going to garner a lot of favors owed to you, as well as incurring a pretty steep bill yourself.  Take away that lifetime/career ambition though, and you may actually get public servants in there who not only start out with a servant's heart (as I believe most do), but don't get to stay long enough for it to be corrupted or otherwise transformed into something altogether different.

CIA Report, As Applied to Noam Chomsky

Be aware of my "non" status - non-Democrat, non-Republican, non-Socialist/Conservative/Liberal/Environmentalist/you name it, even a non-Independent (lest I be aligned with currently popular Joe Lieberman or Mike Bloomberg, both of whom I agree and/or disagree with on various matters).  Call me a Tom Worthist after my name (yet not a Thomist, though I do greatly admire the works of St. Thomas Aquinas), if you must label me, but I prefer that you don't.
Now back to the subject.  There is a man named Noam Chomsky who is well-known throughout the world for speaking his mind, in particular when it pertains to governments engaging in activities harmful to human beings:  killing them, blowing their stuff up, imprisoning them, impoverishing them, blocking their abilities to advance and sustain themselves, that sort of thing.  He provides a great deal of examples and specifics, and the information would appear to be very damning of said governments - especially, although not limited to, the most powerful ones.
Among those in the "most powerful" category is the United States of America.  When I watch a Netflix dvd of him, or read an interview in Islamica magazine with him (yes, good Catholic that I am, I need to constantly get as many relevant perspectives as I can, as do all of us), or see his efforts in any number of outlets and causes, I catch myself wondering, "how come he hasn't been killed himself?"  I mean, he is famous, influential, bows to no one, attacks the most powerful entities (governments and corporations) known to man, but he's just this old guy without a "coalition" or infrastructure to insulate or protect him who keeps chugging along, doing and saying what he wants to about whom he wants to, and he gets away with it.  Kinda like Ghandi, but without millions of citizens hanging out with him all the time.  That's bravery.
The CIA report that's about to be released supposedly details all sorts of transgressions against individuals of various countries for various reasons.  I would fear for something unpleasant befalling me if I were to come out and espouse the kinds of things that Mr. Chomsky publicizes.  But he's not the only one; there are countless brave world citizens who do that, with him being among the best known.  Which is exactly why he would seem to be the most at risk.  But perhaps the CIA, and other governmental entities, are actually listening and understanding what he's saying and are therefore not alarmed:  if that's the case, they wouldn't touch him in a million years.
Here's why.  Yes, he's saying that governments abuse and oppress not only the subjects of other countries, but their own citizens as well.  And they are unduly influenced by large, powerful corporations to engage in activities and policies that benefit the corporations at the expense of the citizenry.  But he's not saying the U.S. is the worst offender, and he's not saying the U.S. is doing anything that any other powerful government in history hasn't done.  He's just saying it's wrong.  I believe that, if asked, he would say that although it is brutal, dishonest, deceitful, untrustworthy, far too self-interested, and obstructive, the U.S. government and social structure is the best the world has to offer at present.  Sure, it's a far cry from ideal, or even acceptable, but it still represents the best of all of the alternatives for applied government.  Would he have suggestions for other methods that might work better?  Probably.  But he understands that it's too deep and complicated to just try something new and see if it's better.  The best method for making something better is not to employ force or radical change, but to continually and loudly point out what's not right by innate, universal morals and standards (don't kill people, don't take things from others, don't tell people things that aren't true, etc.) and see if it can be corrected within the existing framework.
I'd say we're looking at a hundred years or more until we get a lot of this bad stuff hammered out.  But if you look back to where we came from, just before July 4, 1776, or look back to where we were when Lincoln got elected but before slaves were emancipated, or around WWI or II, or in the 50's/early 60's before the Civil Rights movement got cranking, you can see that even things that appear perpetual in nature and impossible to change can, in reality, be corrected almost literally overnight, once enough Americans decide it's time to get up and see what all the yelling is about from those "weirdos" marching through the streets.  I will now correct my earlier statement about the most powerful entities known to man being the government and large corporations, for there is one entity that both of these grudgingly answer to (though only when forcibly coerced against their will, but they answer to nonetheless), and that is the rank and file citizenry of the most powerful nation on earth, a title currently enjoyed by the United States of America.

"Winning" Battles or Wars

Filed under Politics, as wars are politically-driven, this entry is inspired by a chart over at swivel.com from June 6, the anniversary of Battle of Normandy in 1944.  Who won that battle?  Well, the Allies did, of course.  But the chart shows the number of casualties of that invasion by country, and quite a different story is told there.  The U.S. had 29k casualties, Germany had 23k, the U.K. had 11k, and Canada had 5k.  The allies had twice as many as Germany.  Hooray!  We won?  Russia has a similar history of "victorious" outcomes when invaded by foreigners, but these Russian triumphs come at the expense of many millions of their own citizens' lives.

What I'm trying to convey is the fact that victory is determined by achievement of a desired outcome.  The Allies gained a beachhead, which was their objective, and were victorious by that standard.  If their objective had been to sustain fewer casualties than their opponent, they would have suffered a loss; but that was not the standard measured against.  In Iraq, what is the objective, the standard to measure victory or loss against?  It's looking like this will end in victory for both sides - the vaunted "win-win" outcome whose virtues are universally extolled by success and motivation gurus throughout the land.  The U.S.-led forces will be victorious by their standard, which is probably something along the lines of "achieving democracy in Iraq and securing oil interests for the West."  The insurgents will be victorious by their standards on the day the U.S. declares victory and withdraws; the insurgents have a much simpler measure, and that is simply "the cessation of U.S. military offensives in Iraq."  Yet the U.S. could also have been victorious 6 weeks after the war began, when the statue of Saddam was joyously and spontaneously (?) toppled by a joint effort of Iraqi citizens and U.S. soldiers.  At that time, the measurable objective was far simpler, i.e. remove Saddam from any semblance of power or ability to develop, access, and use weapons of mass destruction, than it is today.

We will not know the true outcome of this war until the U.S.-led forces withdraw and leave Iraq to sink or swim on its own, and even then, the success can only be measured on a long-term stability basis.  By this measure, Britain's method of withdrawal from Palestine in the earlier part of the last century must be deemed a policy failure, though it may have appeared successful at the time it transpired; similarly, the success or failure of President Bush's Iraq policy will only be known in retrospect, decades from now.  And so it is with most wars.

This Ain't 1505

Machiavelli wrote The Prince just over 500 years ago (it was published some years later, but written in 1505).  Long story short:  the ends justify the means, or at least Renaissance-era Italian princes believed so, resulting in the moral certainty of their brutal actions to bring about a "better" state when all was said and done.  Here we stand, over 500 years later, watching grown men in all their wisdom vying for the right to lead the free world saying, almost to a man, that the end justifies the means, even when specifically referring to the means of torturing people.  I must disagree, as must all civilized people.  Beyond the obvious question of "what if they really don't know anything more than they're telling you?", people in positions of authority must be above moral reproach.  Especially people who are leaders of a nation trying to set an example of being the shining beacon of hope and goodness for the rest of the world to aspire to become (and if the rest of the world doesn't see it that way, by golly, we'll MAKE 'em!).  Very simply, we must do what's right and strive to achieve desired outcomes through methods that are recognized by all people as civilized and just.
But what, you say, what of the case where we can prevent the loss of innocent lives (presumably at the expense of other, different, fewer innocent or not-so-innocent lives)?  For example, dropping atomic bombs on 2 Japanese cities to end WWII and spare potentially a million invasion casualties at the expense of a mere 100,000 civilians incinerated by the splitting of atoms in their close proximity.  Again, the answer is simple:  find a better way.  Would you drop the bombs on 2 American cities to end the war, killing 100,000 American civilians in order to save a million invasion casualties?  Of course not.  So it's not just about the numeric trade off, with 100,000 being less than, and therefore more desirable than, a million lost lives.  It's about "they are the enemy and therefore are more deserving of death than us."  Yet they were fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters, going about their daily lives, and then BLAM!
Were those means justified by the ends?  No.  People gave up trying to find a better way and apologized later.  That's clearly and plainly never an acceptable course, to do something wrong in hopes that a desired outcome of that wrong action will somehow vindicate it.  It was wrong 500 years ago, it is wrong today, and it will be wrong 500 years from now, when we're still operating under the same barbaric, uncivilized, unenlightened logic of primitive, murderous, and warlike intellect.

Difference Between Politicians and Prophets

This morning's Chrysler sale news, after months of speculation, fulfilled a "prophecy" of sorts, if it can be called that.  In this blog, and in Comments on other blogs, I frequently speculate on business matters (and I'm ALWAYS right, of course).  One such matter was the eventual "sale" of Chrysler, of which I predicted at the very start of the talks that Daimler couldn't actually sell it but would have to give it away in their best case scenario, due to the expenses of pension and other liabilities that would come with the company.  And so it is apparently happening in the deal with Cerberus.
Every time a prediction comes to fruition, I get a nice feeling - and also a thought of "hmmm, if what I predict usually comes to pass, then what do I WANT to come to pass, and how can I reasonably predict it?"  It doesn't work that way though, as all accurate predictors know.  They call 'em like they see 'em, whether they like it or not, just like the prophets of ancient times as recorded in the Bible and elsewhere.  Sometimes they saw good, sometimes bad, but they earned their cred and trustworthiness by having their predictions play out as predicted.
Politicians, on the other hand, cannot have or make public such realistic visions.  Their visions and plans must consist of rosy futures, optimism, and good/better times for all, because that's what people want.  Even if they are proven inaccurate and untrustworthy in their glorious plans and promises for our futures 100 times out of 100, we still vote for the one whose story we like the best, though the story has no basis whatsoever in either present or future reality.  What politician has actually predicted an accurate future state of affairs, complete with positive and negative aspects, and won the election?  I don't know of one.  It's not because they can't see it; it's because they can't say it, or else the people won't vote for them.  So the smart ones are in touch with what we want/need to hear, they try to be as sincere and believable as possible in the oral delivery of their made-up visions (and maybe so effectively as to come to believe their message themselves), and then do what they REALLY think/know what needs to be done once they are in office.
They cannot be faulted for these actions, since they are only trying to win the game as the rules have been laid down and played out and displayed by generations of human behavior before them.  The rules would need to change for the behavior to change.  But should the rules change, or is this system "good enough" to continue the slow but sure evolution of more and more individuals and governments around the world being forced into better and better behavior as the generations go on?  The answer to that question depends on your opinion of whether the world and humanity will survive long enough to evolve into what we need to become, or if a risky change needs to come about to speed up that evolution at the possible expense of making things even worse.

Revelation: Seeing Politics for What It Is

Another headline, another headache.  Pelosi did this, Bush shouldn't do that, he promised he would stop doing something, they swore they would start looking into ways to...who does all of this bring joy to?  I mean, if you really, actually believe that all of these whiny, nagging, complaining, immature Leaders of the Last Great Hope for Earth and Mankind (that's the U.S., if you didn't know) and their constant, incessant rants about each other, what they are or are not or should or should not be doing, and how THEY would do the world such a better service if only they were given the chance.  Well, they WERE elected to the U.S. Senate or Congress, weren't they?  How much more of a platform and jumping-off point for your Grand Plans can you honestly expect than that?  It would seem that all it would take would be the ability to get along enough to agree on a goal, then a plan, then a course of action, then the execution of that action.
It would seem so, because it IS so.  Why doesn't it happen that way though?  Here's my theory:  it's the WWF (or WWE, or whatever the current incarnation of pro wrestling is these days).  The tried and true formula of being so overwhelmingly over the top with each side's diametric opposition to the other, so vehemently vocal, so ridiculously juvenile in their accusations and criticisms and defensiveness and counter-ridiculousness, all in the name of publicity.  There is no more effective method of gaining entry into these high elected offices than through the attainment of personal brand recognition (ask Ronald Reagan or Arnold Schwarzenegger), and no more effective method of attaining brand recognition than through publicity.  Call someone's judgement into question in a civilized, constructive manner in hopes of resolving an issue or coming up with a better way through cooperation, and how many newspaper or online headlines does that garner for you?  However, call the President a Poopy Pants Stupid Head Who Is Trying to Kill All Americans Too Dumb to Go To College and Avoid Military Service (even though they volunteered for said military service), and you've just given yourself a worldwide platform to convey whatever message it is that you're trying to convey.
My revelation is this:  that they don't really mean it, that they're not really that unsophisticated, that there really must be at least a modicum of intelligence and common decency along with the basic ability to communicate and disagree and have civilized discourse within every one of our elected leaders.  They only make themselves APPEAR to lack all of these things because they are SO BRILLIANT that they realize the only way they will be able to remain in the public eye and mind is to get themselves out in front of our faces with their outlandish statements against one another.  At least that's what I choose to believe, for fear of getting yet another headache trying to figure out what the hell they hope to accomplish with their big fat dumb stinky lying liar lies.

Can the Democrats Really Do This?

Has a major political party in America ever boycotted a specific major U.S news network and specifically endorsed a single preferred news network?!  This has happened today!  Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama have joined John Edwards in withdrawing from a political debate sponsored, in part (along with the Congressional Black Caucus I believe), by Fox News.  This extraordinary gesture was then followed by an even more shocking one when an Obama spokesman stated that CNN would be a more appropriate venue for the debate, referring to a later one in January.
In light of this shocking turn of events, is Fox News still obliged to provide equal airtime for the Democrats?  Would this lead to their not being able to sponsor and televise a similar Republican debate in the future, since they would not be airing one for the Democrat candidates?  I'm sorry, but this has gotten me WAY fired up for some reason; even though we all realize the political leanings of the various major American television news outlets (all are liberal/Democrat biased with the lone exception of Fox News, which leans heavily to the right in spite of their tagline), it's still quite stunning to have things so brazenly laid out for all to witness.
Now, regarding the wisdom of this solidarity, it absolutely must be called into question.  If you are any one of the Big 3 Dems, wouldn't you salivate at the chance for a stage of your own, to shine as the solitary beacon of compromise and reasonableness across this polarized, partisan landscape?  Just an extraordinary development in the politicization of the U.S. news media, and an equally extraordinary opportunity to seize the higher ground missed by each of the Big 3, in my estimation.

CEOs as President

As a fairly well-educated business person, I eagerly anticipated how America would be run by its first MBA President.  Bush had a solid background of running successful business ventures, and he brought in even MORE impressive and successful former CEOs as some of his most trusted and depended-upon cabinet members.  He also turned to the military and academia (though not scientific academia) to round out his cabinet.  Women, minorities - it looked too good to be true!  And very little croneyism, to boot.  As it turned out, however, I'm not so sure that the CEO mentality is an effective one for the leadership of a democracy.  CEOs call the shots and answer to no one (except the Board of Directors, who are frequently in awe of or at least stay out of the way of the CEO, as long as he/she delivers bottom-line growth and profitability - by any means necessary, I hasten to add).  It was very apparent from the outset of Bush's team's diplomatic dealings that former CEOs Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were used to dealing with situations as they and they alone saw fit, considering themselves above the diplomatic (and democratic) fray, and striving to deliver results by using any bullying, threatening, secretive, less-than-truthful means necessary.  The most striking parallel I see to the big company CEO mentality and that of both Cheney and Rumsfeld is the reliance on secrecy and bullying (of other nations, of subordinates, of the press) - no one needs to know anything and you will do as I tell you, no discussion or debate required, as long as the job gets done.  But that's not the best policy in democratic leadership, because people DO care how goals are accomplished and how objectives are achieved (or not).  And beyond simply caring, they prefer - no, demand - to have a say in the means employed.  I stand corrected on my longing for a CEO President, because many of the core Machiavellian qualities that are often so important to success as a CEO are completely at odds with what is required of leadership in a democracy.  What's the best preparation for maximizing the possibility of successful White House leadership?  Perhaps Obama has stated it most accurately when he said that there IS no such thing as being ready to be President, or words to that effect.  One must use all of their life's experiences and training and mental faculties and social strengths, play by the rules as written by our forefathers, try to make some friends and influence some people, and make the best of either bad or worse situations.  Sounds simple enough, doesn't it?

Oil Appears Risk-Apathetic

The Brits may not be as spineless as they appear at first blush with regards to their own personal "Iran Hostage Crisis", which the U.S. so meekly endured almost 30 years ago.  I initially set out to pen a "why doesn't England and the U.S. take decisive action here - members of the military have been kidnapped by a foreign government, for crying out loud!" post.  Perusal of lots of Guardian, Jerusalem Post, Bloomberg, etc. articles ensued, and as I got fired up about each one, I was continually struck by the odd lack of urgency or saber-rattling on the part of Great Britain.  Now, it all makes sense.
We begin with two mortal enemies, Iran and America.  I would say that Iran currently is, without a doubt, our most vocal and antagonistic enemy while considering their perceived ability to actually stand up to us.  At the same time, seizing our sailors (if it were even possible) would amount to signed authorization on their behalf allowing us to obliterate their country.  Not advisable.  However, take the same action against Ruth ("wherever you go, I will surely follow"), er, Great Britain, and sit back and watch the fireworks (threatened, that is; no ACTUAL conflict would ensue, by Tehran's calculation)!  With somewhere north of 20% of the world's oil flowing the Strait of Hormuz and an Iranian navy whose express purpose is to give the appearance of the ability to completely disrupt that flow, I believe Iran staged this ruse NOT to delay UN sanctions related to their nuclear program, but rather to cause an immediate-term oil shock and demonstrate/send a reminder of their un-attackable status to the world (while adding a few dollars to the oil coffers in the process).  Nothing more.  And it accomplished that very objective, if only for a matter of hours, with the price of oil spiking $5 almost instantaneously on the news of the capturing.  But by the next morning, oil had settled down (no doubt after a few well-placed phone calls from the leaders of Britain and America).
Now, Iran is playing and looking the part of the idiot, with nothing to show for their effort other than some well-documented Geneva Convention violations by using prisoners as propaganda and the realization that they don't have nearly as much control over the price of oil as they believed they did.  The ability to disrupt the flow through the Strait is only half the equation; the other half is having an actual reason to do so, and without that, oil prices don't care how many Iranian ships float on those waters, since to harm the flow of oil without provocation would harm Iran as much or more so than anyone else.  Britain has shown and continues to show (calculated) restraint, and their avoidance of the knee-jerk reaction has harmed Iran's leaders on the international stage moreso than any aerial or naval strike possibly could have.

Results of Single Most Important Voting Factor Poll

Back on February 27 I ran a poll of readers to see what the single most important voting factor for them is in the 2008 Presidential Election.  I got several emails from people along the lines of "I didn't vote because I don't base my vote on a single issue".  Well, no kidding!  Who does?  Kudos to you and your complex intellect.  As I politely replied to those that seemed interested enough, I COULD have phrased it something like "If a candidate lined up with your views on every issue except one, what one issue could cause you to vote for the other guy?"  But I didn't, so please accept my apologies.  Many of you got it though, and I thank you for fighting through and forcing yourself to boil it down to the one thing that matters most to you in an election; it's actually a fairly soul-searching exercise if you allow it to be.  Know thyself, if you will.
The overwhelming single most important factor when casting a vote for President is good ol' believing what they're telling you, whatever it is:

Trust of candidate - 42%
Political party - 21%
Abortion/stem cells/moral issues - 17%
War in Iraq - 8%
Economy - 8%
Immigration Issue - 4%

Thanks to all who voted!

   

U.S. Military Spending Compared to the World

A couple of sources peg global governmental military spending at $900 billion to $1 trillion in 2005 (these sources are the CIA World Fact Book and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, which relied upon by European governments for its data).  Of this total, the U.S. is responsible for more than half of the total, or around $500 billion.  Per year.  That's 10 times Russia, over 10 times China, 2 times the entire European Union, etc.  Now I know that sounds like a lot, but to put it in perspective, it's less than 3 times the market cap of Google, and about 20% more than the market cap of Exxon Mobil.
Do you ever wonder what would happen if we just stopped?  Stopped policing the world, protecting it from...itself?  Consider Iraq:  all sorts of bad things were (and maybe still are) going on there with respect to terrorist hideouts/safe places/weapons development.  Now we're there.  But what about its neighbors, Syria and Iran?  Aren't they terrorist states?  So don't terrorists have free reign there?  Yet in practice, both are democracies with elected officials who worry about losing their jobs if they don't please their constituencies.  And neither of them are attacking our borders.  Iran's oil flows freely and suffers no sabotage attacks; Iraq's barely flows at all and suffers greatly from sabotage.  I'm sure Iraqi citizens as a whole feel safer with us there for the time being, but is that enough to justify the tremendous cost?  And wouldn't the cost end exponentially more heinous, heartbreaking crimes against humanity if re-routed to civilizing at least some, if not all, of the war-ravaged sections of Africa?  I don't know; I hope somebody's analyzing the facts and making the proper decisions on how to spend that half a trillion per year though.

Followup to Prices of Adwords

The keyword phrase "best political blogs" as a keyword for pay-per-click advertising with Google Adwords, which to my amazement in this post had gone from $.25/click to $5/click in 8 days (Feb. 19 to 27), has now doubled again to $10/click.  That's a 40-fold increase in the cost of this ad keyword in 2 1/2 weeks.  Yikes!  At a cost of $10 for every single click on their fleeting ads, some people out there are apparently REALLY confident in their abilities to convert your search engine quest for the Best Political Blogs into some sort of meaningful action on your part.

Declining Influence of Unions

The % of Employed Wage & Salary Workers who are union members is down from 20.1% in 1983 to 12% in 2006.  2005 was 12.5%.  Gov't sector workers have 36% union membership while the Private sector has only 7%; within these groups, Local Gov't is even higher, at 42% (this would include teachers, police, firefighters, etc.), while in the Private Sector, the Financial Activities subgroup has the lowest union membership rate (1.9%).
5 states have less than 5% union membership:  N.C., S.C., Virginia, Georgia, and Texas.
4 states have greater than 20% union membership, with Hawaii topping the list at just under 25%:  Hawaii, NY, Alaska, and NJ.
Why does this matter?  Unions are very influential in elections in terms of financial support to campaigns, but in terms of voters, 1 out of 8 isn't that impressive.  The 2008 election promises to have no shortage of warchest funds for the candidates, so it would look to me like there won't be quite the level of catering to labor unions that there has been in the past.