Views of a new libertarian socialist

Off and Running!

2012-01-02T22:12:00.000-08:00

With tomorrow's Iowa caucuses, the candidates are off and running nomination as the Republican candidate for President. While Romney might have the best odds at getting the eventual nomination, things are still up in the air as 2012 begins.

More than many of the past races, the present Republican field has provided great fodder for political pundits and comedians alike. And I can only image that foreign political observes must be shaking their head saying "Is that the best examples of leaders that the great American nation can field?" It's embarrassing at times.

What am I looking for? Someone who shows intelligence, an understanding of national and international issues, and able to think for themselves. I believe God gave us a brain and we should use it. I have little respect for those so wedded to policies and a political agenda that they cannot even think for themselves. Finally, we need a candidate that can truly lead us forward from this disastrous partisan politics of today, where there is no room for compromise and each side feels it must sabotage the other's efforts.

But I don't think this candidate is out there.

On the Republican side, so far, there's been the steady, boring candidate, Mitt Romney, and a progression of contenders who rise like shooting stars and just as quickly fall back to earth.

At first, I thought maybe Michelle Bachmann would be the intelligent Sarah Palin, but soon we found she had difficulty with the facts. And as someone so tied into the religious right and Tea Party folk, there's no room left for her to think on her own, even if she wanted to. Then it was Rick Perry's turn, but he had trouble remembering what his handlers told him to say. Newt also rose, as he is both intelligent and able to speak his mind. Unfortunately, he has some ideas (e.g., putting school children to work clean their schools in lieu of union janitors), but I'm sure he'll be putting his foot firmly in his mouth a few times.

Outside the shooting stars, Ron Paul appears to be intelligent and he claims to be a libertarian. But only some of his policies would meet the libertarian test and he carries the stigma of unelectability. Huntsman and Santorum are too far behind at this time.

Let's see what happens!

Tea Party Reps Fail

2011-12-31T08:53:00.000-08:00

Boehner and Reid

With the recent passage of the extension of payroll tax cut, we have witnessed a major failure by the new Congressmen who align themselves with the Tea Party. While the Tea Party and other conservatives (e.g., Michelle Bachman) have generally considered the ending of temporary tax breaks as de facto tax increases, many have been strongly opposed to this tax break that benefits mostly lower and middle income tax payers.

Why? On the record, they say it's because it doesn't really stimulate the economy. But the unspoken reason is simply that Pres. Obama supports the idea, so they must oppose anything that Obama supports.

Still, Republican leadership knows there's no need to alienate so many middle class voters 10 months before the elections. That's political suicide. They know this middle class tax cut is political candy (http://rachy-viewsofalibertariansocialist.blogspot.com/2011/12/political-candy-aka-payroll-tax-cut.html) and you don't steal candy from the voters! Even some conservative commentators couldn't figure out the hard line opposition by conservatives and Tea Party reps.

We all know that a two month extension passed Congress and was signed by the President only days before Christmas. But the scandal for every Tea Party voter is how each and every one of the Tea Party Congressmen failed to stop this.

It would have been so easy for just a single one of them to kill the bill. Speaker of the House John Boehner resorted to some old fashion, quick-gabble methods. With very little notice, he reconvened the House and put up the bill for passage by unanimous consent. Granted some Tea Party reps. couldn't make it back to DC in time with such short notice, but some could. And it would take only 1 Tea Party rep. to show up to stop it by opposing the unanimous consent.

But not a single one of them were there.

In other words, the entire Tea Party delegation simply did not show up! Is this not the classic complaint against government and government workers, namely not showing up to do their job? Clearly, this should motivate all Tea Party voters to vote them all out for this failure to show!

(Personally, I'm loving observing this dysfunctional family known as the Republican Party!)

Political Candy (aka, Payroll Tax Cut)

2011-12-07T20:35:00.001-08:00

The political debate over whether or not to extend the payroll tax cut tells us a lot about what candidates think of the American public. This debate tells me that the politicians of all persuasions think of the public as children and the payroll tax cut is political candy. It's only a short-time sugar high, but most people want their political candy!

First, we see President Obama, feeling the pain of the average person in these tough economic times, saying now is not the time to end this tax cut. When the children are having a bad day, it just isn't nice to take away their candy.

Then, we see various economists and others who are focused on our deficits saying they know what's best. Just because the children want their candy doesn't mean they should get it. They want to lecture the children about what's good for them and be firm: no candy!

On the Republican side, the candidates for President are divided. Mitt Romney and Ron Paul like continuing the tax cuts. Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry don't like them. Bachmann says they're not working. But taking away their candy is no way to win votes.In a similar manner, Republic Party leaders realize they don't want Republicans to be tagged with taking away a popular tax cut going into a Presidential election year. But the rank-and-file, especially the Tea Party folk, disagree.

I predict the tax cut will live for one more year. I see the Republican leadership twisting arms with the argument that in a close election, this issue could loose them their chance to capture the White House.

Back to the Blog

2011-12-07T20:33:00.001-08:00

The last year has taken me away from blogging. But, with the Presidential election coming up and the great fodder provided by the Republican candidates, I just have to get back to it!

More posts to follow.

Welcome to v2.0 of the Post 9/11 World

2011-02-21T16:35:00.000-08:00

The current popular uprisings in the Middle East are proving the arch rivals of 9/11 wrong.

The neoconservatives of President George W. Bush's administration said democracy must come to the Middle East, but tried to install it by force, such as the invasion of Iraq. They were wrong. Democracy is coming from popular uprising, not unlike the way it emerged in the United Stated or in India.

Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida sought to overthrow the oppressive oligarchies through violent means. Today, bin Laden is far from center stage, as the oppressive oligarchies through nonviolent means.

Any day that both misguided neoconservatives in the US and misguided violent religious terrorists worldwide are proven wrong is a great day for the freedom of all people!

Is Democracy Breaking Out in Egypt? (But No One Is Noticing It!)

2011-02-01T14:33:00.000-08:00

The world news is saturated with reports of the uprisings in the streets of Egypt. The clear and constant demand is for the departure of President Hosni Mubarak. But what is behind it? Is it the Muslim Brotherhood, as some are claiming? Will it lead to a more conservative regime? A regime based on Sharia Law?

Or are we possibly seeing the birth of democracy in Egypt? (Many demonstrators interviewed say they want democracy and free and fair elections.) And will it spread to the rest of the Middle East?

Things are different now in 2011. Authoritarian regimes can't keep their tight grip on a population linked by the internet. Information flows more freely. Regimes can't keep people in the dark or uninformed.

And secrets are a thing of the past, as we witness with WikiLeaks. In fact, information from WikiLeaks may have in part sparked demonstrations in Tunisia which may have in part sparked demonstrations in Egypt. And next Jordan. And maybe also Yemen, and Syria, and the Palestinian State.

They say the truth will set you free. So, are we witnessing a milestone event, where the free flow of the information on the internet may lead to an outbreak of freedom and democracy? Will this be the first revolution that started on Facebook?

Unfortunately, the western nations are too fixated on a "controlled transfer of power" as to miss what could be Egypt's version of the American Revolution leading to free and fair elections and real democracy. Yes, Mubarak will step down, but not until September, in part at the advice of an American diplomat. But this will not satisfy the people of Egypt.

The world is changing. And the democracies of the world cannot afford to sit idly by and not support the expansion of freedom.

(Note this post is in part inspired by my friend Kelvene Requiroso who posted: "I smell people's victory over there in Egypt! Democracies of the world, let us UNITE!")

A Return to Sanity

2010-10-30T11:33:00.000-07:00

In this strange political season, I’m a big supporter for a return to sanity. (And today, thousands are gathering in Washington, DC, for Jon Stewart's Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear.)

This is perhaps best known as the season of the angry voter. The rise of the Tea Party movement is marked by many who are angry at the system, and often angry at both political parties. Some are angry about illegal immigration. Some are angry at the big bail-outs. Some are angry at the incredible amount spend on the stimulus. Some are angry about the new federal health care bill. Some are angry at Obama. Many would vote “all of the above.”

In 2008, the Democrats rose to power by sweeping the White House and majorities in the House and Senate. In large part, their victories can be linked to anger, too. Anger at the big spending of the Republican Bush administration in the middle added to traditional Democrat supporters who were angry at the war-waging policies of the Bush administration, loss of liberties and other conservative policies. In many instances, the Bush Administration wrapped its policies in the flag, so if one were a true patriot, one would not oppose their policies.

Well, in all of this, I fear this great democracy is losing its tradition of democracy. What happened to debating the issues of the day, without demonizing your opponent?

In the early days of the tea party, we heard about angry people coming to meetings with their representatives and shouting down others. Then there were the unrelentless rants of right-wing media mega-mouths, such as Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck. Later, Sarah Palin, a once-interesting and different politician now turned party-line mouthpiece and Fox News employee, was added to the chorus. The conservative media chorus takes its cues from the policies that have traction with the angry -- immigration, unemployment, high taxes, big spending, big government – and blend these with a not-so-subtle appeal to outright racism, namely, President Obama and the brown-skinned immigrants, to name a few.

Injected with typical conservative policy are misrepresentations, conspiracy theories, and outright lies:

“Death panels” in the health reform bill
Pres. Obama was not born in the US \
Pres. Obama is a Muslim and not a Christian
The democrats want to round up guns and gun owners
Obama has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture. I’m not saying he doesn’t like white people. I’m saying he has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist.” (Glen Beck on Fox News)
The director of White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, "has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population." (again, Glen Beck)
A claim by Glen Beck that he could not debunk theories that concentration camps are being built by the Obama White House as part of a conspiracy to establish totalitarian rule in America According to Beck, "If you have any fear that we might be heading toward a totalitarian state, look out. There is something happening in our country and it ain't good."

What this is resulting in is a number of candidates who are intolerant of compromise or negotiations with those with opposing ideas. There are now a series of litmus tests – including cutting taxes, strong measures against illegal immigrants, abortion, denying the occurrence of global warming – that candidates must pass. A Republican who might believe that some environmental-friendly policies may benefit businesses is labeled a RINO (Republican in name only).

This is very much like the ideological purity that occurs in fascism or a fundamentalist religious sect. Many of those shouting call Pres. Obama a fascist, but I find their methods to be more typical of fascist states where the people are fed an unending litany of intolerance, lies, and hate. All with no opportunity to think for oneself.

But despite my fatalistic assessment, I still have hope. I hope for a return to sanity!

Be Not Complacent

2010-09-26T08:40:00.000-07:00

The struggle for justice cannot coexist with complacency. We cannot fall asleep; we must remain alert.

Just a little sidebar on my political thinking: This thought did not come from a political speech I heard, but from my pastor’s sermon. In most of this blog, I tend to focus on the libertarian side of my brand of “new libertarian socialism” but from time to time I focus on my view of social responsibility. As a “libertarian socialist” I do not believe in the government forcing upon all a socialist agenda. Rather the concern for neighbor and preferential concern for the poor and oppressed must come out of our free will decision to share the great wealth we enjoy in this great nation with the poor and oppressed.

In the sermon this morning, my pastor challenged us not to be complacent by unjust situations or insufficient care for those in need. He was preaching social justice, just as Jesus did in stories such as the rich man and Lazarus, the beggar. It wasn’t that the rich man was inherently a bad person, but just one who became complacent.

In this regard, we have to be careful when politicians or media mouthpieces proclaim a return to our Christian values, such as the assembly in Washington, DC a few weeks ago organized by Glenn Beck. This is part of a dangerous trend for conservatives to claim they speak for God. (I have no love for the politically motivated who want to tell us what religion to follow or, as Glenn Beck did, what type of church to belong to!

That’s why I’ve uploaded “Glen Beck to Jesus: Drop Dead” by James Martin. It clearly explains how a politically motivated media mouthpiece can claim the mantle of Christianity while cherry-picking the actual teachings of Jesus Christ.

The Controversary of the Islamic Center in Lower Manhattan

2010-08-16T20:29:00.000-07:00

The BBC posted a news story (Obama under fire for Ground Zero mosque defense) on Facebook today on the controversy over the Islamic center proposed in lower Manhattan. It got my attention as I was finishing up my lunch break.

First, it's not a mosque that is proposed, but a community center.

But, what got me were the mounting number of comments, many against Obama's position, with a good number that were anti-Islam, some trying to paint the whole religion with the blood of those killed by 19 terrorists and their supporters. To me, there is a clear boundary between the terror attacks on our nation and Islam.

As an unapologetic supporter of Constitutional rights, including our wonderful freedom of religion, I just had to leave a comment:

"Why do so many Americans want to just give up our freedoms like religion? Do they want to give victory to the terrorists? Are they not proud to be freedom loving citizens of the US? I'm for freedom of religion and I don't care if it's an unpopular view! On this issue Obama is right."

Immigration and the New Law in Arizona (Part 1)

2010-05-11T20:06:00.000-07:00

The recent passage of a controversial immigration law in Arizona has put the vague memories of the health care debate far into the recesses of the national political buzz. And as many of our national debates, it seems both sides are so focused on different issues that it is completely impossible for our nation to address this issue in a simple common sense and effective way.

Let me present what I think are the legitimate arguments on each side, and then present what how I think the scientific theory of porosity should be applied to developing a rational and reasonable policy.

Before I start, I must say I’m married to a legal immigrant, born in Peru but now a naturalized American citizen (with a US passport to prove it!). My in-laws who live in the US are all here legally (e.g., my mother-in-law has her green card to prove it). What I have found that it’s much easier for us as Americans to travel to Peru to visit the relatives than it is for some of them (particularly children and teens) to get tourist visas to visit us here.

The Border in Arizona
Simply put, the border in Arizona is quite porous and illegal crossings occur daily. But more troublesome is the drug trafficking and associated crimes including murders of citizens and law enforcement officers alike. My reading of the situation is that this combination of illegal crossings intertwined with criminal activities has many saying “enough is enough.” Furthermore, the criminal activity has many in fear of illegal immigrants as how can one tell which ones are the armed drug runners or other dangerous criminals.

All sides agree that it is the Federal government’s sole responsibility to regulate immigration and border crossings. But, many have noted that for decades now, the Federal government has not done enough to control the border in Arizona. In some places (such as San Ysidro, CA Tiajuana, Mexico), there are walls, border patrols and designated entry points where documents are checked. But in other places, particularly remote areas, there is little in the way to prevent entry into the US.

The proponents of the new law say that it is needed because the Federal government did not do its job regarding controlling the border.

What Does a Person Suspected of Being Illegally in the US Look Like?
The gist of the opposition to the new law deals with how it might be enforced. In particular, how does a law enforcement officer come to have reason that someone may be illegally here?

So let’s be frank. While the law prohibits “profiling” and the law’s supporters say there will be no profiling, I still ask myself, how does an officer come to suspect someone in the US illegally? If it’s not by skin color, or accent or language, what is it? Sure, some people might look suspicious, like they’re trying to hide something or fleeing when they see the police approaching.

But, if someone is not doing anything criminal or suspicious, how can one suspect someone is illegally here and not a legal immigrant or a native-born American with the same “look” as an immigrant? Many wonder will this turn into situations where people are stopped for DWH (driving while Hispanic) or DWL (Driving while Latino)? It’s happened to other racial and ethnic groups. It could happen; the politicians and other supporters are not the same people as the cops who have to enforce the law on a daily basis.

“Show Me Your Papers!”
For those suspected, law enforcement will ask “Show me your papers!” Now for a legal foreign visitor, they’re probably carrying their passport. In fact, when in a foreign country, I usually carry my passport, so this is reasonable. For those with a work visa, they can produce a “green card.” If there is strong enforcement of the law, it would seem to be advisable that those with “green cards” carry them at all times, just in case they are stopped or with someone who is stopped. In this case, the burden of always carrying a “green card” is not much more that always carrying a driver’s license, which is something most of us do.

But here’s the problem for libertarians: what about American citizens who “look foreign” (to be frank, who look Hispanic or Latino). Some may be naturalized citizens, others born here, and others may be American citizens for generations. But they may still look like people who may be in the US illegally. Will this subject American citizens to have to prove they are Americans?

What if this applied to other Americans in Arizona? Would they like having to carry a passport of birth certificate to “prove” they are Americans?

What happened to the America where a citizen never had to “prove” they belong here? It’s bad enough we have to do this when we get a new job. (Why should law-abiding, American citizens be subjected to this scrutiny just because of a minority who apply for work illegally?)

Now the politicians and supporters will tell us this won’t be the case or this isn’t a problem. But, let’s be real. It will happen from time to time. And this is a slippery slope from asking a few Hispanic Americans citizens in Arizona to prove they belong here toward having a national identity card or similar way for big government to check on us, even if we’ve done nothing wrong. To me, asking even a few American citizens in Arizona to “show us your papers” is something that reeks of Nazi Germany and other repressive regimes.

The New Libertarian Socialist View of Immigration
Let me digress to present the origins of my beliefs as a “new libertarian socialist.”

The true Libertarian (not the view of conservatives in Libertarian clothes) position on immigration is the free migration of all peoples, regardless of international boundaries. Clearly, none of the conservatives in Arizona espouse this view!

The Christian Socialist view sees the immigrant as the stranger whom we should welcome, much as Christ said that we welcome him when we welcome the least among us who is a stranger in our land. This view is also not embraced by supporters of the new law. What is lost in the rhetoric is that even those here illegally are human beings, and like all humans they are created in the image of God.

Clearly, these viewpoints do not appear to align with ringing support of the law. And they clearly in opposition to the demonization of people who are illegally in the US, rhetoric we hear from many with a conservative viewpoint on immigration. But even those who are here illegally are still human beings, as the something else you might read on some blogs and websites.

But how do we get from the status of chaos to a state where immigrants are here legally? The current national debate will never get us to a conclusion as both sides have to feed “red meat” sound bites to their political bases. The politicians are forced into the more extreme positions, so we can’t look to Washington to solve this problem.

Nevertheless, as a practically-oriented engineer, I think the real workable solution lies clearly in between the political extremes.

A Better Approach: Start with What We Agree On
I think most people agree we have a mess in the border states. Immigration is out of control. This is the Federal government’s job and it’s not been done.

I think there is a majority who would like to see the current mess transformed into a situation where those in the US who are not citizens are here legally. This would be accompanied by reasonable controls to allow a number of legal immigrants to fill jobs where there is a need. And, this would also provide the protection of the law for those non-citizens who are here legally. These legal immigrants would pay taxes and need not fear law enforcement officers as they would have the documentation to prove their legal status.

I think many would agree this would be a more organized state of affairs.

What is the Solution? What are the Alternatives?
To be continued in Part 2.

Spill, Baby, Spill!

2010-04-30T09:55:00.000-07:00

We've heard the chant "Drill, Baby, Drill!" Well, off the coast of LousianaSpill, Baby, Spill!

But, when you drill, sometimes you get a spill. That's just the way it is. As an engineer, I know we live in an imperfect world. Spills happen. Engineers may design drill rigs to avoid spills, but don’t fool yourself, nothing made by human hands is perfect. So, if the policy is "drill, baby, drill," at some point that will lead to "spill, baby, spill!"

The best thing we can do, as engineers, is design in contingencies. We know that the fuel tanks that at your local gas stations leak from time to time. Most don't leak. But leaks happen. So we now have double wall tanks. If the first wall breaches, there is a second wall to catch the leak.

We do that with fuel lines two: a pipe within a pipe. If the first pipe leaks, the second one catches it.

We need to find out more of why this spill happened and if the contingency provisions failed. This is a big one, with so much pressure, it can't just be capped. And it is very deep, too. It may take months to drill a relief shaft so the first one can be capped. When the pressure isn't too bad, one can put a valve (in the open position) on the end of a leaking pipe while the pipe is still under pressure. Once the valve is firmly in place, it can be closed slowly until eventually the leak is sealed. But, if the pressure is too great, or you can’t get to the pipe, you have to try something else.

In the mean time, the damage is occurring. There will be harm to wildlife and to the wetlands along the coast. And economic impacts, particularly to the fishing and tourist industries. The fishing and shrimping boats are all at their docks. If it takes months to stop the leak and clean-up the spill, they will be out of work for months.

This one spill doesn’t mean that we should take a knee-jerk policy adjustment and end all off-shore drilling. But it does mean we should have our eyes open on the risks that come with any energy policy that includes off-shore drilling.

Men Gather Legally with Guns - But What's the Point?

2010-04-22T19:27:00.000-07:00

Groups of mostly men gathered on Monday, April 19th (anniversary of the "shot heard 'round the world in 1775 in Concord, Massachusetts). In separate rallies in Washington, DC and Virginia, they expressed concern about their 2nd Amendment rights. In Virginia, they carried their guns openly (as is allowed under state law).

So what's the point? It's legal to own guns. There is no proposed legislation to change this. (If there is some proposed legislation I don't know about, please tell me about it.) If these guys are just law-abiding gun owners, I don't know what the issue is.

I don't get it. Maybe they have been listening to too much talk radio or to others who just don't like the present administration and who seem to exaggerate reality. Maybe these folks, who clearly don't trust the party in power, are just hyper-paranoid that hiding behind some bush is a bill or executive order to take away their guns. And if there were such legislation being proposed, well, sure, they should be concerned. But if there is no proposed legislation, then this all sounds a bit paranoid to me.

Now I'm all for defending all our rights under the Constitution. And it's important to be vigilant, as you never know how they may be eroded by new laws or other government actions. But, still, we don't have to go to the point of creating the specter of a threat where none exists. There's a line between vigilance and paranoia. And unless I see more evidence of a threat on the matter of gun ownership, this concern seems to be trending a bit over the line towards paranoia.

Now I should point out I don't come from a gun-owning family. We lived in the city and there were no hunters in the family. Still, when war came, the men in the family took up arms to defend our land. But when peace came, they put them down and went back to their lives. So, I don't have a first-hand understanding of gun ownership. Still, as a libertarian, if there's a right to own guns (provided one doesn't use it for crimes such as robbery, murder, drug running, etc.), well, that's one's choice whether to own a gun or not.

But in conclusion, my question is: if there is no real and present threat to change the laws as they are today, why can't they just enjoy the rights they have?

Tea Party Express on Boston Common

2010-04-15T17:44:00.000-07:00

Boston is the home of the original tea party from which the current conservative political movement gets its name. And just yesterday, while riding my bike to work on a nice, yet cool April morning, I rode right past their 3 luxury liner buses as the crowd was forming and the band was starting to play God Bless America.

No one seemed to notice or care when I took some photos of the crowd and their buses. Sarah Palin had not arrived and I guess there was no need for excessive security and no one was there to say who could attend and who couldn't. But I couldn't stay. I, like most working Americans, had to get to work, responsibilities to attend to, and didn't have time to hang around and see what was going on. Many public meetings or other political events are scheduled with us working folk in mind and occur in the evening.

From the looks of it, many attending seemed to be retired, maybe some unemployed, and maybe some who took off time from work to attend. (I hope no one was cheating by attending while "on the clock" at their job.) They were hoping for more to attend, but maybe it was poor scheduling on their part.

Now, we've heard all sorts of things about this Tea Party movement and those who belong, from the media, from pundits on the right and on the left. Frankly, I'm tired of the over politicization of everything these days, particularly the exaggerated claims on both sides. So, I'm just going to tell you what I say and my straight up reaction to it.

To me, these didn't look like cooks or disorderly bullies, at least by the behavior I could observe in passing by. Rather, they looked like folks who could be your parent's neighbors or might live around the corner from you. More or less, they seemed in the middle age to retired age bracket, and if clothing is any guide, they seemed to be firmly in the middle class (from lower middle to middle middle and a few upper middle). They seemed very orderly.

On the side of their buses were 2 major points and 5 bullets, each bullet ending in an explanation point! Here are their slogans and my reaction:

Major Points:

-- Restore Liberty

Hmmmm, what liberty has been lost? We all still have freedom of speech and the rally demonstrated freedom of assembly. No one in government is telling them how to practice religion. Is it that they may be required by law to have health insurance? We have that here in Massachusetts, enacted under the administration of Republican Governor Mit Romney. Even Sarah Palin asked the crowd "don't you love your freedom?" Maybe they need to specify the lost liberties.

--Honor the Constitution

Well, I like the Constitution and think it's about the best one in the world. I like the idea of honoring it. So, maybe they should specify who is dishonoring the Constitution.

The 5 Bullets:

End the bailouts!
I think they have ended, as the economy is showing early signs of recovery. Personally, without some of the bailouts and/or stimulus, I really think the economy would have been in the can for years. I'd bet John McCain or even G. W. Bush would have paid for some bailouts.
Reduce the size and intrusiveness of government!
Reducing the size is a nice idea, but from Ronald Regan to the 2 Bushes, will someone show me where they reduced the government? Pres. Regan wanted to eliminate the Dept. of Education, but kept it and created the Dept. of Veterans Affairs. G. W. Bush was not content with have the taxpayers finance only one nation, but since the Iraq invasion, we the taxpayers are now funding 2 nations. Often projects in Iraq got 100% federal funding while a similar project in the US would get 0% to maybe 50%. My challenge to my readers: show me a President, Governor or Mayor that really reduced the size of government!
Regarding intrusiveness, everyone has their own version of this. I don't like an intrusive government that snoops on my phone calls or e-mail, cares what I borrow from the library, makes me - an American from birth - have to prove I belong here to work in a job, monitors what political movements I'm in, tells my employer they should monitor whether I use a particular substance, or micro-manages what goes on in a woman's womb. For others, they don't like being told they can't fill a wetland on their property, or that there are restrictions on where they can carry their gun, or that they should buy health insurance, etc. In other words, intrusiveness varies from person to person.
Stop raising our taxes!
Stop the out-of-control spending!
These 2 go together. During the administrations of G. H. W. Bush and Clinton, spending was more in control and we were paying down the deficit. Then came 9/11 and 2 wars and lots of spending to pay for it. But rather than ask the citizens to take up the burden of these wars that are supposed to protect us (as was done during World War II), instead taxes were cut and the deficit rose. Then, with the near depression, the spending spree went into overdrive. Frankly, the figures are mind-boggling. But, I think any President would have done something to stave off a major depression. We didn't get instant relief, but this was nothing like the Great Depression.
The question they don't ask is "where do we go from here?" The horses are out of the barn; the money spent. It will take decades to erase the deficit now. The government needs revenue from some combination of sources, and "revenue" means taxes. The best they can hope for with any President is to stop further spending and hold the line on taxes.
No Government-run healthcare!
They really should have an asterisk on this. Today's New York Times reported that most supporters of the Tea Party movement believe "Social Security and Medicare are worth the cost to taxpayers." Now, Medicare is a Government-run healthcare system. Oh, and the Veterans Administration with its system of hospitals also seems like a Government-run healthcare system. (I don't think any Tea Party movement folks want to end the VA and its care for wounded veterans.) What I think they mean to say is that, other than Medicare and Medicaid and the VA, they don't want the Government to run a healthcare system like Canada or Europe. But I guess you can't fit such a long explanation on the side of their bus.

Conclusions

Call them what you want, but I think they're conservatives who want to speak out about what's on their mind. I'm a big advocate of free speech...it's a big part of the Bill of Rights our Constitution. Personally, I'd rather have conservative voices rally and speak out that have the "silent majority" as Pres. Nixon used to portray conservative voters. Conservatives don't need politicians saying what they stand for, when they can speak for themselves. I can't say I agree with everything they say, but I'm 100% behind their right to speak their minds!

Scandal in the Catholic Church Heats Up

2010-04-12T18:53:00.000-07:00

A month ago, I blogged about the sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church. At the time, I thought it was a story was passing from popular conscience. But then it got "legs" big time. More allegations in more places and cases where it seems the Vatican took no or little action.

In the wake of the media activity, the Vatican took the stories as "attacks" instead of efforts to learn the truth. To many of us who are Catholics, it seemed that the Vatican was missing the simple point of the matter: protect children and remove the pedophiles.

All in all, it seems that the Church is missing the clarity it seems to have for issues like abortion. So let me state it clearly: sexual abuse of children is a mortal sin, a grieveous offence against God. That's how I interpret the Catholic education I had as a child.

I, and many, are at a loss to understand why the Church seemed to downplay these offences, using words like "failings" instead of "mortal sin" or "serious sin." How could they not get these 4 aspects of abuse:

Violation of a priest's celibacy
Violation of the Church's teaching that sexual relations should be limited to married couples
Violation of the trust that the laity place in the priesthood
Violation of the bodies of innocent children. The Church often refers to the body as the temple of the Holy Spirit. This abuse violated that temple and therefore offended God. And the victims have been seriously scarred for life

The formulation for the Sacrament of Penance would also tell any Catholic how the Church should have proceeded in the knowledge of such serious sins committed by its priests:

Confess the sin; acknowledge the truth. Jesus said "I came into the world to testify to the truth." (John 18:37) So, let the Church testify to the truth: priests committed mortal sins in the abuse of children.
Where serious sin was also a crime (e.g., robbery, murder, etc.), I learned that the sinner should also surrender to civil authorities and accept their civil sentence as part of the penance for their sin. So, clearly, the Church should have encouraged the offenders to turn themselves into the police.
The Act of Contrition includes the words "avoid the near occasion of sin." For pedophiles, this is unsupervised access to children. Thus, it is so hard to hear how offenders were transferred by Church officials to new assignments and still had access to children.
Finally, the sinner must resolve to reform his life. Any non-repentant offender should have been stripped of ministerial duties immediately. Even repentant offenders had so violated the trust of their ministerial office that they should have been banned from active ministry.

Finally, it also seems that many Church officials wanted to keep these mortal sins quiet, as publicity might damage the reputation of the Church. But, we all know that strategy backfired. If the Church had acknowledged the sins from the start, it could have used this as a "teaching moment." Even priests can commit serious sins, but as part of the Penance process, abusers of children must be removed from ministry and face the civil charges associated with their crimes.

If the Church "testified to the truth" as Jesus spoke, there might still be a scandal, but people would acknowledge that the Church acted properly in handling the scandal.

And why should the Church and groups like the Catholic League be so defensive? Being a Christian sometimes means being misunderstood and getting bad press. Believers should be glad the days of feeding Christians to the lions is long gone! In comparison, a little heat in the press should seem like nothing.

Will Marijuana Use Become Legal In California?

2010-03-27T14:51:00.000-07:00

On Wednesday, March 24th, the Secretary of State in California certified that there were enough signatures to put this question on the ballot in November. Just in time to distract us from the never ending post-mortem of the health care debate, this should be an interesting issue to watch, particularly when a 2009 Field poll indicated the “yes” vote at 56%.

California, with its unique “legislation by ballot measure” approach to governing, is always entertaining for political observers like me. What will be interesting is watching which groups line up on either side of this issue. Not surprisingly, all candidates for Governor plus police associations have come out against it. And I would expect social conservatives, particularly conservative Christians, to be against it, as typically they like government to enforce their view of moral behavior on all, even in private.

Also, in the “to be expected” category, many in the industry supplying California’s legal medical marijuana are for it. But the argument for the ballot measure has a new twist: proponents claim a $1.4 billion benefit to the state in terms of tax revenues and savings related to police enforcement and court cases. That's a lot of revenue in tough times. So, legalize pot and ease the state out of the recession is their theme of proponents.

True Libertarians would come out for this idea, as it legalizes a private matter that adults could partake in and it’s not worth wasting the government’s time and money on keeping it illegal. The measure would allow those over 21 to use it in private, but not in public places of where minors are present.

Perhaps more surprising are that a number of police officers, frustrated by the wasted effort on nonviolent drug offenders, who support the measure as a way to focus on more significant criminal activities. But joining the "nays" are some of the current growers who fear legalization will flood the market with cheap pot (as anyone can grow it legally in a plot not exceeding 25 feet), thereby putting them out of business.

Most of all, I’m interested in seeing how conservatives and Republicans line up on this issue. This is a wedge issue that separates the true Libertarians from the social conservatives. So, I wonder where the tea party folks will be?

So, I’m looking forward to this on, if nothing more than seeing who lines up on which side of this issue. (And it’s not health care, for a change!)

Links:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/us/26pot.html
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/03/25/us/AP-US-Marijuana-Legalization.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1

Health Care Hangover

2010-03-23T20:29:00.000-07:00

A major Health Bill passes, but few are satisfied. Worse, we see a breakdown in civil discourse, replaced with angry outbursts inside and outside of Congress.

How did we get here? Back a year or two, and the nation was behind some form of health care reform. Be it the ever rising cost of health care, the high cost of insurance if you don’t get it at work, or people dropped from insurance, or others who can’t get it due to “pre-existing conditions.” One bad illness can drive an uninsured family to bankruptcy. Does this make sense in the richest nation on earth?

But now we have a bill that promises many changes: keeping your children on your insurance until 26, preventing rejecting coverage for “pre-existing conditions,” and subsidies for some who can’t afford insurance, among others. Yet, there are so many vocal opponents.

How We Got Here: Three reasons:

Politics
Politics
Politics

Both parties chose to blow this out of proportion. Republicans and many ad-hoc groups (some of which are labeled “tea party” folks) see this as the wedge issue that can unseat many Senators and Representatives. And they hit the issue hard, early and often. They went heavy negative. They got media attention by being loud and to the point. And they gained a lot of support.

On the other side, the Democrats made this a “must pass” bill. Much as I believe G. W. Bush felt he almost had to invade Iraq to finish what his father started, Obama was painted into the corner of getting the bill past somehow, some way, at whatever cost.

With stakes so high and politics ruling the day over the interest of the people, there was zero hope of reasonable bipartisan reform.

Our National Loss: Civility? Have we lost the ability to have a national debate on major issues in a civilized manner? The thing that was great about this wonderful land we live in was our freedom of speech and our ability to have different points of view heard. Back when I was in high school, we had a great 10th grade social studies class where the teacher encouraged the airing of all sides of the issues. We had conservatives, liberals and moderates. And we had some very impassioned, yet civilized, debates on the issues of the day.

Right now, I fear that America may be lost. As a Libertarian and American, I believe we need to have respect for everyone’s Freedom of Speech. I wanted to hear the arguments for and against the bill and the various provisions.

But, what I heard was a lot of bullying: shouting down speakers in town hall meetings, including the epithets used against some representatives. When I wanted to hear the rational reasons why the bill may ill-conceived, I heard too much hyperbole or exaggerated claims (government takeover of health care, “baby killer” and “death panels”), and this strange concept that Obama is a fascist trying to obtain totalitarian power over the nation. Only occasionally, in the mists of the sonic bombardment of the opponents, could I once and a while find some rational substance why provisions of the bill are ill-advised.

Sorting Out Some Perspective: If we can leave the shouting behind, here is my perspective on the bill:

Some of the desired reforms that will provide one way that more people can obtain health insurance. It’s not the only road to reform, but it is a road that does have the Federal and state governments have a heavier hand in the making it so. (So, as opponents claim, there is an expansion of government’s role in this bill).
I’m glad that something’s being done about “pre-existing” conditions as I have one. I can’t get life insurance anymore (luckily, I bought it when I was young). But the most ridiculous thing about it is my pre-existing condition is a little dot of skin cancer (about the size of the eraser on your pencil) that was removed in a couple of minutes in the doctor’s office. It was truly itsy bitsy, but because it was the BIG “C”, I can’t get insurance. So, I’m inclined to use anything, including the expansion of the Federal government to banish this “existing condition” provision!
It remains to be seen how it will be paid for. Right now I don’t believe a single politician on either side about how the costs will work out. But where there are subsidies, the revenue has to come from somewhere.
I don’t yet see a threat to the typical employer-based health plans like I have. Maybe some union jobs still have “Cadillac” plans (that will be eventually taxed), but not my cheap employer! We pay a lot and have high co-pays, but at least I have insurance! The funny thing was listening to one conservative opposing reform as it might do away with their great employer-based health care plans, as he had really low co-pays and it was about as perfect as it could be. But only 1 1/2 years ago conservative Republican candidate John McCain campaigned on health care reform that would get rid of the employer-based system and we’d all have to compete on the free marketplace to find a plan. Short are some people’s memories!
Notice that the insurance companies are silent. They know there’s more regulation, but there’s more customers coming. I’ve already seen TV ads encouraging people to apply for new plans that will be available under this new bill. The insurance companies will make out on this. First, they get more revenue from customers. But there is little to stop them from frequent increases in premiums, so there is more revenue. So, even if regulation cost them some additional overhead costs (to figure out all this red tape) or some limits on plan costs, they can make it up by increased revenues.

So, Is It Good or Bad? A pure Libertarian would say it’s inherently bad as it uses government to create reform, thereby expanding the role of government. And it forces people to buy insurance in a nation that should leave everyone alone. (Then again, a pure Libertarian would take us back to the 4 original Federal Departments (Defense, State, Treasury and Justice) and jettison Education, Commerce, Labor, Transportation, Environmental Protection, etc.

But I’m not a pure Libertarian. I believe government is a tool. It’s not the solution to all problems, but it can be a good solution to some. For example, who would really propose selling off the nation’s roadway system to private interests because government at any level (federal, state, county, or local) shouldn’t be in the transportation business?

So, what to do about health care? Republicans gave us the health care savings account. They assume we have a crystal ball and know our health care needs for the upcoming year. They like tort reform – always some ridiculous settlements that get any reasonable person to say “enough!” But how much will that really save? They like expanding the sales of insurance across state lines.

But that still doesn’t get to the fact there is not real capitalism (many buyers, many sellers) when it comes to health insurance, as there are too few sellers and any one individual is in a weak negotiating position. It’s not like going to the farmer’s market and bartering for price of 10 pounds of potatoes.

In the absence of true capitalism, often our nation has turned to the power of government regulation to try to level the playing field. This goes back to regulating the railroads when they had the collective monopoly on the nation’s transportation. Then, starting in the 1930s (and again in the '50s and '60s with the interstate system) the government stepped in with the “public option” of the day: federal funding of highways. But I ask you, who among the Republicans, conservatives, or tea party folks want to repeal the “public option” in transportation? Public roads represented a big expansion of government into a sector (transportation) that previously was highly privatized. But were public roads the death of freedom in America? Quite the contrary, as the car commercials portray driving on public roads as “freedom.”

So, I have to say I am not philosophically opposed to the hand of government in health care. I don’t believe it is the “wonder drug” that will make things perfect. But, we still needed to do something. I’m not too happy with the bill that passed, that’s why I’m feeling this health care hangover!

Sex Scandals Continue in the Catholic Church

2010-03-17T17:37:00.000-07:00

This week in the news was the discovery of yet more cases of pedophilia perpetrated by Catholic priests, in both Ireland and Germany. This follows years of discovery of similar crimes committed in the United States (many in the Boston area where I live) and elsewhere.

While the media is focused on the new evidence, particularly about a case of a pedophile priest reassigned in a diocese overseen by the current pope, I have some comments and perspectives on this issues that I don't see in the media.

So, first, I must say that I was brought up by my Irish Catholic mother, so I’m quite familiar with this church. I remain a Christian in faith (as I can separate the teachings of Jesus from these grievous sinners), remain a “cultural Catholic,” but have a tenuous relationship with the Catholic Church (for obvious reasons).

Here in the US, we've been through the devastating news of how such trusted men could use their position of unquestioned authority to take advantage of the most vulnerable. We've been angry with the cover-ups, the reassignment of abusers, the failure of church officials really to "get it" that these are serious sins and serious crimes!

Yet, years later I still have my unanswered questions, which deal with some truths that the institution known as the Catholic Church seems unable to say. And a disturbing suspicion about what is fundamentally at the root of this widespread abuse.

I have yet to hear church officials name these crimes as “mortal sins” or grievous offences against God, which is the definition of moral sin that I learned as a child. A mortal sin also requires the full knowledge of the sinner and the deliberate consent of the sinner. Well, I think an ordained priest learned all about sin in the seminary, so they can't hide behind a claim of not knowing or not consenting. But instead of saying "mortal sin," I’ve heard these crimes called things like a “falling” or maybe a “problem.” But why did no one speak truth and call these the “mortal sins” they clearly are!
I don’t know how church officials missed one of the fundamentals of forgiveness: avoiding the “near occasion of sin.” This is right out of the Act of Contrition! We learned that forgiveness is possible for even the most heinous of sins. But, and this is crucial, one must avoid the “near occasion of sin.” For a pedophile, that means no work with children!
If church officials could see “mortal sins” when presented to them, they would have proscribed the path to forgiveness for the offenders: a) confess their sins; b) turn themselves into the police and serve their sentence under civil law; and c) be forever banned from ministry and particularly work with children.
Finally, the sociological issue: In any organization, there can be a few “bad apples.” Thus, if pedophilia was confined to a few priests in a few locations, the “bad apple” analogy might apply. But it isn't; it's happening in some many places by enough priests that I believe it is clearly a subculture.

While many priests were faithful to their vow of celibacy, those in this subculture seemed to integrate this dark side of pedophilia with their otherwise public face of piousness.

But how did this subculture develop? The offending priests were in many countries, they were geographically distant so that they likely never met each other, and many of the offences happened in a pre-internet age where there was not the ease of communication among members of a small sub-culture that exists today. How does a subculture sprout in so many places at the same time period (1960s through 1990s)?

This is what I find most disturbing. If it occurred around the world, wouldn’t officials – bishops, cardinals, even the pope – know or suspect something?

The questions that follow could shake the foundation of the institutional Catholic Church:

a) How long did this subculture exist? Is it a dark, unspoken “tradition” that goes back centuries? Or is it just isolated individuals?

b) How do abusive priests come to turn to pedophilia? Did each one come up with the idea himself? Or did they find out about this from others? From some undisclosed network? Some priests who can't live up to celibacy may have relations with a woman or a gay man. By why children? Is it that they are more easily intimidated?

c) It’s easy to think that officials – bishops, cardinals, popes – knew about it and ignored it (or just swept it under the rug) because they were in denial. Maybe they doubted the few brave enough to report what happened. May the truly believed priests could never do this. Or maybe they truly believed it was just a "few bad apples," because so few spoke out. Or, could it be they were only told a "whitewashed" story that didn't describe the incidents as sexual abuse? A heavy dose of denial, cover-up, and whitewashing could explain the reaction of officials (i.e., reassigning priests to a new parish).

d) But if it had been so wide-spread geographically, did they ignore it because it was just a “thing” that some priest did, tantamount to other habits like smoking or drinking?

e) Or worse, did officials ignore or deny it because it was commonplace and even some of their ranks also participated?

I shutter to answer these questions, but I just can't convince myself that this is just a "few bad apples" here and there and, well, everywhere.

Attacks on Freedom from the Right

2010-03-13T11:01:00.000-08:00

As a Libertarian, I have learned there is more to fear from conservatives attacking our basic freedoms enshrined in the US Constitution than from liberals. Conservatives are more likely to talk up small government and personal freedom (and “sound” libertarian), and then advocate government enforcement of their which often includes the expansion of government power, be it by snooping into our libraries and phone calls (with the Patriot Act) or even into a woman’s womb (with their anti-choice agenda).

Libertarians have to call out the conservatives on two recent proclamations:

Glen Beck claiming he knows better than you what religion or congregation you should belong to; and
Lynne Cheney’s attack on the patriotism of lawyers defending detainees as provided for in the law of this land.

Glen Beck’s Attack on Freedom of Religion.
This one has me steaming! Recently Glen Beck ask his audience to leave their congregation if the words “social justice” or “economic justice” are used. He said: “I beg you, look for the words ’social justice’ or ‘economic justice’ on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words.”

While I support his freedom to say anything he likes, I don’t want anyone – in government or in the media (like Mr. Beck) – telling me ANYTHING about how I should practice my religion!!

No one has the right to tell me which religion to believe in or which house of worship or congregation to attend! The First Amendment to the US Constitution may only talk about Congress not making any law to prohibit the free exercise of religion; I take it as my personal right that I am the one and only person who decides what I believe in and where I choose to go to practice this religion. No one who believes America is the land of Freedom should be letting someone like Mr. Beck tell them how to practice religion!

Lynne Cheney’s Attack on Defense Lawyers
The implication of these attacks by Keep America Safe was to question the patriotism of lawyers that would defend detainees who were accused of being terrorists. There was another issue that lawyers who defended detainees should be “outed” if they want a government position.

Here’s thing: Amendment 6 of the US Constitution guarantees the right of a defendant to have counsel at trial. Even in a military trial (as were the cases in question), there is also the right for counsel. Within the legal profession, there is a tradition that no lawyer is looked down upon for defending an unpopular defendant.

And there are plenty of unpopular defendants accused of despicable crimes. There are mass murderers, serial rapists, organized crime, kingpins, pedophiles, and other despicable criminals. But when they go on trial, they all have a right under the laws of this land to defense counsel. From the time of John Adams providing defense counsel to British soldiers accused of murder in the Boston Massacre, the tradition is not to look down upon those who defend unpopular defendants.

And we need this right to prevent government tyranny. Without a trial system where the government has to prove its case, it would be all to easy to trump up a case against anyone it didn't like or considered an "enemy." If they do that to detainees or alleged terrorists today, they could do that to you and me tomorrow!

Even in this post-9/11 world, we have to preserve our freedoms and the American way. Conservatives seem to need an "enemy" to validate their policies. Libertarians make no such distinctions. Today's terrorist could be tomorrow's patriot. Today's enemy can be tomorrow's friend. Therefore, equality under the law for all.

So, why do some conservatives think detainees are so more evil or threatening than mass murderers, serial rapists, pedophiles, or even the British soldiers accused of the Boston Massacre (all of whom are allowed defense counsel)? Terrorists are not the only ones out there who want to deprive us of life and liberty. There's plenty of criminals with the same aim!

Yet it seems part of some conservative agenda to fully demonize detainees and terrorists to the point that they should have absolutely no rights and do not deserve legal counsel. Then pile it on by promoting guilt by association: anyone who would assist these terrorists is therefore not patriotic.

My point here is to quote the conservative mantra of the ‘60s and ‘70s” Law and Order. If the laws of the land guarantee legal counsel for detainees in military trials, then they should have counsel and any lawyer providing that service is acting within the law and should not be disparaged. If some conservatives don’t like the law, well, then work to change the law! But we must obey the laws as they are! And don’t attach those who are providing a necessary role as prescribed by law.

School Spying on High School Students

2010-03-06T19:40:00.001-08:00

Recent allegations of spying on high school students while at home are at the root of a controversy in the Lower Merion School District outside Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The situation was unveiled when school officials used webcam evidence to accuse high school student Blake Robbins of using illicit drugs in his home. As it turned out the “illicit drugs” turned out to be Mike and Ike candies. But the disturbing thing was the ability of school district employees to remotely activate the web cam and take pictures of the student in his home.

To me, this is a gross intrusion of government into places and matters that are not their concern. Yes, the school district can monitor what students do while in school. But they do not have the right to monitor students, without their knowledge, in the privacy of their own home!

At home, it is the parents’ right and responsibility to monitor what their children are up to. In fact, 24/7/365 from birth until they reach legal adulthood, the parents have the primary responsibility for raising their children.

We’ve seen schools overstep the boundaries of law in the case of the strip searching of Savana Redding. In that case, the school officials committed what I would call sexual abuse of a minor by subjecting the girl to such a visual intrustion of the most private parts of her body. (See my previous post.)

All in all, we need to be vigilant for cases where school officials and others in government overstep the bounds of their authority and invade the privacy and constitutional rights of students.

Sarah Attends a Tea Party

2010-02-07T09:11:00.001-08:00

Well, Sarah Palin, former governor of Alaska, current employee of Fox News, was the keynote speaker at the "Tea Party" Convention. For me, this is not surprising, as many attribute Fox with starting the "astroturf" tea party movement.

But there was Sarah working up the crowd, with her sweet nothings ("It's what makes America great" or "Don't you just love freedom!" Hey, Sarah, we all love freedom, but that doesn't mean we agree with you!) and throwing the kitchen sink of issues at Pres. Obama. All with typical great vagueness.

She jumped on the ever-popular Scott Brown band wagon (as reported by the Christian Science Monitor): “Scott Brown in many ways represents what this beautiful movement is all about,” Palin said. “It’s about a guy with a truck and a passion to serve our country, who looked around and saw that things weren’t quite right in Washington … and decided he was going to do his part to our government back on the side of the people.” Wow, that's all we want in the people we elected is some passion and a pickup truck! Yikes, there's a lot of passionate guys with pickup trucks that I wouldn't want writing the laws of the land!!

By the end of the speech, many started a chant: "Run, Sarah, run!" So my question is, will she resign from Fox before running, or will she run as an employee of Fox News?

Tea Party: What I Object To

There may be many issues and concerns of the so called "tea party movement" that may align with libertarian views, but there are two aspects of the movement that bother me.

Means vs. Message

This movement started out by disrupting "town hall" meetings being held by elected officials. While I fully support their right to speak their minds, I really object to this bullying tactic of not letting others be heard.

I don't want bullies and control freaks elected to office to shove their agenda down the throats of all, without any consideration for the rights and opinions of others. If the movement demonstrates that its leaders of tolerant of the free speech rights of all, then I may drop this objection.

Connection of Fox News

This movement is often labeled as "astroturf" and not "grass roots" due to the not-so-subtle connection between Fox News and the early "tea party" rallies. I fully support the freedom of the press, but that doesn't mean they can orchestrate events and try to dress them up as part of a spontaneous grass roots movement. The fact that Sarah Palin is an employee of Fox News or that Scott Brown's daughter Ayly was featured in season 5 of Fox's American Idol doesn't do anything to dispute those who would see a conspiracy here.

Saving Grace

Fortunately, not all "tea party" movement people agree with either the convention or having Sarah Palin speak, based on my scanning of the blogosphere. And some Republican Party officials are not warm to the idea of embracing these "tea party" people, and nor are the "tea party" people all warm about either party. So, maybe chaos will ensue for a bit.

The best result would be to add the views of the "tea party" folks to the national debate of the issues.

Mr. Brown, New Senator in Town

2010-02-07T08:02:00.000-08:00

The political world woke from its post-holiday slumber to find an unexpected upset of monumental proportions. Just 6 months earlier, Ted Kennedy, the liberal lion of the senate, the last of the trio of Kennedy brothers, was put to his final rest. In the most liberal state, the only one not to vote for Nixon in 1972 ("don't blame me, I'm from Massachusetts" became a popular slogan), a liberal democrat looses to a little known Republican. How did that happen? The nation gasped!

If You Were From Massachusetts, It Wouldn't Be a Surprise!

Massachusetts may look like a liberal state from west of the Appalachians or south of DC, but like most "blue" states, the folks who live here span the political spectrum. And there is a good bit of New England libertarian spirit even in the most liberal. We see our selves as independents, first.

And, despite the view from those on the right who don't live here, we enjoy political balance. We frequently would often pull the lever for a Republican governor (we had 4 in a row before the current Gov. Patrick) while re-electing the "ultraliberal" Ted Kennedy.

Many vote for practical or pragmatic reasons. Ted was a big man in the Senate and could ensure the interests of our fair state were addressed. And, while Ted had seniority, any new senator from Massachusetts would be the most junior in entire senate with little power for years to come. But, have you noticed that our Scott Brown has become quite the "rock star" in Washington, DC. Looks like he'll have more influence and sway that a rank-and-file liberal like Martha Coakley would ever had.

Folks in Massachusetts also find that a Republican governor with a mostly Democratic legislature ensure that one party couldn't run free and either tax the people to death, or cut out every popular programs. Here is this, one of the original 13 colonies, is the quaint concept of using the two-party system to create balance in government. Hmmm, isn't that the way democracy is supposed to work: freedom of speech and consideration of a spectrum of perspectives? I get the feeling (especially from some conservatives) that many are in politics so they can impose their ideas and ways on everyone. But here in Massachusetts, we seem to like some balance.

All in all, electing a moderately conservative Republican to replace the liberal lion of the senate may be shocking to pundits who don't live here, but is not great surprise to me!

What Else Did He Bring?

Fundamentally, Scott Brown connected with people. His opponent, Martha Coakley, didn't. And Coakley and the Democrats assumed the election was over after the primary. Scott Brown ran as an "everyman" with a pickup truck. (What man can resist liking a manly and personable guy with a pickup?) Self-made businessman. Hard working. Everything the average middle class person can admire.

And he tapped into concerns over taxes and the huge federal deficit (after the wars and the stimulus). He also connected with many who have concerns over health care and whether reform (as in the current House and Senate bills) will help or harm them. Many, especially those like me with "pre-existing conditions," fear loosing our good employer-based health care due to reform. In these areas, he sounded good to the so-called "tea party" voters.

For American Idol fans, there was his daughter, Ayla, who made it into the top 16 in Season 5. Her voice was featured in robo-calls trying to get my son to vote for her dad. (That didn't work!)

And for the ladies, there were those photos in the "all-in-all" in Cosmo. Ooo la la!

So, here's a friendly, handsome, manly, personable guy with a pick-up truck, and American Idol contestant daughter, and speaking to what's on people's minds. I may not agree with all his positions, but I have to admit that's a winning combination!

And if health care reform and the whole Obama agenda fails in Congress, well, don't blame me, I may be from Massachusetts, but I didn't vote for Scott Brown!!

Help the Recovery in Haiti

2010-01-13T19:22:00.001-08:00

Haiti, the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere, was hit by an devistating earthquake. Concrete and masonry homes and buildings cracked, crumbled and pancaked. Untold numbers died or were injured. Confusion, chaos, all in a land, that even on a peaceful day without a natural disaster, has the appearance of chaos and confusion.

Here in the land of some of the poorest of the poor, is more hardship, more homelessness, more hunger. Perhaps, with this disaster, the eyes of the world will be more open to the chronic poverty in this small Caribbean nation. Maybe other nations and non-governmental groups will look for ways to work with the people of Haiti to increase employment opportunities.

An Engineer's Comment
What is saddest, for me, is that many of these homes and other buildings did not have to collapse. There are designs, using the same materials, that would result in stronger structures that are more resistant to collapse in an earthquake.

Unfortunately, with such a poor population, people do not have the money to buy better concrete and the proper reinforcing bars. In such a poor nation, the ability of government to ensure that buildings are built properly, as we do in the US, just is very limited. And, where government has some influence, often corruption gets in the way.

I only hope that in the reconstruction effort, the rebuilt structures will be designed to better withstand future earthquakes.

An Appeal
I urge all my readers to do what they can to help. If you believe in prayer, keep the people of Haiti in your prayers. If you have a little to share, help out one of the non-profit orginizations that will be helping out, such as the Red Cross, Oxfam America, or your favorite agency. And pass the word. It would be great if people of all the world joined in helping the poorest of our brothers and sisters in their time of need. Thank you!

Sarah Palin Joins Fox News

2010-01-11T15:51:00.000-08:00

The suspense is over! Looks like Gov. Palin won't be running for President in 2012. Well, not unless she gets out of a mulit-year deal as a new political commentator for Fox News.

Sarah Palin was perhaps the most interesting person to emerge during the 2008 presidential campaign. Hand-picked by John McCain for his vice presidential running mate, the small-town mayor elected governor of Alaska mixed a can-do frontier spirit with a down-home oratory style. Unfortunately, it was soon evident that she lacked an understanding of national and international politics.

In their press release on their web site, Bill Shine, executive vice president of programming for Fox News is quoted: "Governor Palin has captivated everyone on both sides of the political spectrum and we are excited to add her dynamic voice to the FOX News lineup."

It seemed strange why she resigned from governor before her term was up. Most governors will hang on and put in their time during the final "lame duck" months of their term. Was she planning a run for President in 2012? What was she up to?

Now we know!

What to Do About Air Travel?

2010-01-02T18:57:00.000-08:00

The close call in the thwarted bombing attempt of Northwest Airlines Flight 253 over Detroit woke us from our slumber of complacency about the safety of air travel in this age of terrorist attacks on civilians.

Once again, the terrorists have succeeded in creating fear and apprehension with the American public.

And once again, a terrorist had a plan that was one step ahead of the imagination of the bureaucrats of Homeland Security, who often impress me as lacking in a solid understanding of the laws of physics. Their methods have always mixed "planning for the last attack attempt" with putting adherence to politically-correct procedures ahead of proven effective methods.

What Went Wrong?

The perpetrator was known as a potential threat, but was not on the “no fly” list.
Instead of hiding the materials in his shoe or carry-on, it was hidden in his clothes.

As with 9/11 and the "shoe bomber," the terrorist was one step about security procedures. And the lack of communication among agencies is as still a problem today as it was on 9/11.

What To Do?
First, look at what works.

Once in the air, only one method has thwarted the attempts of terrorists: the intervention of passengers and/or crew. The score is 3-3 and in all 3 "thwarts" passengers and/or crew stepped up.
Israli security experts agree: screening technology alone doesn't work; interviewing and even profiling must complement screening techniques.

Second, what could be implemented? Here's a couple of easy ones.

The success of in-flight intervention is a call for marshals on at least selected flights if not all of them.
Any person of concern, even if not on the "no fly" list, should only be allowed on flights with marshals.

The issues of screening and profiling comes up against issues of personal liberty. The whole approach of screening everyone inherently reeks of "guilty unto proven innocent" which runs counter to the basis of constitutional rights and the basic principles of libertarianism.

Still, the terrorists have many Americans afraid enough to say "screen me" and I'll feel safe. The sad thing is not only is the evident of the erosion of our constitutional rights, but in reality even full body scans won't make us safe.

It doesn't take much imagination to see that the terrorists will come up with some way to fool even full body scans. In the prisons they have strip searches, but it does not reveal contraband hid in body cavities. It takes not much imagination that on a suicide mission, the body could be the bomb.

So, what to do?

Here are my thoughts on a broad spectrum approach:

Business travel needs to migrate more to private aircrafts. Likewise, vacation travel should migrate more to charter flights. It's much harder for a terrorist to "blend in" on these types of flights, often where everyone knows who belongs and who doesn't.
Internationally, make less enemies. The Bush Administration raised the ire of most of the world's governments and citizens. A more reasonable approach will reduce the number of people who hate the US. It won't completely solve the problem, but let's not help add to the ranks of the terrorists by our arrogant foreign policy.
For the fewer commercial flights (after implementing #1 above), integrate a program that mixes screening technology, with knowledge-based interviewing of passengers, some random-based interviewing, all based on an improved sharing of information.
Within Homeland Security, there needs to be more technically savvy staff (engineers and scientists) who can try to be a step ahead of the terrorists.

Health Care Reform: Debating the Public Option

2009-12-15T16:35:00.000-08:00

After months of debate in the House and Senate over health reform, what is left to debate? The public options, of course.

The Public Option
The public option seems to be finally out of the bill. The House passed the Democrat-backed option. The Senate seems likely to drop it to get some bill to the floor for a vote.

I like the idea of a public option as competition between the private and public sectors. Many Republicans and some Democrats say it’s a bad idea. But what about the examples of the “public option” that are offered today:

Medicare for elders
Health care for members of the House and Senate
Health care for our armed forces

The irony of the Opposition
How many Representatives and Senators who are firmly opposed to you and me having a public option would voluntarily opt out of their public option and buy private insurance on the open market? When they put their personal health care on the line, maybe I’ll listen to their whining and talking points about the evils of public health care.

If it’s good enough for our Troops, isn’t it good enough for you and me?
Our brave men and women fighting overseas and supporting the effort worldwide get their health care from this same federal government. They have federally operated hospitals with doctors and nurses on the federal payroll. So, if it’s good enough for our brave troops, why is it bad for us?

But what will the reality be like?
The only problems with any health care program, be it private or public, are the complexity, the confusion, the paperwork, and the bureaucracy. I have to deal with Medicare and Medicaid as my mother is in a nursing home. It’s baffling and there’s no one to lead you through the maze of bureaucracy. So, my only fear with a public option is the same level of complexity that will make even its most ardent supporters cry for something easier.

So, would a public option be what we need to counter the money-making insurance companies? Is it inherently flawed? Or, is a good idea in theory, but once it makes it through the House and Senate. would it be so complex and full of red tape as to be not worth it?

Obama’s Nobel Prize Speech Pleases No One

2009-12-13T08:05:00.000-08:00

Few were happy with President Obama’s speech after receiving the Nobel Prize for Peace in Olso this week. It was the Peace Prize he won, but his speech certainly did not ring of “Let’s give peace a chance.” Rather, at times, it sounded more like a war speech and not a peace speech.

He reminded the audience in City Hall in Oslo that the United States is still in two wars. Just days before he announced his intentions to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. He even touched on echoes of the Bush/Cheney doctrine of a “special role” for the US along with its justifications for the US to take pre-emptive acts. At times, it sounded like he was formulating an Obama Just War Theory. He argued that evil exist in the world and that, at times, nations must take up arms to defeat this evil.

View from the Left
Those are the left were not so pleased with this position. Protesters in Oslo carried banners saying “You’ve won it, now earn it.” Many had hope that Obama would have started bringing troops home from both Iraq and Afghanistan by now. Others, including myself (see blog post), questioned giving Obama the Peace Prize without a track record to earn it.

Some commentators on the left (like Daniel Schorr on NPR and the New York Times editorial) thought his more balanced evaluation of the realities of international relations and even that his speech was elegant.

But is it just me, or does this thought pass your mind: it's like a minor "slap in the face" to your hosts to accept a peace prize while expounding theories of just wars?

View from the Right
I am sure this speech gained no traction with the right. Those who admire Sarah Palin or listen to Rush Limbaugh or agree with the ideas espoused by the “tea party” activists – most of these every day folks who are conservative thinking simply don’t trust Obama. From the right, Obama does not respect our country; he does not love America. And nothing he may say is likely to ever change their view.

Why Alienate Everyone?
Obama is an intellectual, a nerd if you will. As a fellow nerd, I can understand how he wants to intellectually balance all the input he has received on matters of war and peace. Having balanced all these conflicting viewpoints, he as formulated his own middle path that meanders through the issues, sometimes leaning right and sometimes leaning left. And often departing from previously stated positions, as I suspect he (like I) get a certain intellectual pleasure of coming down on a position that would have been unexpected before hand.

In short, before Obama was a liberal, he was a nerd. And this is what you’ll get from a president who is a nerd: a policy that, while intellectually sound, can baffle most of the people and please almost no one.

Slow Closure for Prisons That Detain Suspected Terrorists

2009-11-29T19:52:00.000-08:00

Despite President Obama’s commitment to close prisons holding detainees suspected to be terrorists, the closure of such facilities is coming along quite slowly. Under the Bush Administration, detaining suspected terrorists without charges was par for the course. The hope was that under an Obama Administration, these facilities would be expeditiously closed. But, closures have been slow coming.

The closures were hoped to end the practices that violated the international standards of human rights and much of what the US stands for as a land of freedom and due process of law. The torture and abuse of prisons in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq was well documented. Also infamous was the practice of “outsourcing” detention and torture known as extraordinary rendition. But lesser known cases of abuse and torture occurred in other military detention facilities such as Camp Bucca in Iraq, which finally closed in September 2009.

Still, other detention facilities remain open. One of the unresolved issues involves where to move the most dangerous of the suspects.

Granted, individuals suspected of being terrorists or plotting acts of terrorism, or supporting known terrorists, should be detained. It’s the practice of rounding up anyone who might be a terrorist that violates the spirit of law and due process.

As long as America still operates these facilities, we are not the nation founded on basic human rights that we proclaim to be.

Health Care Reform?

2009-11-08T10:35:00.000-08:00

Well, the House of Representatives has passed a health reform bill (HR 3962) by a slim vote of 220-215. At this point, I don't know whether it's real reform, or just the culmination of political grandstanding by both parties and President Obama.

The Vote

The Democrats voted 219-39 while the Republicans were 1-176, with Rep. Joe Cao of Louisiana casting the lone “yeah” vote. Not exactly a resounding vote. Nearly 1/5 of Democrats voted against the bill. And it seems a lot of the moderate "pro-life" Democrat votes were "bought" by allowing them to vote "yeah" on an amendment prohibiting paying for abortions in the public option or in the insurance exchange pools. In all, it seems to me that everyone was voting with one eye on the 2010 midterm elections.

The Democrats want to report they gave the people health care reform. The moderate to conservative Democrats get a favorable "pro-life" check mark on their scorecard so the remain elegible for the litmus-test voters.

And the Republicans can say they did all they can to oppose socialist healthcare.

What's Still Baffling about the Republican Position

I'm still baffled about Republican mantra that this is a "government take-over" of health care. There is a public option, but that remains an option.

Clearly, the words "government take-over" are fighting words for conservatives. Clearly, politicians favor slogans and getting the base energized by charged slogans over a fare discussion of the pros and cons.

Between this tactic and the screaming opponents at the town hall meetings, it seems to me the Republicans don't like the essence of democracy: a fair and open discussion of the issues!

We also need to call out the Republicans on this: if government-run healthcare is so bad, why do the Republican representatives and senators accept it?

I don't think any bill the Democrats have proposed has been anything near perfect. Still, I think we have to call out the Republicans as being obstructionists in the public debate.

Republican Proposals

The Republican proposals, to counter the Democrat's bill, have read like the pile of scrap wood from the RNC party planks. Start with tort reform (limit those rare, but big settlements), throw in some enhanced competition among insurance companies, but leave the reality of many remaining uninsured. (After all, being uninsured is something you should be free to be.)

A Couple of Good Things to Say

It does appear that the new proposal will increase the number of people insured. And it does address the issue of denial of coverage to those with "pre-existing conditions." As someone with a "pre-existing condition" that precludes me from getting certain insurance coverage, I feel strongly about this aspect of reform.

The Mess We're In

The more I look at it, the best we can expect is to tack on a few modifications to the existing healthcare system. Perhaps, system is too kind a word. Some people have employee-provided insurance, some have government-provided insurance (Medicare, Medicaid), a few buy it, and many are uninsured.

Just as the "system" is so complex, the solutions only add to the complexity. There is no clear vission of a simpler, more understandable system. Instead, we're adding some additions to a structure built on a shaky foundation and with a questionable structural integrity. As an engineer, it doesn't appear to be a sound proposal.

Competent Person Appointed FEMA Deputy Administrator

2009-10-20T20:06:00.000-07:00

Why is this news? Shouldn’t that be the norm?

Well, remember “Heck of a job Brownie” and the failed levees flooding most of New Orleans? (See photo at right to refresh your memory.) FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) Administrator Michael D. Brown’s “qualifications” included judging Arabian horses. No real understanding of the work of first responders or what emergency preparedness means. FEMA’s response was slow as thousands were left homeless.

Contrast that with Richard Serino, now the Deputy Administrator of FEMA whose background includes 36 years with Boston Emergency Medical Services (EMS), much of the time as the EMS chief. Here’s someone who has an intimate knowledge of the work of first responders. Someone who knows what it takes to be prepared for any type of emergency, even when one least expects it.

So, what about that Pres. Obama, appointing competent professionals to important government posts!

I’m an engineer, and in my profession, you can’t make if you’re incompetent. Engineers can quickly tell who knows what they’re doing and who doesn’t. Unlike politics and business, where a smile, a strong personality and always having something to say can make up for competence, in engineering, you can’t fool the laws of nature! So, I have a problem with any politician who appoints incompetent cronies.

So, I’m delighted to see competent individuals, like Richard Serino, appointed to important posts.

Obama Wins Nobel Peace Award! (But Why?)

2009-10-09T14:21:00.000-07:00

So President Barack Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize. But the first reaction of many is to ask “Why?”

While I appreciate their consideration of our new president, I think the popular response in America is “He hasn’t done anything yet!”

Supporters and opponents of the president alike are equally surprised and a bid dumfounded.

But this award shows the dichotomy of perception of Obama here in America vs. abroad. In Europe and elsewhere, Obama’s election as president was seen as a welcome change, a new dawn, a sea change in America’s attitude and policy on the international stage. Thus, it is no surprise that in Europe this award is highly lauded.

Still, in the US, even those who support Obama think it’s premature. Others note that the war is ongoing in Iraq and there is not troupe reduction there. And in Afghanistan, many point to the irony of a peace award given to a leader pondering a troupe build-up. In addition, Guantanamo still holds unindicted prisoners and Obama supports renewing key provisions of the Patriot Act.

An interesting sidebar: Republicans and the Taliban are equally critical of awarding the prize to Obama.

So why did Obama win? To me, the award is based on a perception abroad that Obama’s election represents a major sea change in American attitude and policy on international affairs. And, in some circles, international diplomacy being one, perception is reality. For many, it’s not the facts, it’s the attitude or the words.

But still, wouldn’t you feel better if it was someone or a group, maybe not well known to the rest of the world, working for years to bring justice and peace in their land?

The Shout in the House

2009-09-16T17:39:00.001-07:00

On Tuesday, U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson was formally rebuked on Tuesday by a vote in the US House of Representatives. No matter what else he does in life, Rep. Wilson will always be know for shouting "You lie!" during Obama's speech to Congress on September 9th.

While I don't agree with Rep. Wilson's views on health care reform, I don't think a Congressional rebuke was necessary.

I think of his shout as an analog "micro-tweet." It was more an interjection than an interruption. Unlike the protesters at some of the recent town hall meetings, the representative did not prevent the President from finishing his speech. He merely interjected a two-word tweet.

And it doesn’t stand up to fact checking.

So, I’d leave it at that.

Sure, it was rude. Sure, a grade school kid would know better. And I and most rational folks wouldn’t want to set a precedent of encouraging anyone to interrupt a speech because of a difference of opinion.

But he knows what he did. He apologized to the President. His actions have been judged in the court of public opinion (not to mention the late night comedy circuit).

Most think he was out of line. A minority applaud him. These are folks who don’t like the Obama Administration and like the idea of someone “putting to him." I say the rebuke only makes him more a martyr for their cause. The rebuke may be counterproductive and energize the opposition to reform.

Most importantly, the whole issue of the shout and rebuke is a major distraction from the debate over the important details of reform.

So, let’s put the Shout in the House in the past and let's get on with a civil discourse where all opinions are heard on this important topic of reforming health care!

Health Care - Do What's Best for You

2009-09-09T21:40:00.000-07:00

The health care debate goes on and on. Tonight, President Obama spoke to Congress and the nation to describe his proposal. Using a combination of reason and passion, he tried to dismiss the misconceptions and outline what he's really like to see for reform.

Now, overall, I like his proposal for a number of reasons, but the two main reasons are:

It leaves in place the existing coverage that many are satisfied with. No one has to change policies or try to get re-insured. So I can keep my good employer-based insurance, unlike a proposal floated by candidate John McCain.
It adds a government-run program to compete with private policies. Now, this is excactly the kind of experiment I'm most interested in: direct competition between the public and private sectors. My philosophy about government is that it should do what it can do better than the private sector. So, let's see which approach is more cost-effective in providing health insurance.

Here's another interesting perspective (courtesy of Thomas Friedman, New York Times, Sept. 9, 2009): Obama's proposal is largely based on two Republican initiatives, yet it is widely decried by Republicans. The proposal closely resembles the health insurance program put into place here in Massachusetts by Republic Governor Mitt Romney. It adds in an idea for funding taken from John McCain's proposal.

But will the plan pass Congress? And if it does, what will it turn into in the Congress --- will it get overcomplicated, diluted, or heavy with bureaucracy? Even with a Democratic majority in both houses, the necessary compromises may result in a bill that barely resembles Obama's proposal.

And probably for the worst, it will receive no Republican support. This is highly unfortunate. With a greater balance in power in Congress, a more bipartisan bill might have emerged. Maybe on that would be more effective in addressing the full range of needed reform.

But, to me, it is clear that the key to the Republican strategy for gains in the 2010 midterm elections is to ensure the Obama health plan fails, or if it passes, that it is widely disliked by the public. So, I'm not optimistic about the success of true health care reform.

So, we may all still be where we are now: some of us will have decent employer-provided insurance. The elderly and disabled will have Medicare. Many will try to get individual policies. And many will remain uninsured.

If reform fails, health care will amount to doing what's best for yourself (if you can)!

End of an Era

2009-08-28T22:13:00.000-07:00

The death of Senator Ted Kennedy brings a political era to an end. It began in 1960 with the election of John Fitzgerald Kennedy as President. His election at the young age of 43 was heralded as a time for new hope. The era saw two of John’s brothers serving in the US Senate. The three Kennedy brothers were household names throughout the US and around the world.

Tragedy hit as John was assassinated in 1963 and Bobby in 1968. We all remembered where we were, what we were doing when we heard the news.

For 41 years, Ted continued to serve in the Senate and carry on as patriarch of the Kennedy family. Proud of his liberal politics, he was often a lightning rod for conservatives. Still, the strength of his warm personality won over many of his political foes in the Senate, some who became close friends of Ted.

For me, the greatest legacy of the Kennedy family is the dedication to public service. The family was very well off and Ted and his siblings could have done what wealthy people do – just make more money and enjoy a lavish lifestyle. But they didn’t. The three brothers went on to serve the public in elected office. Others, like their sister Eunice (founder of the Special Olympics) and nephew Joe (founder of the non-profit Citizens Energy), worked in the non-profit sector. Perhaps JFK summed up this dedication best in his inauguration speech when he said “Ask what you can do for your country.” Yes, the family did still live well off, but because they were given more, they gave more.

One of Ted’s shining traits was being there for those in need. No stranger to great personal loss, Ted would be the first to call his senate colleagues in time of illness or loss. He even personally called all families who lost a member on 9/11.

But now he is gone. He will be resting with his brothers in Arlington National Cemetery. While some members of the next generation of Kennedys serve in political office, the three most famous brothers have now passed on.

And for those of us who lived through their emergence on the national political scene, the era of the Kennedys has ended.

More on Health Care Reform

2009-08-23T20:14:00.000-07:00

The national debate on health care reform has provided the most entertainment in the political circuit since Sarah Palin’s debut last year, just about at this time.

We had the new version of the “do nothings” shouting down politicians and their fellow citizens alike at town hall meetings. We have the wild and crazy campaign of misinformation featuring the “death panels” who will decide who deserves treatment and who will be left to die. Other misinformation includes the idea that the government is taking over health care (therefore people would lose their existing coverage).

Perhaps most amusing is the right wing pundits comparing Pres. Obama to the Nazis. This last one is especially absurd if you recall the Arian supremacy plank of Nazism and happen to notice we now have an African American President.

Legitimate Concerns

There are some legitimate concerns about change. Many of us have good coverage at work and don’t want to see an end to this. (See my post on this topic.) Also, many like me have pre-existing conditions and may not be able to get coverage if we lost what we have.

So, there are many that have good or decent coverage who don’t want government messing with it. With this I agree.

Need for Reform

The basic need is simply the rising cost of health care. Not far behind this is the clear cross-subsidies where those covered are paying for those without insurance or those whose policy does not pay the full cost of insurance.

While many realize this problem, I’d say many are content to keep the status quo. After the recession and market fall, the rich and middle class are still risk adverse. Thus, even people who have rationally examined the issue are not open to change.

Basis of Proposals

As President Obama has explained, the idea is not to replace existing coverage, but rather to add a government program to compete with the private sector plans (e.g., employer plans, individual plans, group plans).

As a point of reference, today, there is a large, popular and successful federal government-run medical insurance program known as Medicare. This flies in the face of many of the arguments of adding another national program.

Possible Political Tactic

So, why all this opposition, particularly that organized by the right and by Republicans?

My theory is they are following the 1994 playbook. First, they put up a strong opposition to the Clinton health care reforms. Once this opposition was seeded in the populous, it was not long until this translated into widespread opposition of Clinton programs and then midterm victories for the Republicans.

As I see it, this full-court press on health care is not about health care. It’s a strategy to swing the American popular opinion from the Obama camp to the Republican camp, paving the way for Republican gains in the House and Senate in 2010.

Why Can't We Debate Health Care in a Civilized Fashion?

2009-08-08T18:52:00.000-07:00

Why, in the greatest democracy in the free world, can't we have a civilized, intelligent discussion of a very important national issue?

There have been reports of disruptions of town hall forums on the topic of health care reform. The disruptors shout down any discussion that is attempted. These demonstrations have been focused on Democrat Congressmen, particularly those supportive of reforms.

Accompanying this school-yard type bullying are the propagation of misleading information and outright lies about proposed changes. For example, some false rumors say you can't keep your existing private insurance or that the proposal is a single payer system (whereas it's a government alternative to private insurance). Today, President Obama spoke out about this misinformation.

Perhaps worse is the rhetoric of Rush Linbaugh and his ilk, comparing the proposed changes to Nazi programs, even comparing the logo for the proposed health program to the Nazi swastika. Rachel Maddow recently reported on these outrageous comparisons.

But isn't it ironic that Rush Linbaugh and others are labeling the Obama health care proposals as "Nazi" inspired while supporting this "mob rule" tactic of shouting down all civilized discussion. But, which is the really fascist tactic? Obama proposing a program that will be debated in Congress and throughout the country --- or, protestors shouting down any discussion of the issue? Add to that the death and other violent threats against Congressmen. As a result, some of these representatives are canceling public appearances to discuss health care.

What happened to democracy, where all sides are free to make known their opinions on current events? Why do these protestors prevent other citizens from exercising their democratic rights to debate this issue? Oppression of the practice of democracy sounds like fascism!

If the opponents of Obama's program have good points to make, why can't they present them to the nation in a civilized manner? If they have important facts and strong arguments, why do they resort to schoolyard tactics of intimidation and bullying?

So, again I say why, in the greatest democracy in the free world, can't we have a civilized, intelligent discussion of this very important national issue?

We have to say NO! to the bullies shouting down discussion at town hall meetings!

We have to say NO! to those knowingly propagating outlandish false claims!

We have to say NO! to schoolyard antics of shouting down anyone who doesn't agree with you!

We have to say YES! to acting like adults and having a lively debate about the real issues.

Two American Women Released in North Korea: Good News of Bad?

2009-08-07T20:21:00.000-07:00

After former President Bill Clinton visits North Korea, two American journalists, Euna Lee and Laura Ling, were released from prison.

The women were held for five months after their arrest on March 17th along North Korea's border with China. There were accused of entering the country illegally from China. The two were sentenced to 12 years of hard labor. However, they were held in a guest house and not yet transferred to the labor camp when Kim Jong Il pardoned them. They returned to the US with President Clinton on August 5th.

Controversy
Was this is a happy outcome of private diplomacy or did it provide a diplomatic coup for Kim Jong Il?

Clearly, the journalists and their families and many Americans rejoiced that the unjustly imprisoned pair were free. Personally, I was very happy to see them reunited with their families and friends.

But what about the cost? Did the visit of a former US President reward North Korea for becoming a nuclear state?

Did it open a possible avenue for diplomacy with this reclusive leader and rogue state?

Or was this a follow-up to Clinton’s agenda of opening dialog with North Korea?

Commentators have expressed a variety of opinions. Conservatives and some scholars of North Korea have pointed out that the visit of Clinton will be seen as a great victory for Kim Jong Il. The critics see this as a bad move.

Which Path Should We Take?
But, in my opinion, Kim Jong Il is not your typical rational leader who plays by the rules and can be influenced by sanctions, criticism or a hands-off approach. The “Axis of Evil” label meant nothing and the North went on to develop their nuclear capabilities without regard to the constant criticism of the Bush Administration. The Bush approach did not accomplish anything. Our hands may be “clean” by not giving in, but we gained nothing.

On the other hand, Clinton was considering dialog with the North. While that did not happen on his watch, he did have a long talk with Kim Jong Il. Many speculate that the discuss was on a broad range of issues.

Some will say the North Korean leader is evil and maybe a little short of working on all cylinders, so therefore we should not talk, or at least not talk without conditions. But, we can continue to never talk and the North will continue their nuclear program. What does that get us?

My opinion is sometimes it’s best to talk directly with the devil. Engagement can provide opportunities for leverage. Maybe policy gains can be made.

So, while I’m not overly optimistic for a significant change in actions and policy in North Korea. But, maybe this trip has opened an opportunity for dialog that may lead to better relations.

In the Case of Professor Gates

2009-08-03T18:12:00.000-07:00

This national headline story unfolded mere blocks from my home.

Yep, just down the street from me, on a dark side street the other side of the high school, Harvard University Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., was arrested for disorderly conduct. The details have been well reported in the media. And comments and analysis has been piled on from all sides.

So what can I add? Being near to home, I thought I should comment. But what to say? So, this will be my home town perspective on the "non-crime."

BTW—I’m calling it the “non-crime” as charges were dropped.

The Scene of the Non-Crime
First I walked past the house at night. Between the street light spacing and the canopy of the trees lining the street, it is exceptionally dark in from of the house.

Perhaps, if it were better lit, there might not have been a report of a crime. Many other residences in the area (see photo at right) have well-lit front doorways, and there would be less suspicion about what is going on. Seeing two men try to force a dark doorway off a dark street might cause many a person to call 911.

The Socioeconomics of the Scene of the Non-Crime
The Professor lives in the most prestigious zip code in our fair city of Cambridge. In 02138, single family homes begin at well over $1 million. To me, the scene of the non-crime involved real estate that could go for something in the $1 to $2 million range. This is socioeconomically distant from the neighborhoods with the higher percentages of minority residents.

So, here’s some questions:

If two black men were forcing a door in a poor minority neighborhood, would it have been less likely that someone would have called the police?
If two white men were forcing a door in a well-lit area of my middle class neighborhood, would someone first ask what’s going on before calling the police?

Here my thought is that the more wealthy the neighborhood, the more likely the call to the police.

The Socioeconomics Setting of Racial Profiling
At first one might expect more racial profiling to occur where minorities live. But is that true?

I’ve read that there are many incidents of citizen and/or police profiling in the richer non-minority communities. In these areas, there may be a greater assumption of “what are you doing here” when say a minority person (particularly a man) is seen in a very wealthy white neighborhood.

I’ve heard stories of minority municipal workers and others with legitimate business purposes stopped and questioned in some of the richer suburbs of Boston for little more than “working while being black.”

So here’s the irony: it’s a wealthy neighborhood, but this is the black man’s house. And it’s the owner that is being questioned.

Was It Racial Profiling?
This is the charged question and some will say “yes” and other will say “no.”

At first I suspected that the caller to 911 called because she could see the race of the men forcing the door. But she said she couldn’t tell, and having seen the lighting at the scene, I’d agree that it would be hard to determine skin color in the poor lighting.

Still, if you were Prof. Gates in your own home with the cops asking you to identify yourself, I think you’d be saying to yourself “This would not be happening if I were white!”

And then: “If this is happening to me, a Harvard professor, what is going on when police stop other black men who do not are not from such a privileged status?”

On the other side are the police who say they followed procedures. But do these procedures work?

Standard Operating Procedures Don’t Guarantee the Desired Outcome
Standard operating procedures (SOPs) can be a good thing in a business, in manufacturing or even in law enforcement. When there are so many possible choices, SOPs can narrow the range of decisions that need to be made.

Police SOPs can attempt to take prejudices out of the discretion that law enforcement officers have. In this case, it seems that Sgt. Crowley followed the proper procedures. In other words, there is no basis to criticize his actions.

But, we still had a controversial outcome.

The Irony of a Racial Confrontation in the Most Liberal City in Massachusetts
Some have pointed out of the irony of a racial incident in the most liberal city in Massachusetts. This is as though “liberal” or “progressive” meant “post-racial.”

So, perhaps there is an expectation that “this kind of thing doesn’t happen here.” Might this be a thought in Prof. Gates’ mind: “How can this be happening in Cambridge?” Maybe his anger was in part from the incredulity of the situation.

A couple of additional thoughts:

Latent racism exists in even the most progressive communities and individuals (including me).

Prejudice and segregation took longer to be routed out in “more liberal” northeast than in the “more conservative” south.
The local politicians, though quite liberal, have been unusually reticent, restrained and balanced in their comments. While I had expected a strong outpouring in support of Prof. Gates and maybe the sacking of the police commissioner, instead, the local response has been quite mild.

My Conclusion
The bottom line for me is that this shouldn’t have happened.

Not that the police can be faulted for following procedures. But sometimes, the best outcome involves a little more discretion and a little less simply following standard procedures.

Though the professor may have been highly agitated and upset, my preferred outcome would have been for the police to leave him alone once his identity was determined.

With Liberty and Justice for All: A Year in Review

2009-07-03T20:59:00.000-07:00

Independence Day on July 4th represents the birthday of freedom for America. As our nation has completed its 233rd year, it is time to assess the state of liberty and justice in this land.

Overview

The last year saw an historic change, as the Bush Administration gave way to the new administration of America’s first African-America President, Barack Obama. Not only was this a change in party and racial background in the office of the president, but also there was a fundamental change in how liberty and justice would be applied both here and abroad.

While the Bush-Cheney Administration was intent on limiting liberty and justice to protect us from the “terrorists,” the Obama Administration brought the hope of a return to our principals of liberty and justice for all.

Foreign Relations: How Do We Treat Our Enemies?

In this regard, the US has always had enemies. The names change – British, Spanish, Germans, Russians, terrorists – but there have always been one or more enemies and we can expect this in the future. And there will always be evil in the world. The attacks of 9-11 are not the only incidence where evil deeds have or will result in the death of innocent people.

But, the question is how we deal with the perpetrators of such evil deeds.

Under Bush-Cheney, the deeds of terrorist were raised to a level of concern greater that of past enemies of the US. New methods were needed:

indefinite detention
extraordinary rendition
special interrogation

Indefinite detention conveniently fit the loophole that some terrorists are not agents of a particular nation, and therefore not soldiers protected by international convention. Nor were they criminals, as they were committing acts of war and not crimes. This loophole was large enough to round up even suspected terrorists. Clearly some were associated with terrorists groups, but others may have been little more but in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Extraordinary rendition was also applied to these combatants. This is a fancy term for out-sourcing the imprisonment, torture, and possible execution of captured alleged terrorists. Some subjected to rendition were nationals of friendly nations such as Canada and the UK.

Special interrogation was the fancy term for what most would call torture. While Cheney argues to this day that waterboarding is not torture and was effective in gaining information, most Americans were not proud of a nation that used torture in interrogations carried out by the CIA, military or even government contractors.

Change Under Obama?

So far, we have seen positive steps under the new president. We’re seeing administration officials call waterboarding and other “special interrogation” methods as torture. We’ve heard the call to close the prison at Guantanamo. But we have heard of no call to end indefinite detention for these prisoners.

While official use of rendition appears to have ended, it was disappointing that the Obama administration still claimed “state secrets privilege” in February in regard to a lawsuit against Boeing Company for arranging rendition flights. (See my posts Rendition Revisited and Rendition Revisited-Update.)

Domestic Issues

Under Bush/Cheney we saw a reaction to the attacks of 9-11 that coupled fear with restrictions on liberties. Whereas FDR proclaimed “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself,” we saw Bush/Cheney emphasize the need to fear the terrorists. The change in administration has been accompanied by the end of this fear campaign.

On the liberty side, we saw greater restrictions for airline passengers, more surveillance cameras in public areas, and the wiretapping of citizens’ oversees calls. In this category, as the memory of 9-11 faded, there was some let-up, but most of these still remain.

Civil Liberties

The constitution guarantees equal rights for all. But theory and practice often diverge.

Minorities

Clearly, minorities are making advances, but poverty is still afflicts minorities to a greater degree. While some of this is economic disparity, there is also a correlation between economic means and the ability to ensure one’s rights are protected in legal and civil matters. We still see a much higher percentage of minorities in prison. Affirmative action remains controversial.

Women’s Rights

The presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton raised the hope for women of crashing the ultimate glass ceiling. On the other hand, the choice of Sarah Palin for Republican vice presidential candidate was more problematic – clearly she did well as mayor and governor, but was not quite ready for the national stage and this became quite evident.

Women have generally arrived at the place where they are accepted in professional settings, but the economic disparity remains. And also the glass ceiling.

Immigration Issues

The question of what to do with millions of illegal immigrants remains a hot issue. Bush gets a positive mark from me on advocating a guest worker status, realizing the reality that so many have lived here a long time and contribute to the economy and their communities. However, while there remain many who want to deport all undocumented aliens, there is simply no political will for this. Therefore, the undocumented remain in this legal limbo where they remain here but lack many essential civil rights.

Perhaps most preposterous of the Bush-Cheney era proposals is the wall on the Mexican border. In many places, this would be like a prison wall with multiple fences and watch towers. Maybe it works in the desert border of Arizona or New Mexico, but along the winding Rio Grande River in Texas, the wall would be back some distance from the river bank, thereby appearing to cede territory to Mexico and leaving a good number of citizens and their property in this DMZ between the wall and the riverbank.

Trumping this preposterous idea was the funding provision exempting the wall construction from all federal laws and regulations! Like the terrorist, the illegals are such a threat that extraordinary means must be taken.

GLTB Rights

During the Bush-Cheney term, there was no spoken support for gay rights, even if the Vice President had a more inclusive view that the party line (because of a close family member). Under the Obama administration, there is some movement for additional rights for partners. However, “don’t ask, don’t tell” remains. At this point in time, when we all know gay people either in our family or at work or elsewhere, this policy no longer makes sense.

Gay marriage states are increasing, despite the referendum loss in California. As I mention in my post, I’d like to see the state get out of the marriage business – they’ve only been involved for 100 to 200 years of human history. I say let government administer legal contracts between people and let other institutions of society (e.g., religions) define “marriage” as they see appropriate. Lagging behind gay rights is transgender rights. Some states are enacting anti-discrimination provisions, yet understanding of these issues is lagging behind the progress for gay rights.

Summary

So, on this 4th of July, what is the overall status of “liberty and justice for all” in America? Definitely, the nation took some major steps backwards in the previous administration. While there has been positive motion under the current administration, we are not where we should be. Some policies and procedures of the Bush-Cheney administration have not been reversed. Minorities and women still have a ways to go to gain full equity. And “don’t ask, don’t tell” is a policy whose time has past.

While the struggle is still ongoing, we still remain a nation founded on the principal of liberty and justice for all. Happy Independence Day!

Supreme Court Rules Strip-Search of 13-Yr. Old Girl Illegal

2009-06-25T21:56:00.000-07:00

As reported by the AP:

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that school officials violated an Arizona teenager's rights by strip-searching her for prescription-strength ibuprofen, declaring that U.S. educators cannot force children to remove their clothing unless student safety is at risk.

In an 8-1 ruling, the justices said that Safford Middle School officials violated the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches with their treatment of Savana Redding. The court ruled that the officials could not be held financially liable but left it to lower courts to decide if the school district could.

In my post of April 21, 2009, I expressed my outrage of the violation of this girl's body by school officials looking for ibuprofin! Can you believe that? For the sake of finding maybe a couple of ibuprofin pills, they made her expose her breasts and her pelvic area!

I still say this is sexual abuse. And not far removed from rape and child abuse! Though the intent was not sexual, just the same her body was violated by having to expose herself to school officials.

In any other workplace in the US, the firm would be sued and management fired if a woman was required to expose her breasts and pelvic area for any reason!

While the Supreme Court ruled strongly in favor of justice for Savana Redding, they ruled that the officials could not be held financially liable. But I question if they should not be charged with indecent assault!

School officials have no right to violate the bodies of students. Period.

Does a Majority of Regular Churchgoers Favor the Use of Torture?

2009-06-14T15:17:00.000-07:00

I heard a most unusual and upsetting statistic today on NPR: a majority of churchgoers favor the use of torture in certain circumstances.

Now, maybe it's just me, but I'm a regular churchgoer, but my understanding of the 10 Commandments differs. Granted there is no commandment: "Thou shalt not torture." But Jesus said "Love thy neighbor as thyself." All in all, I can find no reason to deliberately torture a human being. Period. Under any circumstances.

A commentator on NPR mentioned that there may be other factors contributing to this statistic. Perhaps those self-identifying as "regular churchgoers" then to be Republicans. Maybe they really believe terrorists are uniquely evil and in that there's a loophole. Who knows, but I, for one, don't understand it.

Torture is never acceptable. Period

Building A Bridge to Islam?

2009-06-04T16:26:00.000-07:00

Our President Barack Obama has taken a major step in reaching out to the Muslim world. In a historic speach at Cairo University, he pledged "to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims," as reported by NPR.

Building a bridge over the great cultural and religious gulf that separates Islam and the West, the President quoted frequently from the Quran, as well as the Bible. The son of a Kenyan Muslim, his personal history itself is founded in both Islam and Christianity. As such, Pres. Obama has gone where no Bush could go.

I believe that reaching out in this manner is a positive step, not only for peace and understanding in the world, but, if sucessful, will prove more effective than any occupation or regime change. Clearly his words touch the hearts of many Muslims. And this follows in the traditions of Rev. Martin Luther King and Mahatma Ghandi, reaching out in peace, across cultural divides.

While the speach was well-received, some, such as Hamas and the Iranian government were not impressed. One speach will not undue 8 years of Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld. One speach will not transform America from the great satan to a great friend. One speach will not change the hearts of radicals and terrorists.

But we are on a much better path: the path to a new dawn of hope!

Murder Is Never Justified!

2009-05-31T16:29:00.000-07:00

Dr. George Tiller, one of the nation's few providers of late-term abortions, was serving as an usher during Sunday morning services when he was shot in the foyer of Reformation Lutheran Church in Kansas, as reported on NPR.

How can anyone claiming to be "pro-life" murder a man in cold blood in the House of the Lord? No matter our opinions of abortion, this is a crime that violates the civilized system of laws that our nation is built on, AND desicrates a House of the Lord!

Cheney Still At It

2009-05-25T21:14:00.000-07:00

Last week, President Barack Obama and former Vice President Dick Cheney presented two divergent view of the interrogation of suspected terrorists. While our President is calling for an end of anything that could be considered torture, the former Vice President advocated for "enhanced interrogations." Cheney claimed that these techniques were legal and have saved lives. He even defended the use of waterboarding.

But the issue is not about effectiveness or legality, it is about what America we want to be. Are we to be a nation that employs interrogation methods like waterboarding, something I would consider to be torture?

Or are we to be the beacon of freedom and justice to the world? Why should we employ torture in the cause of freedom and justice? It makes no sense to me.

I can only conclude that Mr. Cheney has been seduced by the "dark side." In how many stories, historic and fiction, do we see a leader advocate oppressive means to protect the freedom of the people?

Our President is right. We must say "no" to torture!

Supreme Court Hears Case of 13-Yr. Girl Strip-Searched by School Officials

2009-04-21T15:51:00.000-07:00

Is this an outrageous or what? Strip searching a 13-year old girl because she might have prescription-strength ibuprofen!

NPR reports:

The Supreme Court seemed worried Tuesday about tying the hands of school officials looking for drugs and weapons on campus as they wrestled with the appropriateness of a strip-search of a 13-year-old girl accused of having prescription-strength ibuprofen.

Savana Redding was 13 when Safford, Ariz., Middle School officials, on a tip from another student, ordered her to remove her clothes and shake out her underwear looking for pills. The district bans prescription and over-the-counter drugs.
Her lawyer argued to the Supreme Court that such a "intrusive and traumatic" search would be unconstitutional in every circumstance if school administrators were not directly told the contraband was in her underwear.

NPR also reports:

Vice Principal Kerry Wilson took Redding to his office to search her backpack. When nothing was found, Redding was taken to a nurse's office where she says she was ordered to take off her shirt and pants. Redding said they then told her to move her bra to the side and to stretch her underwear waistband, exposing her breasts and pelvic area. No pills were found.

Analysis

I find this intrusive search for a possible prescription drug to be an outrageous violation of her rights. Wasn’t it sufficient to check her bag and pockets? How could one ibuprofen be such a threat to the school that a strip search was necessary?

Furthermore, since she had to bare her breasts and pelvic area, I find this very close to rape and child abuse. Granted there was no physical contact or penetration, but think of the extreme personal embarrassment and the visual violation of one’s “private parts.” Rape is not a sexual crime; it is a crime of power – a person in a position of greater power violates the private parts of another.

This is just another example of women of all ages can becoming the victims of abuse of our right to privacy.

In my view, this school official should be liable for sexual abuse!

Afghan women march to protest restrictions

2009-04-16T21:15:00.000-07:00

Women in Kabal, Afghanistan marched to protest Taliban-like restrictions passed by the Parliament. As reported in the Boston Globe, these restrictictions on women would allow such practices as marital rape -- a woman cannot say "no" to her husband's sexual demands.

This is a nation where most women are uneducated, and where the Taliban burn schools that educate girls and harrass and even harm girls who try to go to school.

These brave women were met by a mob of men yelling "Get out of here, you whores."

The contrast in freedom is so striking. Here in the US as in much of Europe and other nations, women are educated, travel independently, can choose to live alone or with a partner of their choosing(even one of either sex), and work to independely support oneself. In parts of Afghanistan (and now parts of Pakistan, too), women cannot travel unescorted, cannot work to support themselves, and cannot even divorce from their husbands should they be abusive.

Even in the US, there was a time years ago when women were 2nd class citizens, couldn't vote or own land, and were little more than the property of their husbands. But brave women stood up and protested, and won the freedom that women enjoy today.

We should all honor the stuggle of these brave women in Kabul and hope someday their daughters will enjoy the freedoms they fought for.

Captain Freed from Pirates (But Are We Satisfied with the Outcome?)

2009-04-16T19:18:00.000-07:00

The Obama Administration took the cool, calculated approach to freeing Capt. Richard Phillips of the Maersk-Alabama. This wasn't Jack Bauer. Or Mission Impossible. No shock and awe.

But look at the outcome:

The ship reached its destination with the entire crew, less their captain
The captain was freed unharmed
No ransom was paid
The pirates: 1 captured, 3 dead

Clearly the score is US 1, Pirates 0.

But somehow I suspect that many are not satisfied about the military approach. No going in with guns blazing. No retaliatory bombing of suspected pirate holdouts in Somalia. Rather, the military tried negotiations and then, when the opportunity presented itself, took out the 3 pirates simply and efficiently with just 3 shots.

I, for one, prefer the "think first, act deliberately" approach rather than the "act first -- just do something" approach.

But will the American public be satisfied with military success with a limited expenditure of adrenaline?

We're Going Up?

2009-04-02T14:35:00.000-07:00

Just after I blogged about the economy going down, what happens? It goes up! Ah, the joy of being a pessimist!.

(Being an engineer, I get paid to think about what might go wrong, so being a pessimist is a occupational hazard!)

MSNBC proclaimed today: "Dow ends at almost 2-month high." Quoting that byline: "The stock market rally continued Thursday, driving the Dow Jones industrials above the 8,000 mark for the first time since February and to its highest close in nearly two months."

Maybe I can put that Bruce Springsteen song on hold for a while.

We're Going Down, Down, Down, Down

2009-03-17T20:15:00.000-07:00

Bruce Springsteen sang "I'm going down, down, down, down. I'm going down, down, down, down. I'm going down, down, down, down."

This downfall in the economy hasn't been a real "crash" like the stock market crash of October 29, 1929, known as Black Tuesday.

Instead we keep going down, down, down, down. (Then we take a break.) Then we resume going down, down, down, down. (Then another break.) Then, we keep going down, down, down, down.

And the worst part is that no one knows how to stop the fall. No one knows where we're going or when we will hit the bottom. Not the President, not the Secretary of the Treasury, not stock brokers or financial advisors.

But in an almost surreal way, we're not panicing. Maybe it's the air conditioning and sealed windows, but we never had business men jumping from office buildings like in '29. We don't have former stock brokers selling apples or pencils on the street. It's bad on paper, but our life goes on. Yeah, we're not retiring at 65, and we cut back on things, but life goes on.

So for now, we're going down, down, down, down; we're going down, down, down, down; we're going down, down, down, down.

Bush Administration Memos Shown to Support the Repression of Rights

2009-03-02T19:07:00.000-08:00

As reported by the AP and NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101360891), the Obama Administration has released many anti-terrorism memos from the Bush Administration. As the report states:

"The conclusion, reiterated in page after page of documents, was that the president had broad authority to set aside constitutional rights.

"Fourth Amendment protections against unwarranted search and seizure, for instance, did not apply in the United States as long as the president was combating terrorism, the Justice Department said in an Oct. 23, 2001, memo.

"'First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully,' Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo wrote, adding later: 'The current campaign against terrorism may require even broader exercises of federal power domestically.'
(source: "Obama Releases Secret Bush Anti-Terrorism Memos," by The Associated Press)

In a related statement, the Obama Administration also spoke out against the use of waterboarding and requiring a return to complying with the Army Field Manual for interviewing suspected terrorists.

I, for one, hope this is the change we've been looking for -- the return to constitutional rights and the rule of law!

To Stimulate or Not to Stimulate?

2009-02-23T18:44:00.000-08:00

To Stimulate or Not to Stimulate?

That is the question for Republican governors. Whether they should be a populist and spread out the manna from DC, or to take a stand, no matter how politically ill-advised, and refuse these tainted funds.

Now, neither I nor the President and his advisors, nor most economists have any real idea of how to get the economy out of this nose dive. How low will it go? But, the President has chosen action over inaction.

When unemployment hits 10% and multitudes of the former middle class have lost their homes, woe to any governor who “stood her/his ground” and refused the stimulus funding.

Even our former Gov. of Mass. Michael Dukakis, a man didn’t know how to say no to federal aid, once refused federal highway funding for low priority improvements (as a transportation engineer, I agreed it wasn’t something that was not really needed). But, he had to quickly make a 180 and agree to taking the funds.

I don’t know if the stimulus will do anything long-term for the economy.

But I’ll bet that governors who refuse the stimulus will have a short political life, especially with double-digit unemployment!

The Stimulus: Is It Pork?

2009-02-13T15:30:00.000-08:00

One of the recent criticisms of the Stimulus (particularly from Republicans) is that it is full of pork.

Anytime the government spends, there is a high probability that pet projects or programs (a.k.a, “pork”) will be included. And when the biggest spending bill ever works its way through Congress, there’s no way it can survive without picking up some pork along the way. Granted, no “earmarks” were allowed, but there are other ways to get pork in a bill.

I think it was Tip O'Neil who said "One person's pork is another person's bacon" or something similar. (Apologies to those who keep Kosher.)

Does the Stimulus Bill contain pork? I say: “Tell me something new!”

The real question is: To Stimulate or Not To Stimulate.

To be continued………….

President Speaks in Coherent, Complete Sentences

2009-02-10T18:35:00.000-08:00

For the first time in 8 years, we heard a President respond to press questions in coherent, complete sentences. Now, that's change we can believe in!

That said, the tone of the press conference was somber. There is no end in sight to the economic downturn with the stock market headed down and unemployment rising.

The answers were long, though generally well thought-out. No funny sound bites. No fodder for SNL or Leno or Letterman. In some ways, almost boring.

As I've said before in this blog (see Sept. 2008 posts), our leaders don't really understand the economic downturn or what will work to reverse the trend. This applies to Pres. Obama.

While I don't pretend to understand it either, I do know we have but 2 choices:

do nothing, or
try to spend our way out.

Some conservatives prefer a tax cut. But the total value of a tax cut will not be realized in the economy as some portion will go to savings or debt reduction.

Spending, paticularly on infrastructure can have a factor of 1.4 or so in terms of economic benefits. First, the money employes people in infrastructure construction. Then, materials for this construction a purchased (trickling back to suppliers, manufacturers and delivery companies). Then, with ample work, the construction workers will be more likely to buy consumer goods. All in all there is a trickle impact through the economy. Finally, the improved infrastructure has an overall positive impact on commerse, be it do to better roads, more reliable utilities, or ending a load restriction on a bridge that cause truck traffic to detour.

While we clearly have an intellegent leader, our economic future remains uncertain.

Rendition Revisited -- Update

2009-02-10T14:55:00.000-08:00

The trial opened but the Obama Justice Dept. has kept to the Bush line regarding maintaining secrecy.

Most disappointing.

Some in the media have excused this as being too soon for new administration to implement policy changes.

But where's that change we can count on?

Rendition Revisited?

2009-02-06T18:28:00.000-08:00

How will the Obama administration redress the human rights violations of the Bush Administration's policy of extraordinary rendition?

Today’s New York Times reports a hearing next week in San Francisco regarding a lawsuit filed on behalf of five detainees against Jeppesen Dataplan, a subsidiary of the Boeing Company, that arranged rendition flights that delivered detainees to nations where they were later tortured.

In the article, it states:

“The suit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union in the Federal District Court in San Francisco in May 2007. It was dismissed last February after the Bush administration asserted the ‘state secrets privilege,’ claiming that the disclosure of information in the case could damage national security.

"In the appeal, to be heard Monday by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the civil liberties union argues that the government has engaged in an inappropriate blanket use of the privilege and that the case should be allowed to proceed.”

So, will the Obama administration end this blanket use of the claim of state secrets? Will there be positive movement by this administration in breaking from the past administration’s use of rendition leading to “out-sourced” torture? Let’s hope that change has come.

Reference: “Claims of Torture Abroad Face Test Monday in Court,” New York Times, February 6, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/us/politics/06torture.html?ref=todayspaper

Bush gets the Shoe!

2008-12-18T14:42:00.000-08:00

When it's time to go, some get the boot.

Pres. Bush got 2 shoes.

Ironic or appropriate?

Creation and Politics

2008-12-15T16:27:00.000-08:00

It was Christmas Eve in 40 years ago. It followed a tumultuous year that saw the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy. It saw riots at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. In Vietnam, American troops killed civilians in the infamous My Lai massacre.

But on that day in 1968, humans saw, for the first time, an earthrise over the surface of the moon. Apollo 8 was the first manned flight to leave earth’s gravity. William Anders, Jim Lovell, and Frank Borman were the first humans to orbit the moon. Inspired by this breathtaking view – a photo that is credited with inspiring not only Earth Day but the entire environmental movement – the three astronauts read about creation as written in the Hebrew Book of Genesis.

A moment of awe and reverence?

Maybe to some, but it may have been the first salvo in battle in the national political scene over the biblical creation account.

Accounts of Creation

Anthropologists will tell you that every culture and civilization typically has some account of creation. The details vary, but often there is acknowledgement of a creator god who was responsible for it all.

In the US, creation as described in Genesis is the most known account. But, within the sects of Christianity and Judaism, there are disagreements about how Genesis should be understood. While nearly all of these sects would acknowledge Genesis as the inspired word of God, some take it more literally than others. Some believe God literally took 6 days to create the world, while others say that timeframe might have been a little longer (maybe even 15 billion years).

Here’s where I have to state my position. Yes, I am a Christian, but I don’t think the “days” in Genesis were 24 hours. You see, in Psalm 90, the psalmist, who really understood the eternal nature of God, says that a 1,000 years to us may be like a single day to God. So I say, 6 days, 1,000 years, or 15 billion years, what does it matter to an eternal God?

Creation and Politics: The Origins of Conflicts

Perhaps the first major conflict between the Genesis creation account and national politics was 1925 Scopes Trial. The state of Tennessee enacted the Butler Act, which prohibited teaching any theory that denied the Biblical account of the origins of humans. John Scopes, a high school teacher, was found guilty after intentionally violating the Act.

After the reading of Genesis from Apollo 8, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, an atheist, sued the United States government, alleging that government employees were involved in public prayer in space. While the suit was dismissed by the Supreme Court due to lack of jurisdiction, this action irritated many Christian religious leaders.

Creation and Politics: The Invention of Creationism, Creation Science and the “Intelligent Designer”

The conflict of evolution vs. Genesis is still alive nearly 80 years on. We now have seen some advocates of a literal reading of Genesis come up with Creationism and Creation Science as “scientific theories” that should be taught side by side the “theory” of evolution.

This is quite an interesting development. While in science, many ideas are called “theories” even if there is a substantial body of empirical evidence supporting the theory, we have seen others throw out these “theories” even though there may be no scientific evidence to support them.

What we see here is the translation of the fair coverage principal in the media (covering each side of a new story) to the realm of science. Only here, fair coverage is expected to apply to whatever crazy “theory” anyone throws out.

More recently is the invention of an “Intelligent Designer” who supposedly worked out all the details of creation. Instead of the random mutations and other incremental changes integral to natural selection in evolution, there was intelligent causes that guided the evolutionary steps.

Another editorial interjection: Personally, I don’t believe in this new-fangled Intelligent Designer, but rather the good old-fashioned Almighty God, Creator of All! In fact, I believe the Christian Right has created a false idol. I believe God the Creator did not have to “sweat the details.” Creation is the product of a loving act of the Creator. When parents create a new life through a loving act, they do not “sweat the details” of their baby. Much the same with creation.

Creation and Politics: Why Does the Right Cling to Creationism?

The easy answer would be votes. A significant number of Christian voters do not believe in evolution, and many are easy votes for the Republicans: if they say “I oppose abortion and gay marriage. I believe in a balanced discussion of evolution” they’ve won a lot of the values voters.

But the second point goes a bit deeper. Creationism or evolution – this is irrelevant to national politics. But global warming is. I’ve seen Creation Science expanded to propose other “theories” on environmental issues form global warming to the extinction of species. Interestingly, these “theories” align with business interests, particularly, the reduction of environmental regulation.

So, here’s the benefit. In another post, I explained how the Bush Administration believes science should not be independent of politics, but should serve the party line. So, creationism is the “gateway theory.” If you can put creationism and evolution as competing theories, you can take theories of global warming or other environmental issues and throw out competing theories. Now you can take any theory from the world of science and, if it conflicts with national policy, simply say “it’s just one theory and here’s another theory.” That’s the wedge.

Conclusion

In the long unfortunate national debate on evolution vs. Biblical creation, we have seen the politicization of science, particularly in the Bush Administration.

What have we lost? We’ve lost the sense of simple reverence and awe on seeing the beauty of our planetary home.

Conflict in the Cabinet?

2008-12-02T18:35:00.000-08:00

President-elect Barack Obama made an interesting remark about his cabinent choices:

"(I want) strong personalities and strong opinions” to foster robust discussion. “One of the dangers in the White House, based on my reading of history, is that you get wrapped up in groupthink and everybody agrees with everything and there’s no discussion and there are no dissenting views,” he said. “So I’m going to be welcoming a vigorous debate inside the White House.” But he added: “As Harry Truman said, the buck will stop with me.” [Baker, Peter, “Appointments Begin a New Phase for Obama,” New York Times, Dec. 1, 2008.]

Now some will say that conflict won't work. The President doesn't need advisors who are likely to go off and follow their own policies instead of the President's.

But, I see this as a potential triumph of true democratic thinking -- where policies and decisions arise out of a vigorous discussion of ideas. Where this discussion is not colored or filtered by predetermined political ideology.

This is the strength of democracy: the chance to air a full range of opinions, and then making decisions based on the best ideas and suggestions. This is far superior to a cabinet of loyal “yes-men” and “yes-women” who stay with the party line.

I see this as moving from the “Maoist” approach of the Bush Administration – where the party line came first and everything else followed from that. (Examples: the triumph of political policy over science and the invasion of Iraq: as early as the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001, the Administration was looking for an excuse to invade.)

Will it work? Well, we’ll see in 2009.

So, What to Do about Gay Marriage?

2008-12-01T17:29:00.000-08:00

In the course of the fall, same-sex marriage (often referred to as "gay marriage") was voted down in California while it became legal in Connecticut and remains legal in Massachusetts. Other states allow a "civil union" or other rights to same-sex couples. (A US map of the current status of such rights can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_same-sex_marriage ).

Everyone is familiar with this issue and there is no shortage of strong opinions out there. Before I present my suggestion, I would like to present a brief history of what marriage has been in society. (Note that the state is a relative newcomer.)

A Brief History of Marriage

Forms of committed relationships between a man and woman date back millennia in many cultures. In many of the earlier forms a woman was considered given to a man. In European history, this was often seen as more a business deal, arranged by the families, where the woman may have been given as part of a transaction involving material goods.

Cultural traditions for marriage vary around the world and date back centuries, though the particulars typically evolved over the years. Often religious beliefs or superstitions were entwined in these traditions.

Formal state and/or religious recognition are relatively recent additions. In Europe, the first example of requiring a religious ceremony of marriage was in the Catholic Church, after the 1545 Council of Trent. However, religions ceremonies did occur for centuries before this date, but they were optional. Civil marriages emerged in Europe in the 1700s and 1800s.

The emergence of state recognition of marriage, particularly in Europe, roughly parallels the transition from state religions to tolerance for multiple religious traditions. Before that, the bureaucracy of state and church were so intertwined that the need for separate state involvement was not needed.

Controversy

In short the controversy over same-sex marriage relates to the state’s involvement in marriage: determining who can marry and under what circumstances. For advocates, it is clear that marriage is yet another right that should not be denied to any group. To the opponents, it is often contrary to deeply held religions beliefs. To some, it just seems strange or they may just feel “it’s not right.”

It is very clear that these positions are irreconcilable.

What to Do?

My proposal is simple: get the states out of the marriage business. A good pragmatic Libertarian has to always ask: “Does it make sense for the state to be involved in this?” I say: “No!”

The states should deal with legal contracts, which is one of the necessities of “being married” -- for example, ownership of common property, joint custody of dependents, rights related to health care, etc. So, I say any couple should be able to draw up a state-recognized legal contract regarding these matters.

And let the marriage ceremony return to the cultural traditions of the couple, be they religious or non-religious. Those traditions that recognize same-sex marriage can perform them; those opposed don’t have to have them.

Freedom and choice for all with no government intervention. That’s my solution.

New Topics for the Lame Duck Season

2008-12-01T17:14:00.000-08:00

While we wait for a new administration, the temperatures are dropping, and many Americans are caught up in holiday shopping, I was thinking of filling the time with some hot topics:

Gay marriage
Science in religion and politics: the real agenda behind "creationism"
An honest look at abortion (freed from the dogma and rhetoric of the right and left)

I may start a separate blog for the multi-part series on abortion -- an issue where I've struggled and thought long and hard about it. I will propose the 3rd road (hint: both the right and left are wrong, in my opinion).

Comments are appreciated, even in advance.

Violence in India: Why?

2008-11-29T14:33:00.000-08:00

The doldrums of these lame-duck days were rudely interrupted by the ten terrorist attacks in the Indian city of Mumbai. At hotels, a café, a hospital, the railway station and other locations, innocent people were shot, bombs and grenades exploded, fires set and hostages taken. Nearly 200 are dead, nearly 400 injured.

But why? Why?

In time, we may learn the political aims of the terrorists who undertook this carnage. But, no political goal can justify this intentional attack with the intent to kill hundreds of innocent human beings.

How can a human being become so devoid of his own humanity to undertake such horrible deeds?

During World War II, Hitler killed millions. And the world cried “Never again!”

But these abhorred crimes against humanity go on, not only in Mumbai, but in Pakistan and the Middle East, Africa, Asia, America……….

Why? Why?

The Doldrums of These Lame-Duck Days

2008-11-23T10:02:00.000-08:00

It’s all over, and now we wait. Over are the long campaign, the high of Election Day, and the afterglow of the historic victory of Barack Obama.

Now we sit and wait. And wait. And wait.

Like a long, boring half-time, when will it end? This is the “hot stove league” of politics. We can only speculate about the next political season. Who will be in the cabinet? What will be the first issues that Pres. Obama will work on?

Back in the horse and buggy days, they needed 3 or 4 months to make the presidential transition. Communications took days. Travel to Washington, DC might have taken a week or so. That’s how we ended up with a 3-month power vacuum.

We still may have the biggest financial crises since the Depression plus a couple of wars, not much will happen until January.

Yep, there’s just not much going on.

The Real Work of Community Organizers

2008-11-16T19:24:00.000-08:00

At their National Convention, Republicans such as Mayor Giuliani and Gov. Palin belittled Sen. Obama’s experience as a community organizer. Sneering, Giuliani seemed to say it wasn’t a real job.

But this does not only injustice to the real work of community organizers; it flies in the face of their own smaller government platform!

By way of an example in Boston, Massachusetts, let me show how community organizers have accomplished a significant renewal of a depressed urban neighborhood, all at little to no cost to the taxpayers! Think about it, this:

Republicans and Libertarians should applaud how urban renewal can be accomplished by the private sector: no expansion of government and little to no taxpayer support. And by neighborhood literally picking up itself (as they say) by its bootstraps.

Democrats and Liberals should applaud how the process empowers the neighborhood, giving the people a direct hand in decisions impacting their neighborhood and its renewal.

My example: The Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative. This community-founded non-profit is involved in a range of activities from urban renewal (taking empty lots and designing/funding/constructing new housing and commercial space) to activities for kids and teens. Many of its leaders grew up in the neighborhood when things were at its worst and now witness the revitailzation, rising like the phoenix from the ashes.

Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative

The Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiate's website (http://www.dsni.org/history.shtml) sums it up as follows:

“The Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative (DSNI) is a nonprofit community-based planning and organizing entity rooted in the Roxbury/North Dorchester neighborhoods of Boston. DSNI's approach to neighborhood revitalization is comprehensive including economic, human, physical, and environmental growth. It was formed in 1984 when residents of the Dudley Street area came together out of fear and anger to revive their neighborhood that was devastated by arson, disinvestment, neglect and redlining practices, and protect it from outside speculators.”

What the Neighborhood Looked Like

By the 1980s, urban decay hit heavily in the Dudley Street area. Disinvestment by land owners lead to deteriorating housing and commercial properties. Fires, many the result of arson, gutted many structures. The area was home to illegal businesses including chop shops (where stolen cars are dismantled and sold as parts to avoid identification), illegal drug traffic, and gangs.

The result of decades of decay was a “a staggering amount of vacant land (21% or 1,300 parcels) in the 1980s” (quote from website). This was the condition of the neighborhood when DSNI was formed in 1984.

So how does DSNI accomplish redevelopment?

Again, quoting the DSNI website:

“DSNI works to implement resident-driven plans partnering with nonprofit organizations, community development corporations (CDCs), businesses and religious institutions serving the neighborhood, as well as banks, government agencies, corporations and foundations. The Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative has grown into a collaborative effort of over 3,000 residents, businesses, non-profits and religious institutions members committed to revitalizing this culturally diverse neighborhood of 24,000 people and maintaining its character and affordability. DSNI is the only community-based nonprofit in the country which has been granted eminent domain authority over abandoned and within its boundaries.”

So, rather then the City’s redevelopment agency performing the planning and contracting out the construction work, all that is performed by the CDCs. All of this is accomplished by community organizers!

Check this out:

“DSNI's major accomplishment has been, and continues to be, organizing and empowering the residents of the Dudley Street neighborhood to create a shared vision of the neighborhood prioritizing development without displacement and bringing it to reality by creating strategic partnerships with individuals and organizations in the private, government, and nonprofit sectors. That shared vision first emerged from a community-wide process conducted initially in 1987 that resulted in a resident-developed, comprehensive revitalization plan.”

How can any Libertarian, Liberal, Socialist – or even Republican – not applaud this process? It is accomplished with little government intervention or expenditure; it engages residents in helping themselves revitalize their neighborhood!

And it has been successful – consider these accomplishments as noted on the DSNI website:

"Over half of 1,300 vacant lots rehabilitated for homes, gardens, parks, orchard, playgrounds, schools, community centers and a Town Common
Over 400 new homes built and over 500 housing units rehabbed since DSNI formed
Business and investment are growing
Visitors come from around the world
Residents who were children when DSNI began have become leaders throughout the community"

Tour of the Neighborhood

Some aerial photos and photos from the 2008 Walk for Dudley illustrate some of the successes.

New commercial and residential buildings:

1. Recently open for business, the mixed use building at Dudley and East Cottage Streets houses Project Hope (a non-profit organization focused on community health) in commercial space with 50 rental units on the upper floors. The Dorchester Bay EDC is responsible for

2. Almost ready for construciton are other mixed use buildings along Dudley Street near Brook Ave. Each has commercial space on the 1st floor and family-sized apartments upstairs.

This aerial photo shows the empty lots before the groundbreaking for these buildings:

On the left below is one of the mixed residential and commercial buildings near Brook Ave. On the right is the new home of Project Hope with 50 rental units on the upper floors.

Community Gardens:

Many of the abandoned lots have been turned into community gardens, growing a great varitey of vegetables and fruits. Below are photos of one of the gardens, this one run by the non-profit The Food Project (http://www.thefoodproject.org/).

Deen Street

The aerial photo below shows both a community garden location and some in-fill housing lots.

The picture below shows a six-family house under construction on Dean Street at the corner of Victor Street.

For more about the DSNI, see: http://www.dsni.org/history.shtml

Other articles about the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative:

---New Village, “The Wisdom That Builds Community Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative, Boston” by Greg Watson: http://www.newvillage.net/Journal/Issue1/1dudleystreet.html

---YES! Magazine, Winter 2009: Sustainable Happiness, “No Foreclosures Here,” by Holly Sklar: http://www.yesmagazine.org/other/pop_print_article.asp?ID=3051

A new Dawn Part 2: The Return of Liberties and the Rule of Law

2008-11-14T15:22:00.001-08:00

I was encouraged by evidence of a New Dawn reading about the groundswell within the US Senate to restore lost liberties and bring back the rule of law.

Adam Cohen, writing on the editorial page of today’s New York Times, reports of progress made by US Senators, even before the new President takes office. Lead by Democratic Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, the effort has included a Senate hearing back in September – long before Barack Obama won the election – when law professors, lawyers and civil libertarians outlined the challenges.

Senator Feingold prepared a list of key actions. Quoting from Mr. Cohen’s article, these include:

“… amending the Patriot Act”
“… giving detainees greater legal protection”
“… banning torture, cruelty and degrading treatment”
“…amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to restore limits on domestic spying”
rolling “back the Bush Administration’s dedication to classifying government documents.”

Senator Feingold concedes that it will not be easy to restore the rule of law. As Mr. Cohen reports: “Many programs, like domestic spying and extraordinary rendition – the secrete transfer of detainees to foreign countries where they are harshly interrogated – have operated in the shadows.” (In actuality, the practice of extraordinary rendition started in the Clinton Administration.)

The time to act is early in the Obama Administration. The Bush Administration distorted the intent of the Constitution through the unlawful expansion of the powers of the executive. Through the practices of torture, detention without trial, and extraordinary rendition, it defamed the reputation of the US as a beacon of freedom and defender of human rights throughout the world.

When it comes to President-Elect Obama restoring liberties and the rule of law, I’m hoping: “Yes, he can!”

Reference: Cohen, Adam, "Democratic Pressure on Obama to Restore the Rule of Law," New York Times, Nov. 14, 2008, p. A28;
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/opinion/14fri4.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Adam%20Cohen%20Rule%20of%20Law&st=cse&oref=slogin

A New Dawn

2008-11-10T20:26:00.000-08:00

A new day has dawned -- for the people of the US and for the world. The election of Barack Obama represents an opportunity to restore lost freedoms here in the US and to improve relations around the world.

Our hope is that an Obama Administration will oppose the reauthorization of the repressive provisions of the US Patriot Act and the unconstitutional expansion of executive powers.

Our hope is that the new Administration reverses the repressive policies of the Bush Administration, ending such policies as extraordinary rendition, detention at Guantanamo Bay, and other violations of international human rights conventions.

Our hope is that this marks a new beginning of relations with the nations of Europe, the Middle East, Asia and Africa. The fruits of this new beginning may include a multi-national plan for US disengagement in Iraq, the containment of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and a negotiated end to nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.

As President-Elect Obama stated, there will be false steps and setbacks. Still the hope is bes stated in the words of his acceptance speach in Grant Park in Chicago:

"Tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity and unyielding hope. "

My hope is that we do return to these ideals.

Iraq—Searching for the Real Story, Volume 5 – What Next?

2008-10-30T15:07:00.000-07:00

For better or worse, the next President will inherit the mess of the ongoing occupation of Iraq. What should he do?

In Volume 4, I stated my conclusions about the reality that must be faced in Iraq. No matter how one defines “victory,” one can’t reach it working through preconceptions or through the lens of think-tank neo-conservative theories.

I have read analyses of Iraq from many perspectives. I have heard interviews with soldiers and officers who had been in Iraq. I have heard from others who have been in Iraq for humanitarian purposes.

While I can't claim to be an expert on Iraq, I do have a vision of the what the US should do next. I believe the path ahead in Iraq must be:

Grounded in the reality of Iraq in 2008
Founded on the islands of hope within Iraq
Multi-national
Involve all factions within Iraq

1. The path ahead must be fully grounded in the reality that is Iraq in 2008.

One must admit the chaos of competing factions and militias; the conflicting viewpoints of Shia, Sunni and Kurds; and the fact that all these groups shift alliances from time to time. We need to know the factions "on the ground" by making contact with these groups.

2. The path ahead must be founded on the island of hope within and without Iraq.

Equal in importance to understanding the chaos of competing factions is to understand the islands of hope. These are the foundations for a future characterized by a stable social order and the cessation of factional violence.

I believe that these are some of islands of hope:

The people long for the “normal life” of working and living daily in peace.
The Iraqi people don’t hate each other as much as it is made out to be. Yes, the militias compete for position and influence, but that is a reflection of the vacuum of social order, not entirely of deep-seated hatred between factions.
Many of Iraq’s neighbors desire a stable and peaceful Iraq.

These islands are within Iraq – even within the hearts of the majority of the citizenry – and outside Iraq, particularly in many of the neighboring nations.

How do we proceed?

3. The path ahead must involve all factions within Iraq.

The US and the Iraqi government must reach out to all the factions within Iraq. These factions and militia must become engaged in some form of nation-building instead of destructive violence.

We know that these groups shift alliances, when it is to their benefit. We know that the success of the so-called “2007 Surge” is in no small part due to redirecting militias (e.g., getting the Awaking [Sunnis] to help expel the foreign forces of al-Qaeda in Iraq) or achieving cease fires (e.g., Mahdi Army).

These are the kinds of successes that need to be multiplied.

Here there are 2 choices for the future: either the various Iraqi factions can be marginalized as “the enemy” or a way can be found to engage them constructively.

Clearly, the McCain vision of another 100 years of occupation in Iraq follows a path where the militia and other violent factions are treated as the “enemy.” This is never a winning strategy. Any nation will come to hate a foreign occupying, no matter how benign – this has been true for millennia.

4. The path ahead must be multi-national.

Engaging all the various factions in Iraq may be better accomplished with the help of some of Iraq’s neighbors. Many factions don’t trust either the US or the current Iraqi government. Other nations (including Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia) may be able to aid in bringing some factions to the table or, at least, understanding their position.

Equally important is that the occupying forces must become more multi-national. While US troupes remain “lighting rods” for attacks by any disgruntled insurgent group, a more multi-national peace-keeping force, with a strong contribution from Middle Eastern nations, may facilitate the creating of a more stable and non-violent order in Iraq.

Granted, this approach runs counter to the neo-conservative theories that got us into this mess. The Republicans still criticize any approach that involves talking with Iran and Syria. Sen. McCain frequently cites Sen. Obama’s suggestion of talking with Iran as evidence of his lack of qualifications for understanding international affairs.

Still, I believe the Republicans are wrong. The US must proceed on a path that engages the Middle Eastern nations that desire a stable Iraq. Together, the path ahead must be a process that turns the various factions from violence to coming to the table to discuss peaceful coexistence.

This path to peace is the only path to “victory” for the US.

Who can accomplish this?

On this issue, I think the choice of candidate is clear. John McCain clearly thinks as a warrior; but the war in Iraq is over. The factional violence must come to an end. A warrior cannot lead us in that direction.

Now is the time to wage peace. The Iraqi people have longed for it for 5 long years, but the Bush Administration could not provide it. Barack Obama is a leader who operates in ways that facilitate the multi-national process of engagement and discussion that I have outlined.

But, will he have the patience to take the time needed? He has a stated commitment to a timetable for withdrawal. He will be tempted to reduce troupes so he can redirect spending to urgent domestic needs. Still, he remains our best hope.

Comments and Discussion

I don’t believe any presidential candidate has outlined such a detailed path to peace and US withdrawal in Iraq. What do you think?

Iraq—Searching for the Real Story, Volume 4 – What Have I Learned?

2008-10-28T20:12:00.000-07:00

For better or worse, the next President will inherit the mess of the ongoing occupation of Iraq. In this volume, I look at what I have learned and what the Administration should have learned.

What Have I Learned?
This should be titled “what have we learned” but I fear that the Bush Administration, the Republican and Democratic Party Platforms, and a vast number of Americans have not learned much for these years of US occupation in Iraq. The politicians still view events through the strong lens of partisan policy. Americans are tired of the endless war and clearly interest is waning.

So here are my conclusions. I believe these are the realities that the next President must come to grips with to work towards the goal of eventual US withdrawal.

We can’t trust the Bush administration to learn from experience – they are guided only by neo-conservative think tank theory with no need to understand any details of the Iraqi people, particularly the objectives of the constituent factions.
Though unjustified, ill-conceived and poorly executed, the invasion/occupation did achieve two objectives aligned with Bush Administration policy (but don’t expect the Administration to be as frank as I will be about this):

1) The extremist terrorists function as alpha male primates. The lack of any retaliation would be interpreted as weakness. Direct retaliation against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan was needed. The invasion of Iraq (though it was unjustified) can be seen as another retaliation in the testosterone-based dance to establish dominance among alpha male primates.

2) The placement of American troupes in the Middle East acts as a lightning rod – saving would-be extremist terrorists the cost of air fare as they only need travel to Iraq for the opportunity to kill Americans.

In these 2 aspects, there may have been some reduction in the possibility of terrorists attacks against the US homeland.
On the other hand, the invasion/occupation was one of the greatest recruiting tools for anti-American terrorist groups.
The invasion/occupation has greatly benefited Shia Iran, deposing a hated enemy, replacing a hostile Sunni regime with a more desirable Shia majority government, while pacifying the Kurds who are generally happy with the invasion/occupation.
The Bush Administration chose Iraq because it was the weakest nation to invade and there was and remains a high level of pro-American feelings in the general population.
The terms “enemy” and “victory” cannot be easily defined as it was in the wars of old, fought by nation-state against nation state. Factions and militias change alliances from time to time. One month, they are firing on US troupes, the next they are aligned in the fight against a common enemy.
The violence in Iraq is at times closer to the gang violence of LA: in the post-Saddam era, rival factions are positioning for the issues are turf and creating a new pecking order. Even attacks on US troupes may be less about hatred of Americans and more about self-boosting.
Success (i.e., the lessening of violence) in Iraq requires the constructive engagement of the major factions and militia.
The non-indigenous “al-Qaeda in Iraq” is an oppressor of the Iraqi people and is opposed by most factions.
Most Iraqis want the US to withdraw, sooner than later.
Democracy, at least as we understand it in the US, is not the “magic potion” to unite Iraq.
Despite the violence of the last 4 years, the Sunni and Shia in Iraq generally don’t hate each other. During the iron rule of Saddam Hussein, many Sunni were close friends of Shia and vice versa. The opening of Pandora’s Box resulted in a power vacuum which was filled by violent power struggles among militias and factions.
There is hope.

Where Do We Go From Here?
To be continued……………..

Iraq—Searching for the Real Story, Volume 3 – Where We Are Now

2008-10-28T19:06:00.000-07:00

For better or worse, the next President will inherit the mess of the ongoing occupation of Iraq. In this volume, I provide an overview of post-invasion events, particularly consideration of the so-call "surge" of 2007.

Act 1: Water under the Bridge
That we’re stuck in Iraq is water under the bridge. Though the invasion was ill-conceived and poorly executed, we simply can’t leave precipitously, without re-plunging the nation again into chaos. Like the stabbing victim, quickly removing the knife is not a good remedy.

And we owe some effort to rebuilding the damage to Iraq’s infrastructure, not only of military operations, but from the near civil war that has ensued.

Act 2: The So-Called “Surge” Of 2007 and Why It Appears To Have Worked
The success of the 2007 troupe surge is evidence of the occupation was insufficient in size for the job. For 4 years, chaos approaching near civil war prevailed. A greater force, more multi-national in composition, was needed from day one.

But not only increased troupe strength lead to a reduction of violence. Three other factors were identified by Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward in The War Within: A Secret White House History (2006-2008).

Targeting key individuals in insurgency groups
Sunni militias switched their target from US troupes to the so-called “al-Qaeda in Iraq”
A cease fire by Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army

These operations diffused the insurgency on three major fronts. This made it not only safer for US troupes, but also for Iraqi civilians. Getting the minority Sunni militias, who were not happy with the Shia-led government in Baghdad, to focus their efforts on the foreign forces of al-Qaeda in Iraq (fellow Sunnis) was a particular coup. But these efforts cannot be underestimated.

Woodward writes as follows:

“Beginning in the late spring of 2007, the U.S. military and intelligence agencies launched a series of top-secret operations that enabled them to locate, target and kill key individuals in groups such as al-Qaeda in Iraq, the Sunni insurgency and renegade Shia militias, or so-called special groups. The operations incorporated some of the most highly classified techniques and information in the U.S. government.”

“A second important factor in the lessening of violence was the so-called Anbar Awakening, in which tens of thousands of Sunnis turned against al-Qaeda in Iraq and signed up with U.S. forces. Al-Qaeda in Iraq had made a strategic mistake in the province, overplaying its hand. Its members had performed forced marriages with women from local tribes, taken over hospitals, used mosques for beheading operations, mortared playgrounds and executed citizens, leaving headless bodies with signs that read, "Don't remove this body or the same thing will happen to you." The sheer brutality eroded much of the local support for al-Qaeda in Iraq.”

“A third significant break came Aug. 29, when militant Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr ordered his powerful Mahdi Army to suspend operations, including attacks against U.S. troops. Petraeus and others knew it was not an act of charity. The order followed a gunfight between the Mahdi Army and Iraqi forces in the holy city of Karbala, during which more than 50 Shia pilgrims gathering for an annual festival had been killed and another 275 wounded. Sadr's order marked an unexpected stroke of good luck, another in a series for the Americans.”

[All quotes from Woodward’s The War Within: A Secret White House History (2006-2008).]

So What Have I Learned?
To be continued.

Iraq—Searching for the Real Story, Volume 2 – Prelude to Invasion

2008-10-23T18:58:00.000-07:00

For better or worse, the next President will inherit the mess of the ongoing occupation of Iraq. In the 3rd volume, I will look ahead to what the new President should do. But for this posting, I look back briefly at how we got into the mess.

When historians look back at the 2003 invasion of Iraq, they may better document why US policy took a complete reversal over the course of 20 years. For this look-back, I’ve chosen to focus on the one man who was in the lead for implementing the 1983 courting of Saddam Hussein (with gifts of weapons and advice) and then 20 years later lead the charge to demonize him and topple his regime.

Act 1: Rumsfeld in Iraq (1983-1984)
One of the strangest back-stories preceding the Bush Administration’s decision to invade Iraq is the apparent 180 turnaround by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. Near the end of the first term of President Ronald Reagan, Rumsfeld served as Special Envoy to the Middle East. In this roll, Rumsfeld provided military hardware and advice to Iraq during its war with Iran. Essentially, he was sent to befriend the regime of Saddam Hussein, at the very time Iraq was using its chemical weapons against the Kurds.

Now, in the context of that point in time, Islamic clerics had been in control of Iran since 1980, when the US Embassy in Tehran was occupied. US policy aimed to hold back the expansion of Iran’s brand of revolutionary Islamic influence in the Middle East. Therefore, befriending the secular, though totalitarian, regime in Iraq was considered an effective countermeasure.

Act 2: Rumsfeld as Architect of the Iraq Invasion (2001-2003)
Rumsfeld’s interest in invading Iraq dates to the afternoon of September 11, 2001, when he put forth the idea of “hitting” both Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. He made many public statements emphasizing Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction. Clearly, he knew of the chemical weapons that Iraq used in the 1980s. But why did the Special Embassy, who prided himself on normalizing US relations with Iraq in 1984, now advocate the overflow of the regime he courted?

The Bush regime pounded the war drum on Iraq, emphasizing weapons of mass destruction (WMD), the regime’s crimes against its own peoples, a possible link to Al Qaeda, and generally portraying Saddam as the boggy man.

Postlude: What Went Wrong?
The pendulum of Rumsfeld’s advocacy wrought damage both in the US and Iraq at each apex of its swing:

1983:

US support uplifts Saddam Hussein at the very time he was gassing the Kurds.
This only tightened the repressive regime’s control over Iraqis.
Is this one of the beginnings of a pattern of US administrations ignoring international human rights standards?
The pattern of US support for repressive Middle Eastern regimes is cited by militants and terrorists as part of their hatred of the US.

The Iraqis were damaged by the tightening grip of Hussein, while the US was damaged by being known as a supporter of repressive regimes.

2003:

No WMD found.
No connection between Hussein and Al Qaeda.
Invasion forces were inadequate in number for the subsequent occupation.
After Pandora’s Box was opened, civil order disintegrated in the absence of the iron fist rule of Hussein.
The planners of the occupation had little understanding of the cultures and complex relationships among the majority Shiites, the minority Sunni, and the Kurds in the north.

The Iraqis were damaged by the years of chaos and unrest wrought by the invasion. The US reputation was damaged by the unsanctioned near-unilateral invasion of a sovereign nation, followed by the twin albatrosses of the occupation and mounting death of servicemen and women.

What Next?

We can't go back in time to undo the invasion. The next President must take over where the Bush administration leaves things. What to do?

To be continued.........................

The Redistribution of Income

2008-10-18T22:23:00.001-07:00

In the discussion between Sen. Obama and Joe the Plumber, the Senator mentions spreading the wealth around. Joe was concerned that if he successfully bought the business and did well, his reward should be keeping this newly earned wealth.

Sen. McCain and other Republicans pounced on this, hinting that Sen. Obama was suggesting the socialist principal of The Redistribution of Income. (Heaven forbid!!!)

Now, up to this point, I've reflected on much of the libertarian side of my views, but not the socialist side. I have to come clean and say it proudly:

I believe in the Redistribution of Income!

You see, part of my beliefs come from what may be called a Christian Socialist view. If we go to the Bible in the Acts of the Apostles, we read how the early community cared for each other and distributed the proceeds of their wealth according to each one's needs (Acts 2:45). This is my basis for my belief that I am called to redistribute portions of the income I receive, being a fairly well-paid professional, for others with needs greater than my own.

I have come to believe that my earthly things are not ultimately mine to possess. Rather, they are gifts given that I might use for myself and others.

Now, most Libertarians may think I'm crazy believing it this. Many who call themselves Libertarian are attracted to this political viewpoint because they don't want government telling them what to do, they don't want to pay taxes (or pay as little as possible), and their possessions (home, land, wealth, etc.) are theirs and no one should tell them what to do with it.

To that I have three replies:

1) Though I believe in the Redistribution of Income, as a Libertarian, I don't believe that the government or anyone else should force anyone to follow this course of action. My belief comes from faith and only those so called through their own faith or beliefs should follow in the path of Redistribution of Income.

2) Not all Libertarians are of a self-centered view that precludes caring for others. For example, the "Libertarian Girl" (http://www.libertariangirl.com/) cares for people and hopes for an end to poverty.

3) Finally, if one really believes in the fullness of liberty, then each of us are entitled to our own views. And in a free society, those who wish to voluntarily redistribute their wealth to the less fortunate, should be free to do so.

So, in conclusion, as a Libertarian and Christian Socialist, I proudly admit: I Believe in the Redistribution of Income!

Guilt by Association?

2008-10-16T17:59:00.000-07:00

In the last weeks we hear both Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin trying to paint Sen. Obama "guilty by association" because of his association with Bill Ayers, former leader of the militant Weather Underground in the late 1960s/early 1970s.

But let's compare the Obama-Ayers association to the associations of a well-know person whom Gov. Palin truly admires, even adores.

Seems there is little know about this person's first 30 years of life (what's he hiding). But we do know this:

He was born while his parents were traveling (why would they travel when expecting?)
Shortly after he was born, his father insisted the family flee to another country (what were they fleeing?)
Rumor was that his mother's husband was not his biological father
His family was visited by an unspecified number of visitors from the vicinity of Iraq (where the visitors related to a terrorist group?)
At about 12 years old, he escaped for a few days from his parents while the family was traveling (they only had one son, how could they loose him for 3 days?)

After 30, it seems he left his work as a carpenter and traveled about with 12 other men of questionable backgrounds:

One was known for extorting payments from his own people on behalf of the occupying forces (collaborating with "the enemy?")
Another was associated with nationalist insurrectionists (this group would stab their victims during crowded public assemblies in city plazas and the like)
A pair of brothers who had a make-shift fishing business, but left their nets and boats followed this charismatic character (losers?)

With this band of characters (and often other followers), he proceeded to associate with some of the "worst" elements of society, even prostitutes, criminals, and tax collectors who were know to collaborate with "the enemy."

He often spoke in ways that angered the leaders of his people. Eventually he came to an unfortunate end, sentenced to death and executed at the young age of 33.

Yes, this was Jesus Christ. Christians like Gov. Palin (and me) worship and adore Him as God's Son.

Yet, during His life on earth, there was a lot of fodder for those who might wish to paint Him "guilty by association."

I don't believe it is right to paint anyone guilty by association. Period.

Who is Joe the Plumber?

2008-10-15T19:49:00.000-07:00

John McCain mentioned this "Joe the Plumber" (someone at one of Obama's rallies) during the debate, saying he can't buy the plumbing business if Obama's tax plan is enacted.

But who is this Joe the Plumber?

What does he really think?

How much do we really know about him?

Has he associated with any known terrorists or radical preachers?

Why, only 30 min. after the debate ended, is Joe the Plumber already in Wikipedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_the_Plumber#October_15:_Third_presidential_debate_.28Hofstra_University_.E2.80.93_Hempstead.2C_New_York.29

America demands answers and we want them now!

I hope he makes the circuit: Saturday Night Live, the Daily Show, Colber Report, Letterman, Leno, Fox News, MSNBC, etc. etc.

Forget Sarah Palin! America wants to meet Joe the Plumber!

Addendum: Update Oct. 19, 2008
As it turns, Joe is an unlicensed, non-union plumber with a modest income, but is hard working, puts in long days on the job, and shares in the American dream of advancing himself by acquiring the business. Not surprising, his views are moderate to conservative. And he was mentioned on all of the above!

Maybee after a week of fame, he might eventually return to some sense of a normal life!

Iraq—Searching for the Real Story, Volume 1: Who's the "enemy?"

2008-10-14T20:24:00.000-07:00

We can’t depend on the Bush Administration, the Republicans or the Democrats to give us the real story of Iraq. What we get instead is an over-simplified view of a complex situation, either filtered through Administration policy or skewed by partisan politics.

This will be the first of a number of posts examining the topic of Iraq: What is really going on there? How did we get in this mess? And most importantly, where should we go from here? (Hint: both political parties are far off the mark on this one!)

So where to begin?

Let’s try the basics. In Iraq, who are the allies of the US and who is “the enemy?” Now, the Administration insists on using the terms “the enemy” and “victory.” But are they defined?

Who is the “enemy?” What is “victory?”
Both the Bush Administration and Republicans such as presidential candidate John McCain insist on using phrases like defeating the “enemy” and achieving “victory” without defining either term. In wars past, these terms were obvious, but not so in Iraq.

Iraq is just not like those “old fashioned” wars where it was obvious who the enemy was. The enemy was always a particular nation or alliance of nations. For example, in World War II, everyone knew the enemies of the US were the Nazis in Germany and their Axis alleys of Italy and Japan.

And everyone knew when victory was achieved. As each of these nations surrendered, there was a big surrender ceremony with a signaling of an instrument of surrender, leaving no doubt that enemy was defeated and victory was in hand.

So – pop quiz: Who is/are the enemy(ies) in Iraq (select all that apply):

a) Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath Party (Sunni)
b) Former members of Ba’ath army and police
c) Al Qaeda in Iraq (Sunni)
d) Mahdi Army (Sunni)
e) Badr Organization (Shiite insurgents)
f) Muslim Brotherhood in Iraq (Sunni Islamists)
g) Iraqi Armed Revolutionary Resistance (Marxists)
h) Various other militia that fire upon US troops or set up IEDs
i) Shiite insurgents from Iran
j) Whichever group is firing upon US troops this week
k) All of the above
l) How would I know?

You know, in baseball, they say you can’t tell the players without a scorecard. Well, the Bush Administration has never published a scorecard so the American public knows who’s on first in Iraq and how the home team is batting.

At some point in time since the US invasion, each of the above groups could have been considered “the enemy.” But with changing times and shifting allegiances, not all of them still are.

Consider the Muslim Brotherhood in Iraq? Before the “surge” they often attacked US troops. Now they are fighting against Al Qaeda in Iraq. Part of the “success” of the “surge” was getting native Sunni militia to purge their territories of the “outsider” Sunnis of Al Qaeda.

Clearly during the invasion, the Ba’ath army of Saddam was considered the “enemy.” But now, consideration is given to integrating these forces with the national security forces.

It’s clear that Iraq is no “old-fashioned” war with a clearly defined “enemy.” Don’t let anyone simplify it for you; this is a complex and changing situation. Even after researching all the players in Iraq, it’s not easy to tell who’s playing for which team.

I’d bet that even George W. Bush, John McCain, and Barack Obama can’t list all the groups in Iraq and which ones are our “friends” and which ones are our “enemies.” I’d bet even this trio would FAIL the pop quiz on Iraq!

So how can policy and decisions be made, when the policy makers and decision makers don’t have a full grasp on the playing field?

To be continued……

How to be a follower of the New Libertarian Socialist

2008-10-09T15:20:00.000-07:00

If you enjoy this blog, consider being a follower. It's simple. All you have to do is:

Go to my blog: http://rachy-viewsofalibertariansocialist.blogspot.com/

To the right, under the banner are the words “Followers of the New Libertarian Socialist”

Click on the link for “follow this blog”

It’ that simple! Thank you for reading.

Developing a New Political Philosophy

2008-10-08T17:50:00.000-07:00

"With liberty and justice for all."

I started this blog to work out my political philosophy. It’s not that I never had opinions on politics, but that I wanted a chance to write about them, and develop them into what I would hope to be a coherent, practical, but unique viewpoint.

As I’ve always been a little different, I wanted to stand apart from the Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives.

I came up with the term “New Libertarian Socialist.”

Now this is a bit of a paradox in itself as Libertarianism and Socialism are polar opposites regarding the role of government. But like Libertarians, I wanted to emphasize the importance of liberty and the individual’s ability to be unique and think for herself/himself. Like the Socialists, I feel a strong need to be concerned for others, particularly the less fortunate.

I added the word “new” as there is a long history of Libertarian Socialism, whose advocates were often considered anarchists. Generally, all the thinking along these lines (if you Google libertarian socialist) was by dead white guys in Europe. But a political philosophy has to be alive which means it can’t depend on the thoughts of the dead, but must be invigorated by the thoughts of the living of our time.

I’ve added a summary of my political philosophy to the banner of the blog:

Preserving freedom
Respecting human rights
Government is a tool of the people
Preferential concern for the poor
Concern for the poor should be a joint effort of individuals, non-profit groups and government
Ideology should not stand in the way of common-sense and practical solutions
Fiscal responsibility in government: revenue that matches spending

Why Kill Employer-Based Health Benefits?

2008-10-06T14:43:00.000-07:00

“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” is a popular, common-sense expression that summarizes why the McCain health proposal lacks common sense!

One of the strangest proposals from the McCain team is the plan to substitute a $5,000 tax break for employees for the current tax break for employers who offer health benefits.

A majority of the middle class in our nation receives health care benefits through their employer. It’s not always perfect, but it does cover a lot of people at a far more reasonable price then if each of us were to get a plan by ourselves.

But that’s what McCain wants us to do. Without the tax incentive, employers would drop the offering of group health care programs (and the cost to administer them) and each of us would be on our own, trying to buy a very expensive individual policy that would cost far more than the $5,000 tax break.

Maybe the tax break is a good idea for those without employer-based health benefits. But not for those of us who have these benefits.

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!!!

I bet even Gov. Sarah Palin has that one in her folksy vocabulary!

So, I can’t figure out why this other wise common-sense Governor from Alaska signed onto the McCain health plan disaster.

This plan really will be bad for the Republican base and swing voters – the conservative and middle-of-the-road working and middle class folks who actually work for a living and probably get their health care at work!

Let me count the ways that the McCain plan is bad:

Instead of buying into group coverage with low rates, each person is on their own and the rates will be higher.

Employees that are older or who have pre-existing conditions (e.g., heart problems, cancer, etc.) may not be able to get coverage at all.

Employees lucky enough to get new coverage may be with a new carrier or HMO and therefore have to choose new doctors and specialists instead of the ones who know them and their health issues.

Younger folks who are healthy may opt out of getting coverage.

Those who are financially strapped may not be able to afford coverage.
When the uninsured have untreated symptoms that grow into a serious medical condition, they end up at the Emergency Room, costing more money than if they had preventive care covered by a health plan.

I could go on, but the point is this plan is bad for all workers. And it’s especially bad for the very political base of conservative folks who work for a living that McCain needs to win.

Sen. McCain: Employer-based health care ain’t broke, so don’t try to fix it!

Someone Buy a Period for Gov. Palin

2008-10-03T21:26:00.000-07:00

While Gov. Sarah Palin did not falter in the debate last night, her sentences seemed interminable.

For 3 minutes, she would piece together prepositional phrases, subjunctive clauses, and compound sentences. And when you think it’s just about done, a new conjunction (“but” or “and”) keeps the sentence alive.

A transcription may reveal that Gov. Palin spoke the longest sentence in US VP debate history!

Pat Sajak, I'd like to buy a period for the Gov., please!

Eve of Destruction?

2008-09-29T21:37:00.000-07:00

I’ve read so much about the economic crisis I can’t remember which writer used the words “eve of destruction.” As a music junkie, it reminded me of the song "Eve of Destruction" sung by Barry McGuire. (words and music at http://www.brownielocks.com/eveofdestruction.html)

Written in 1965 by P. F. Sloan, the chorus of the song goes:

“But ya tell me
Over and over and over, my friend
Ah, you don’t believe
We’re on the eve of destruction.”

At the time, the US was in the midst of the Vietnam War, a cold war with the Soviet Union and China, race riots in the cities, and protests on college campuses. But with the market in free fall, banks failing around the world, the rings haunting true today.

Then I see some European blogs (like Euro Yank’s http://euroyank.blogspot.com/) predicting the imminent fall of the American economy and maybe Europe, too. (Not to mention a prediction that the chaos will lead to Bush declaring marshal law and postponing the elections. Well, Euro Yank's got a apocalyptic blog, so he's been long predicting the outbreak of fascism in the US.)

I don’t know if how far things will fall, but it can be scary times. Clearly the 3 Horseman of the Economic Apocalypse (Bush, McCain and Obama) are clueless. Bush parrots Secretary of the Treasury Paulson’s recommendations for a socialist-style intervention of unprecedented proportions. Our candidates are reluctantly behind this recommendation. But, with widespread public outrage at the idea of bailing out Wall Street fatcats, the Congress voted down a bill today. (From verse 3, the prophetic words: "handful of senators can't pass legislation")

So, ya tell me over and over and over again, you don’t believe we’re on the eve of destruction?

Extraordinary Rendition

2008-09-27T14:36:00.000-07:00

Extraordinary Rendition: the apprehension of a person on suspicion of charges and deportation to another country, typically without any trial or finding of guilt.

Since 9/11, the CIA has been linked to the rendering of hundreds of incidents of extraordinary rendition. Individuals suspected either of being terrorists or of aiding and abetting terrorist organizations were deported to countries including Syria, Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, and Uzbekistan.

Two weeks ago, a story of one such case was featured on Fresh Air (on NPR). An innocent man, Maher Arar, a telecommunications engineer with dual Canadian and Syrian citizenship, was deported to a Syrian prison on suspicion of being connected with terrorism. His crime: he had rented an apartment listing as a reference a person allegedly linked to a terrorist group.

Thanks to extraordinary rendition, the government, like Pontius Pilate, can keep its hands clean. Leave it to the Republicans to outsource torture!

There is a time, not so long ago, when it would be unheard of that America would deport someone to a foreign nation to be imprisoned and tortured.

In the case of Mr. Arar, he was tortured and imprisoned for nearly one year. He was released due protests by his wife and a Canadian government determination that he was not connected with any terrorists.

We’ve seen the Bush administration after 9/11 use fear of terrorism to enact erosion of our constitutional rights. Now even American citizens making international calls may find there conversations being listed to by the Feds on an unwarranted wiretap. And God help you if you are an American citizen of Middle Eastern background and your name is the same as, or similar to, someone on the “no fly” list.

But of all these attacks on the constitution, which is no less than the erosion of what our nation once stood for as a beacon of freedom, extraordinary rendition is perhaps the most grievous offence.

For anyone who loves liberty, the preservation of basic human rights is utmost. And the depravation of life or liberty without due process of law violates basic human rights. On this point, I believe that Libertarians and other who cherish freedom should never have to apologize.

Also, it is a clear violation of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment to return people to their home country if there is reason to believe they will be tortured.

The Administration talks about how Saddam was evil for using torture and imprisonment. They say the same about Iran, Syria, North Korea and other nations who “support the terrorists.” Yet the same Administration is responsible for exporting someone merely suspected of being a terrorists to one of the very nations they condemn.

Yes, at the RNC, speakers made fun of those who would grant due process to suspected terrorists. But we must reply that the Republicans are simply wrong on this point. No threat is so great that we should sanction torture by our forces or by others through extraordinary rendition.

What of our presidential candidates?

The “old” John McCain -- himself tortured as a prisoner of war -- used to speak boldly against any use of torture, and he did recommit to rejecting torture in last night's presidential debate. Still, after the RNC rhetoric, I can’t be sure that the “new” McCain still talks the talk. Barack Obama has also opposed torture, but does not have the gut distaste of torture that the "old" McCain had.

But with either candidate, change is likely.

The Change We Need

Our next President must reject the Bush administration’s actions that permitted imprisonment without charges, torture and extraordinary rendition. With these policies, we have become that which we most deplore! How can the US differentiate itself from the terrorists and states that sponsor terrorism if the US allows these practices?

Granted, the terrorists’ threat is real. As I write, there are those that would attack us here at home or abroad. But in our efforts to stop the terrorists, our government cannot stoop to violating human rights. Period.

For an overview of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture

The Economy Today

2008-09-26T17:37:00.000-07:00

While we remain teetering on the brink of who’s knows what, we can watch the candidates in action.

McCain Jumps into Inaction

John McCain, our "man of action," stops campaigning, suggests delaying the debate, rushes to Washington to save the economy. But after the summit with President Bush, he has little to offer. He’s caught between the Administration’s proposal and Republican senators and representatives who don’t want to sign on (at least in an election year).

Obama Wants to Debate

Barack Obama, the "man of concensus" (let's get everyone at the table), meanwhile, sees no reason not to debate, and reluctantly returns to Washington for the meeting with the President. But like, McCain, is vague and uncommitted.

Conclusion
No news today. But the debate is on tonight!

3 Horseman of the Economic Apocalypse?

2008-09-25T20:09:00.000-07:00

With the US economy teetering on the brink of depression or collapse, most US papers were leading with Bush, McCain and Obama. None of the above convince me they have a clue on how to solve the situation.

Are we looking at the 3 Horseman of the Economic Apocalypse?

The chorus of nations responds: “God help us; God help us all!”

Time to Choose a Candidate for President

2008-09-24T16:56:00.000-07:00

Well, the Sarah Palin frenzy is dying down and time is ticking until we have to choose a candidate. No matter what your politics, it generally boils down to a choice of the big two. Yep, there are the minor party candidates including Bob Barr and Ralph Nader. But most will choose between McCain and Obama.

So, what’s the view of this New Libertarian Socialist on the candidates?

It’s time to dedicate a few blogs to looking at the issues, positions, experience and my expectations of the candidates.

So here’s my method:

Look at the major issues of international and national importance, with emphasis on the preservation of liberty at home.
Look at the candidate’s baggage (their party’s advisors, platform positions, campaign contributors, and others with an insider’s influence)
Look at the candidate’s experience in and our of office:

o How competent is the candidate as a decision maker?
o Have the candidate’s actions in office been consistent with the campaign promises?
o Does the candidate work “across the aisle” to get things done?
Think about what it would be like to have this candidate in office.

On this last point, I’ve used the example of buying a dress. See http://rachy-viewsofalibertariansocialist.blogspot.com/2008/07/choosing-candidate.html. (Sorry, guys, if you don’t understand this example, but it’s not the same for guys buying a suit.)

Even after you’ve thought about what you’d like to buy (style, color, length, etc.) and you’re lucky enough to find a dress that you think you’d like, you may try it on you say “I’m not going out in public in this!” Then, you might stumble upon a dress you didn’t expect, and try it on and like it.

It’s the same with a candidate. They may say everything you want them to say and you might like their record. But when you take all this together with their personality, judgment, and interactions with others, you realize “I don’t want this person as President representing my nation to the world.”

How many Presidents have acted differently in office compared to their campaign promises and rhetoric? Who would have expected the anti-communist Nixon to open up normal relations with China? Who would believe that Bill Clinton was perhaps the most fiscally conservative President of the last 20 years? The office of President can produce surprising results. This is why the final and deciding factor needs to be this unquantifiable quality.

The Sarah Palin Chronicles - Volume 3

2008-09-17T17:10:00.000-07:00

The Sarah Palin phenomenon has finally peaked, so maybe now we can figure out who she really is and do we want her for VP. We have just under 2 months of this ongoing job interview, where the nation’s voters can evaluate which pair of candidates are best for the job openings in January 2009.

Is She Ready?

Clearly Sarah is and has always been ready for almost anything. Growing up in Alaska, she has learned self-reliance and has developed both poise and self-confidence, needed for any position of public leadership.

In reality the US VP is like a “minister without portfolio” – clearly an advisor of the President, but unlike the Secretary of State or Defense, the VP is without a specific role in the Administration. As such, she seems to be the kind of person who could do whatever McCain would ask of her. But she doesn't have years of experience to provide the insight and wisdom that other more experienced politicians could give.

Being a heart-beat away from the big job, is she ready for that? Clearly, she has the self-confidence to step up to Chief Executive. But does she have the knowledge, experience, perspective, and judgment to be President?

That’s what we need to think carefully about.

Let me go over what I know about Sarah and how a New Libertarian Socialist would evaluate her for the job of VP.

What about her religious beliefs?

As a Libertarian, I believe we are all entitled to whatever religious beliefs we wish to uphold. And I would not discriminate for or against her based on these beliefs. Yes, they may influence her political philosophy and decisions she may make in office. But I look to her record in office to see how religious beliefs have or have not impacted her actions.

My review of her terms as City Councilor, Mayor and Governor does not reveal any actions that emanate from her religious beliefs. As Councilor, she supported allowing bars to stay open late, even though her denomination opposes the use of alcohol. Yes, there was a controversy about banning of books, but no books were actually banned. Yes, there were times she invoked the name of God in relation to the war in Iraq, but she has explained the context of that quote.

So, what about her pro-life stance? As a Libertarian, I do not believe the state should limit the access to safe abortion. While Libertarians are strongly for life and liberty, I don’t believe that politicians or state/federal bureaucrats have the moral authority or wisdom to draw the line between when abortion should be legal and when it should be illegal.

All that said, my evaluation of Sarah considers what a VP would do about abortion of other pro-life issues. The answer: probably nothing!

Republican VPs Bush, Quayle, and Cheney, though elected on a pro-life platform, did absolutely nothing in any official capacity to limit abortion. Only another Supreme Court decision or a constitutional amendment would fully reverse Roe v. Wade. So there is little chance she might every do anything that would change the availability of abortion in the nation.

My conclusion: her religious beliefs will have no significant impact on her performance as VP.

What about her knowledge of domestic and foreign affairs?

Clearly, her experience as Governor gives her an understanding of the oil industry and environmental issues. But on other issues from health care to the national economy to foreign affairs, she still has much to learn. As VP, she’ll have time to learn on the job. If she has to move up to the Oval Office, she would have to be dependent on advisors to develop both positions and policy, at least initially.

On the other hand, our current President is not exactly the brightest bulb in the chandelier. Clearly, Cheney and the Cabinet are creating policy and making most of the decisions. If GWB is the benchmark, Sarah at least can talk coherently and run circles around Bush as a communicator!

My conclusion: not quite ready for prime time, but willing and able to learn. If nothing else, she can communicate effectively with the American pubic.

What about her decision making? Her ability to work with the legislative branch? Her skills in executive office?

Here we’ve seen some mixed results. As Mayor, she was able to cut some taxes and use bonds for public works (road, sewers, bike paths), but also created a new tax for a sports complex. As Governor, the gas pipeline deal shows an ability to work across party lines and made more progress than previous administrations.

The “bridge to nowhere” illustrates a flip-flopping. She was pro-bridge in her run for Governor, but 8 months in office, she cancelled the project when gained national fame as an example of pork barrel spending. Then, there are reports in the New York Times and USA Today about vendettas, firing of officials who crossed her, valuing loyalty over competency, and blurred the line between government and personal grievance. That are disputed interpretations of these events is evident of partisan interpretations.

Running for Governor, she championed ethics reform and was to enact a bipartisan ethics reform bill.

My conclusion: Hmmm. Can be effective with bipartisan legislation. Sometimes changes opinion with the political winds. Overall, she is all over the board on taxes (she’s cut some, raised others), and her bipartisan effectiveness also blurs her actual opinions. But not following any strict partisian pattern could be a sign of someone who can think for herself – thinking for oneself gains points with me. Now the controversy over alleged vendettas and cronyism is somewhat par for the course for many a politician. But anyone who values loyalty over competency looses points with me.

Overall Grade: B-

What about Sarah as Sarah?

Despite many differences in political and religious views, I have to say I still like Sarah. I have to respect her for being one of those women who can do a good job of balancing work and family. Though an urban creature, I am fascinated by the wilderness and sheer beauty of her native Alaska. And like me, she is a mix of English, Irish and German. And I just love that cute little Piper Palin! So, I’m still fascinated by this VP candidate.

Would I Vote for her?

That’s the big question. Unless we’re convinced that McCain isn’t healthy enough to last a full term, we’re really not voting for or against Sarah – we’re voting for McCain or Obama. And with either candidate, we also more or less get their party platform, policies, and advisors.

So, I get to escape without answering the question. My decision will be based on the policies of McCain and Obama and how I think each would govern. That’s something for another blog entry.

[But here's a hint: I can't trust McCain 2008 -- is he the "old" McCain who boldly opposes torture or the "new" McCain who would continue the Bush era erosion of our freedoms? Sorry, Sarah. I think you're a pretty good Governor for Alaska, and, for now, we'll be better off if you keep you current job.]

Sarah Palin – the 4th Celebrity!

2008-09-15T16:00:00.001-07:00

I think America now has its 4th Celebrity. Let’s add Sarah Palin to trio of Barack Obama, Parish Hilton and Britney Spears!

You probably recall the famous TV ad by the McCain campaign that stated Barack Obama is “the biggest celebrity in the world.” Mixed in with crowds at his speeches are 1/2 second fade-ins of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, followed by a voice over questioning his ability to lead the nation.

But the Republican National Convention has given America a new star! We are now 2 weeks in a post-Palin America. Crowds flock to her speeches. Sales of her style of eyeglasses are up nationwide. Everyone knows the name of America's favorite hockey mom! She was even featured in a skit on Saturday Night Live! I declare that we now have a 4th celebrity: Governor Sarah Palin, Vice Presidential candidate of the Republican Party!

Change I Can Count On!!!

2008-09-07T20:39:00.000-07:00

Yep, I got change I can count on!

The Sarah Palin Chronicles – Volume 2

2008-09-05T20:21:00.000-07:00

This was the Week of Sarah Palin and I think I’m coming off a sugar high!

I couldn’t believe it that the party of conservatives would do something both bold and interesting!

They picked this woman – I think that’s quite something in itself! And she actually looks and talks like she could be your neighbor– a regular, middle class working mom. Only thing she’s been a mayor and a governor. And being from Alaska (a place I’d love to visit), there’s this kind of frontier woman side to her – she’s accomplished at hunting and fishing. Then she comes out of virtually no where and is standing in front of nearly 40 million viewers, taking it in stride and talking to the nation with poise and confidence.

And, even in full “attack mode” she’s just so not Bush/Cheney/Rove/etc. She’s actually likeable,

And she’s got a very handsome looking family. Certainly things aren’t perfect in the family (one case of pre-marital pregnancy), but no one is covering it up or denying anything (as the Nixon era Republicans would do) – the family is simply doing the right thing and moving on.

And she’s got that cute little daughter Piper. With a name line Piper Palin how could she not be cute!

But at some point, we have to come down from this sugar high and get back to making the choice of McCain-Palin or Obama-Biden.

The first downer was thinking back on McCain’s acceptance speech where he’s acting like the outsider and the maverick instead of the Senator who came to Washington 25 years ago as a Congressman.

It got me thinking if the whole RNC was not a “bait and switch” sales pitch where they sell McCain-Palin as the mavericks of change for the elections only to get 4 more years of same conservative Republican policies. Here’s my unanswered questions:

If McCain voted over 90% of the time in line with the Bush administration, where’s the policy change?

How can you want to cut taxes more when already we in deficit spending to pay for the war and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan?
What specific government spending does he want to cut?

How effective could McCain be with what looks like a Democrat majority in the House and Senate?

These McCain promises are little more than the sugar candy that conservative feast on. Reality is sometimes a big downer. But once you’re back down, you can really see that, in the big picture, little has changed in the course of this week.

If the Republicans win, expect 4 more years of Republican policy. The management may change, but the menu will be the same.