Libya: It Seemed Much Simpler a Few Years Ago

President Obama has found himself between the rock of ‘anti-invasion’ that he claimed during his campaign and the hard place of justifying US indifference to dictatorial slaughter in the Middle East. Somehow the responsibilities of actually being the president seem different than they do when campaigning for the job. Let’s look at a couple other campaign positions that have changed since 2008.

Topic	Before Election	Since being in office
Gitmo	A damaging symbol to the world that must be closed	Still open; can’t find a better alternative
Warrentless Wire Taps	They are illegal, erode the civil liberties of American Citizens and will end when I am president.	They are essential to national security and the government is immune from prosecution
Foreign Policy on dictators	“Saddam Hussein is brutal, but poses no imminent or direct threat to the US”, so we shouldn't be involved militarily.	We can have ‘kinetic military action’ against middle eastern dictators without congressional approval if/when the president decides
Economy	The reckless policies of the Republican administration are to blame for our bad economy	We have gone further into debt under Obama than all previous administrations combined; unemployment is at a post WWII high.

I have to chastise Republicans who are simply looking for a reason to criticize, which is exactly why politics are so distasteful to most voters and why congress has an approval rating below 20%. True enough, Bohner railed against Obama for sitting on the sidelines while ‘innocent people were slaughtered’ and then railed against Obama for committing troops in a region unconnected to a vital US interest. We would feel better if Bohner actually offered a reasonable suggestion for the US position rather than prepared a list of criticisms for every eventuality.

Like most national policy issues, the Libya situation is more complicated than it seems at first glance. Doing nothing while a ruthless dictator slaughters people fighting for reform and freedom doesn’t square well with our moral compass. Yet a realistic view of the world reveals that the US cannot police every injustice in Darfur, Mogadishu, Rawanda, Bahrain, etc.

Personally, I like the idea of letting someone else take the heat for a change. We are the most criticized nation in the world for ‘going it alone’ and invading countries like Iraq ‘illegally’. OK, let’s see how much France, Germany and the Arab League are willing to invest in this just cause. Libya, which ranks 9^th in the world in oil production, exports most of its oil to Europe (coincidentally France was one of the nations most eager to implement the no-fly zone).

Despite politics, we do need to understand what the finish line looks like for us in Libya. It’s both entertaining and disconcerting to watch administration spokesmen try to dance around reporters’ questions like “What is our goal?” and “Is taking out Gaddafi part of our mission?” Yeah, this policy stuff is a lot easier to master when you don’t actually have to be responsible for it.

Anatomy of a Revolution

We’ve all read about the American Revolution in school. History provides us a neatly summarized account of the events leading up to, during and resulting from the revolution that led to American independence. We like to think it was a clear choice between justice and oppression, freedom and bondage, good guys and bad guys. But without the benefit of hindsight, many of us might have chosen differently if we had lived during that time and been forced to take sides.

Conservatives tend to resist change, which is the essence of any revolution. Order and routine are like an old pair of shoes that have molded to the shape of our feet; maybe it’s not quite comfort, but at least it’s familiar. If they look hard enough, conservatives can almost always find justification to stay the course, endure the trials, and extol the virtues of longsuffering via endless clichés, metaphors and even biblical quotes. They see change as a radical, probably even sinful departure from the divine order of things. “After all, if God didn’t want things this way he would change them himself. “

On the other side, we have those willing to organize an opposition movement for any cause that comes along. Attending school in Berkeley made this a daily experience. Amusingly, many of the same organizers would rotate from one crusade to another throughout campus, suggesting their real motivation was not to further any particular cause but rather an addiction to oppose something, anything. One got the feeling they would almost be disappointed if they actually brought about change because then could no longer cling to an identity of an oppressed minority.
Today, we see civil unrest in Egypt and other Arab nations. The raw, unedited news feeds from Tahrir Square show passionate Egyptians willing to risk injury and possible death to defend their ideals. This theater begs the question: “Which group should prevail? “ Certainly democracy is a noble objective, but so is law and order.

The salient point I’m extracting in this entry is not defense of one side or another, but consideration of scales you would use to weigh your choices if you were in the middle of this. Or put another way, what are the principles you are actually willing to risk life and limb for? I’m sure there were colonists in the 18th century who thought fighting a war – killing fellow men – over something as petty as taxes or a few legal disputes was morally reprehensible. Would you be willing and able to endorse revolution if it meant withstanding accusations from family and friends of being a traitor, murderer, enemy of God’s appointed ruler? Everybody disagrees with their leaders over something. When does disagreement rise to justify revolution?

We have a unique opportunity to observe a revolution in the making. Most of us have been blessed to live in America where we have not experienced fear for our security or lack of shelter, food or water. Spend some time trying to walk like an Egyptian (apologies to the Bangles) and see what’s at stake. You will develop more respect for their struggle, more appreciation for what you have, and maybe a new perspective on what is worth fighting for.

2010 Election: Tea, anyone?

Apologies for the late post.

The 2010 election is (mostly) over, and the spinning has begun. Liberals like Maureen Dowd continue to chastise Americans for being too stupid to vote against Democrats. Republicans crow that this is definitive proof that Americans now realize the error of their ways in 2008 and have come to their senses. Karl Rove, usually a shrewd political analyst, said on election night that “.. there is a lesson to be learned here”. He went on to argue that that Republicans might have won control of the Senate if the Tea Party hadn’t fielded candidates that split the vote. He’s right about one thing; there is a lesson to be learned. But it’s not a wrap across the knuckles of the Tea Party; it’s a shot across the bow of the Republicans.

Political insiders have become so out of touch with voters that they can’t see the forest for the trees. If all the Tea Party wanted to do was defeat Democrats there would be no need to organize their own candidates. The Tea Party was formed because of disenchantment with Republicans, who abandoned conservative values and lost badly in 2008. Republicans would be naïve to presume that the Tea Party will fizzle and disband in the wake of their candidates’ defeat. They went from a dispersed grass roots movement to an influencing factor in national politics in just two years. If Republicans don’t find their conservative values with both hands in the next two years they can expect to be challenged even more in 2012.

This is not to say that the Tea Party can’t stumble either. Sarah Palin is a case in point. Everybody knows someone like Sarah; she’s the mom in your neighborhood that is involved in everything – all the school projects, the youth soccer league, church activities, even local political issues like more parks, more open space and more police. She is admired for her energy, her folksy personality, and her likability. But those aren’t the characteristics of a presidential candidate. The excitement she generated in the Republican base in the 2008 election is sorely misinterpreted. Conservatives were desperate for something to feel good about after McCain was forced on them, and Palin provided a breath of fresh air in an otherwise chagrined campaign. Let’s admit it: how hard is it to look good standing next to John McCain? Any party needs to field an electable candidate, which means someone who can inspire and lead. Sarah Palin can be much more helpful as a public figure endorsing conservative values than a candidate fighting constant assaults on her credibility.

We’ll soon see how well the election leaders interpret their mandate, which may profoundly affect the political landscape for the next decade and beyond. I’m afraid despite some blustering rhetoric we will see a return to the same old politics that we are all fed up with.

Obamanomics

I always get a kick out of the commentators and pundits who tell us how simple the economic solution is and how idiotic the rest of the world who doesn’t agree must be. Then they produce a tally of 8 Nobel-prize-winning economists who support their argument; proving that the opposing argument which only has 5 supporting Nobel laureates must be sheer folly.

I don’t doubt that the answer seems obvious to these people. Neither do I doubt that they have failed to grasp all the subtleties of the US and global economies. I won’t pretend to have the ultimate answer. The more I learn about economic policy, the more convinced I am that it is far more complex than we understand. Sure enough, if someone models a fixed set of variables long enough a pattern emerges. But rarely do we consider all of the variables that affect the decisions of consumers, investors, employers, and producers. It’s like putting your foot in a stream in the same place twice: It may look the same, but it really isn’t.

Obama wants us to believe that the current economic trough was created by the policies of cutting taxes and limiting government control. I read today a letter to the WSJ that claimed the prosperity of the Clinton presidency was due to his raising of the upper income tax bracket. I could find even more letters claiming the prosperity of the Reagan years was due to the exact opposite: lowering of the upper income tax bracket. Clearly the answer has to be in some other variables.

One thing I am convinced of as fact: The US economy will only recover when investors, consumers and employers truly believe that the future will bring a better business/financial environment than they see today. As long as people are pessimistic or even uncertain about the next 12 months; they won’t want to invest their money, finance more purchases, or hire more people. The real question is how to create this optimism.

The November elections bring us a rare opportunity to choose between two diametrically opposite approaches to economic policy. Obama believes that extending tax cuts and reducing government spending is exactly the recipe that got us into this economic crisis. The republicans believe that whatever situation we are in has not been helped by the first 2 years of Obama policies, and we cannot afford 2 more years of the same. The tea party is unabashedly opposed to any new taxes or even allowing the existing tax cuts to expire. Although most tea party candidates are historically conservative, they have no qualms about ousting republicans who have not exercised their version of fiscal responsibility.

No doubt - we have idiots on both sides. Likewise, both sides also have some pretty smart people who are convinced they are right and have some arguments to support them. The only foolish decision is to presume that the answer is obvious.

The Koran Bonfire

Rev. Terry Jones plan to burn copies of the Koran in Gainesville, Florida to commemorate 9/11 may merit a second – or even third – consideration.. My first thought when I heard about this was that it was another silly stunt by an overzealous religious group, trying to stir up controversy so they could claim religious persecution. Then I realized the parallel between what Rev. Jones was doing and what the Imam Muhammad Musri was doing by establishing a mosque at ground zero.

As stated in an earlier post, nobody argues about the constitutional right to build the mosque. Likewise, nobody argues about Rev Jones’ constitutional right to burn a book. But how can the Obama administration consider plans to intervene in one case but not the other?

We can burn the flag, burn the Bible, burn your most hated politician in effigy, smear feces on a picture of Jesus and put a crucifix in a jar of urine and call it art… why draw the line on freedom of expression at burning the Koran?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not endorsing Rev. Jones plan. But I do have some respect for the stones it takes to make his point. The only reason we discourage his form of expression is fear: Fear of an international Al Qaeda recruiting spree, fear of radical Islam, fear of terrorism. Nobody worries about Christians blowing up car bombs or hijacking planes to use as WMDs. And despite heated debates between Republicans and Democrats nobody worries about one side trying to mass-murder the other. But we have, apparently, allowed radical Islamists to rob us of our constitutional freedom of expression when it comes to their beliefs. Jones has poignantly shown how the whole “constitutional rights” shtick about the Mosque is a double standard for Muslims.

Terrorism is defined as “the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce esp. for political purposes”. Looks like the Muslim extremists have succeeded in using terrorism to get us to treat their holy book differently than any other.

So should we grab our marshmallows and have some Koran smores this weekend? Not necessary. Terrorism only succeeds if it gets people to change their habits or lifestyle. Most of us weren’t planning on a Koran barbeque this weekend, so we don’t have to worry about canceling one to avoid Islamic violence. If the international community told us we cannot hold commemoration ceremonies on 9/11 or that we couldn’t build 9./11 memorials because they find them offensive, I doubt we would be as quick to appease them. But it can’t help but embolden Muslim extremists to know their threats can mobilize the US government to intervene in the freedoms of their own citizens. It’s something worth monitoring.

Butterflies, Bill Clinton, and Bombs.

Most of us have heard about the butterfly effect in one form or another. The basic premise is that a butterfly in some remote jungle flaps its wings which sets off a chain of events that changes weather patterns and causes a hurricane that destroys Florida. While we admit we are more likely to get struck by lightening and mauled by a 3 legged zebra in the same day, the butterfly effect does give us pause to think about the way individual events can ripple through the world around us. Some can even be as profound as the metaphor illustrates.

Take, for example, President Bill Clinton. Ask a few people around you why Bill Clinton was impeached. Assuming they understand that impeached does not equal removal from office, they will probably say it was because he had an affair with an intern. Wrong. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath to a grand jury. Regardless of how you feel about it, these are the facts. I don’t wish to debate the Clinton case, impeachment or Lewinsky. I do, however want to pose a ‘what if’ scenario. What if, when Clinton was asked about his relationship with Lewinsky, he simply told the truth. It could have been in a statement something like this:

“I have had some indiscretions with a White House employee. I am not proud of my actions and indeed am profoundly sorry for the pain and embarrassment I have caused my family, my staff, and the American people. I ask for your forgiveness; and I ask that instead of dwelling on the past that we return our attention to the critical issues we face as a nation. I am optimistic about America and will do everything in my power to earn the trust you have shown by electing me President.”

In more simple terms, this reduces so “Yeah, I fooled around. Busted. What does this have to do with Whitewater or running America?”

Republicans would have been shocked and outraged about the moral degradation, but they would be throwing stones from their glass houses. And Americans would have thought, ‘hmm. What does this have to do with running America?” By confessing his guilt, he would have portrayed a sympathetic character and simultaneously demonized the republicans who were ‘unforgiving’. Does anyone not believe that Clinton’s impeachment and the accompanying media circus influenced the way people voted in the 2000 election? Follow me on this ripple effect:

If Bill Clinton would have told the truth:

* Al Gore would have certainly collected another 200 votes in Florida and been elected president in 2000.
* Dick Cheney would be enjoying retirement from Halliburton.
* George W. Bush would be remembered only as a good governor of Texas.
* We would have at least 2 different Supreme Court justices that would likely not be conservative constructionists like Alito and Roberts. We have yet to see how this dynamic will shape the country.
* Al Gore would have been in the white house on 9/11/2001.
* The US would not have invaded Iraq; 4,400 US soldiers would not have died in Iraq; and the US would have $700B that was not spent on operation Iraqi Freedom (but we would have probably spent on reducing carbon emissions).

* In a few years, Saddam’s UN sanctions would have expired and he could resume oil production, providing a new stream of revenue to the Iraqi government to funnel to Sadaam’s favorite projects.
* Iraq would be a safe-haven for Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations who shared Iraq’s hatred for the US and democracy.
* Increasing nuclear tensions from Iran would motivate Saddam to reinstate his own nuclear program rather than fall victim to his hated neighbor who he went to war with in 1980. His ambition and intent were clearly documented in the Duelfer report by his scientists and government/military officers.
* Nuclear tensions around the globe would ratchet up as 2 power-hungry dictators in the Middle East flexed their nuclear muscles. North Korea makes clear that having nukes makes people notice. Pakistan gets even more uneasy about nuclear terrorists next door in Afghanistan, which makes India more nervous about their geographic status. The former Soviet states have multiple buyers for their left over nuclear arsenals, and the bidding could get high in a part of the world where a million dollars can still make you the richest man in the country. The nuclear club would expand like never before, and everyone has a hair-trigger.
* The US has lost any initiative they might have had to attack Iraq, and can do little other than suggest more UN economic sanctions that we now know were heavily abused by Saddam.

You can decide whether this is a better scenario than the one we are living. But you can’t deny that the world would be a very, very different place if Bill Clinton had simply told the truth.

Makes you think.

The Mosque at Ground Zero

I debated whether to weigh in on this topic, given that the ‘debate’ seems so ridiculous. But the fact that there is a ‘debate’ is more of an issue than the mosque itself. In all the reports, debates, updates, and conversations I’ve heard about the efforts to establish a mosque at Ground Zero, not one has neglected to mention that American Muslims have the constitutional right to practice their religion. This is always issued with great righteous indignation or as a disclaimer inevitably followed by a “but” or “however”. But I have not heard a single argument that even suggests the constitutional protection of freedom of religion does not apply to Muslims in NYC. So why do advocates of the mosque insist on acting as if their rights are not being respected? Clearly, it’s easier to generate public sympathy if you can portray yourself as a victim of intolerance, hatred or fear.


One has the constitutional right to start or join an organization generating propaganda against a particular race, color, religion, sexual preference, or a group defined by any other arbitrary criteria. But that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. All things that are lawful are not expedient.


I’m sure we can all imagine situations in which our next-door neighbor makes decisions involving property use, construction, or décor that are within their ‘rights’ but do not necessarily take the community’s interests in to account. If Islam really is a religion of peace, and if the goal of these particular Muslims is merely to build a house of worship, they would choose a less proactive location. True peace-loving Muslims would want to distance themselves from the tragedy of 9/11 and restore the reputation of the religion they came to adopt.


Forget the specious arguments, forget the rhetoric about intolerance and persecution, and forget the contrived controversy about constitutional rights. Putting a mosque at ground zero is about poking a stick in the eye of the infidels and glorifying the ‘sacrifice’ of the 9/11 hijackers who killed 3000 Americans. Let’s end this sophistry that pretends to make it about anything else.