Syria: Crises of Complex Proportions

Syria is a crises that tears at our hearts when we hear of innocent civilians massacred, most recently gassed to death.  Over 100,000 have died, a number equivalent to the population of my home town of Cambridge, Massachusetts.

As Americans, we always ask "What should we do?"  We are a people that like to take action.  I think we feel better about ourselves when we take definitive action.  We like our action movies when the hero takes immediate action and gets back at the enemy.

We are more divided when it comes to nations that are neither our close friends or our enemies.  It took a lot of demonizing of Iraq before the Bush administration pushed for the ill-conceived invasion of Iraq.   We were divided about taking action in Kosovo, when we intervened for humanitarian reasons to stop the "ethnic cleansing." 

In the first case, the left generally opposed intervention while in the second, the right was generally non-interventionist.  While there are some who are non-interventionists in all situations, the 2 major political parties seem to see-saw back and forth on the question of when to intervene.

With this landscape, we come to September 2013 and the question of Syria.  President Obama looked like he'd announce a plan of definitive action, likely a missile strike against some Syrian military facility in retribution for stepping over the line with the use of deadly gas.  But, then he pulled back and tossed the hot potato to Congress.  Was this an act of an indecisive leader or a shrewd politician who knew he'd get a 80% negative rating on any decision he could make?  Was he wise to seek political consensus?

Immediately, we saw that Congress is all over the map on what to do in Syria.  Sen. McCain criticized the President for backing down from action, saying it would embolden our enemies.  But other Republicans opposed action, while some were for it depending on certain conditions.  Democrats were also all over the map, from supporting action to saying no military action should be taken under any conditions.  Weariness of the decades-long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq also feed into the political debate.  Also, many have a "we won't get fooled again" perspective, recalling how many were duped about Iraq's weapon arsenal in order to justify that war.

What to do?

Any action should be informed by a good understanding of the nation, its issues and its peoples.  This link is one a number of Syria 101 articles that are worth a read.  The article has many links to other articles and videos.

Does it help?

I found that about 50% through it I came to understand why in the US you'll hear about a dozen different perspectives from politicians.  Each tidbit of information on its own might lead to concluding on one approach for intervention or non-intervention.

Taken together, you might come to the same conclusion as Pres. Obama:  let's throw this out there for a debate on the issue.

I keep teetering between non-intervention and the urge to take action against the state-sponsored atrocities from murder of civilians (including children) to the use of deadly gas on civilians.  These are humanitarian crimes that cry out to heaven.  If not us, who will act?

But, I know that while definitive action may feel good, any action, any support for any side may have unanticipated negative consequences.  And increasing the level of warfare may not lead to a workable solution.

My recommendation would be to gather a coalition of our allies, the UN, and the Arab League to negotiate a cease fire and peace talks.  We need to end the bloodshed that is devastating Syria.  But peace, not more warfare, is the way.

Health Care Hangover

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:

1. Politics
2. Politics
3. 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!

Obama’s Nobel Prize Speech Pleases No One

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

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?

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

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?)

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

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

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:

1. 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.
   
   
   
2. 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)!

More on Health Care Reform

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?

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.

With Liberty and Justice for All: A Year in Review

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!

Building A Bridge to Islam?

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!

Cheney Still At It

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!

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

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?

Bush Administration Memos Shown to Support the Repression of Rights

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!

The Stimulus: Is It Pork?

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

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:

1. do nothing, or
2. 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

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?

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