War Crimes Prosecution would be a Grave Mistake
Posted on July 1, 2008
Filed Under War on Terror | Leave a Comment
As Americans, we have a right, if not an obligation to debate how our government goes about securing our safety. By denouncing misguided policies like waterboarding, certain aspects of The Patriot Act, and the deplorable behavior at Abu Garaib and supporting candidates who will effect the proper change, we work within our system to shape a government that reflects the people’s will. Just as the government’s power must be used with discretion so to must the people’s.
With pressure growing to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate whether Administration officials were guilty of war crimes abuses we run the risk of allowing anger and disgust to cloud our discretion. It was the opinion of The Supreme Court in the case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that the harsh interrogation methods used on detainees violated international law.
I personally don’t believe our government should engage in torture even if applied in an attempt to save lives. This is just not the way a modern, civilized society should act. I also find the administration’s argument that the Geneva Conventions ban on humiliating or degrading treatment doesn’t apply to Al Qaeda detainees because they are not acting on behalf of a country to be ludicrous. Still, quiet a chasm exists between reading a desired interpretation into a treaty in an attempt to secure the homeland and possessing criminal intent. I just don’t believe any administration official was acting with criminal intent in interpreting our treaties to allow for torture. Without criminal intent how you prosecute for War Crimes?
Sphere: Related ContentUnited States Among Worst Offenders in Surveilling Citizens
Posted on June 5, 2008
Filed Under Politics, civil liberties | 1 Comment
WITH PRIVACY PROTECTIONS IN WORLDWIDE RETREAT, NATION FINDS ITSELF RANKED BESIDE CHINA AND RUSSIA
Privacy International, the oldest privacy advocacy group in the world, each year issues a comprehensive report on the state of surveillance and privacy protection in some 70 countries around the globe. The results are more than a bit disturbing and provide another painful example of the erosion of civil liberties in the post 9/11 America.
Accompanying the report is a color coded map of the world, which highlights the hostility with which a given country regards privacy protection. Teal colored countries - the highest rating - are those that consistently uphold human rights standards, while dark green offers significant protections and safeguards. There was not a country in the world that earned either of the top two ratings. The 3rd highest ranking, shown in a lighter shade of green, suggests a country has adequate protections against abuse. Only 1 country enjoyed this adequate rating - Greece.
Most disturbing about the report is the worldwide trend towards diminishing protection. In the previous year 5 countries - Germany, Canada, Greece, Belgium, and Austria - were rated either adequate or above. All but Greece have seen an erosion in privacy protections.
There is a array of disquieting information in the report, but one item stood out as being the most unsettling. The color black is reserved for the most endemic surveillance societies. Most of the countries that list are the usual collection of human rights rogues: China, Thailand, Russia, Singapore, and Taiwan. No major surprises there, but hold on to your hat for this next one - The United States. Despite the shifting political situation in the US Congress, surveillance initiatives in the United States are expanding at a fierce rate against foreigners and citizens alike. In terms of statutory protections and privacy protections, the US ranked dead last among democratic nations. Britain was also listed as a black nation - the only such European nation with the ugly designation, but scored higher than the US among individual privacy metrics, albeit modestly.
Granted, there are many mega-trends in place that are responsible for the rise in governmental surveillance, including the rise of private security firms, enhanced technologies such as GPS, internet, database linkages, and enhanced law enforcement systems. This would help explain the overall worldwide trend, but this dastardly environment in the US is tied no doubt to an administration that is openly hostile to anything that impedes it’s power, civil liberties and privacy be damned.
While it certainly doesn’t appear that the global trend will be reversing itself anytime soon, any US citizen the least bit concerned about preserving their rights needs to ask themself whether an Obama administration or McCain administration is more likely to arrest the trend. Their records and positions on these issues are quite clear. It was Barack Obama who voted to protect our rights under the Foreign Inteligence Surveliance Act, not John McCain.
Sphere: Related ContentDispelling the Obama Rumors
Posted on May 27, 2008
Filed Under Barak Obama | Leave a Comment
With all the disinformation floating around about Barack Obama, rumors that otherwise fairminded people have bought into, it seemed time to set the record straight. Watch this for the truth:
Sphere: Related ContentObama Understands lessons of Detente/Engagement
Posted on May 19, 2008
Filed Under Diplomacy | Leave a Comment
The blogosphere is agog today over recent comments Obama made concerning the threat Iran and other rouge nations pose compared to that of The Soviet Union of the Cold War era. Jennifer Rubin in today’s Commentary wrote:
Was it presidential visits with the Soviet Union that brought down the Berlin Wall? Or was it the 40 year history of bipartisan military deterrence, the willingness of Ronald Reagan to walk away from Reykjavik summit, the resulting bankruptcy of the Soviet Empire, the support of dissidents and freedom fighters in the war against tyranny, and the willingness to identify Communism as a center of evil in the late 20th century?
The problem is that Rubin and others who’ve spent the day castigating Obama miss the Democrat’s point entirely. Obama wasn’t claiming Iran and the other rogues to be non-threats, just not on the same level posed by the Soviets. Can this point even be reasonably argued? During The Cold War tens of thousands of ICBMS targeted US soil, putting us a mere button push and 45 minute burst from annihilation. The threat was not that the enemy might acquire a nuke but that they would unload an entire arsenal of them. Would anyone equate the threat posed by trying to obtain a gun with that of actually using the gun? Of course we are threatened by a foe wanting to obtain nuclear technology, but as Andrew Sullivan pointed out, is that threat any greater than of a Pakistan possessing such technology? We are engaged with Pakistan just as we were with The Soviet Union.  Could any reasonable mind conclude that Iran poses an equal or greater threat to us than both Pakistan and The Soviet Union?
Obama was making the point that if we could engage the Soviets, whose threat was far more formidable, than we certainly can engage the Iranians. It wasn’t just the military buildup under Reagan that brought The Soviet Union down, but the combined effects of the SALT and START Treaties, the termination of Egyptian Israeli hostilities through the Camp David Accords, Detente, AND knowing when to stare the enemy down; it was the carrot AND the stick and knowing when to use which. Obama was merely echoing standard US policy up until 2001, when Bush/Cheney rewrote half a century of US security doctrine.
Sphere: Related ContentElectoral Predictions for General Election
Posted on May 12, 2008
Filed Under Election 2008, Gang of Four, Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
By every reasonable metric the Democrats should enjoy overwhelming success this November. With the economy, war, and demographic trends on their side, coupled with the Obama Campaign’s efforts to rewrite the traditional Democratic map, states that had traditionally been ceded to the Republican’s will now be in play.
Building on John Kerry’s results in 2004 and factoring in Obama’s aggressive voter registration campaigns, demographics shifts, primary polling, I’ve put together the following map as to how I see this November playing out. You’ll notice that key battleground states of Florida and Ohio are assumed to go to McCain, yet Barack Obama still emerges victorious. Such a result hinges on the Democrat successfully plucking Colorado, Montana, and North Carolina from the Republican column.
McCain’s Pastor Problem
Posted on May 8, 2008
Filed Under Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
 David Corn has a piece in today’s Mother Jones about Rod Parsely, a man John McCain has referred to as his “spiritual guide” and whose beliefs about the evils of Islam are at least as toxic as anything spewed out of Jeremiah Wright’s bigoted mouth. McCain, who has yet to renounce and reject this bigot’s support and who recently shared a stage to welcome the endorsement must at the least be held to the same standard as Barack Obama. Obama at least kept Wright at a distance before breaking all ties with the man; McCain, in contrast, has not only shown little conern over his guide’s controversial beliefs, but has publicly embraced the man.
Andrew Sullivan has an interesting point in setting up a distinction between Obama’s Pastor problem and McCain’s: the Republican party is far more influenced by its religious fanatics than the Democrats by theirs. Perhaps it is just the dynamic within the two parties that allows for hate mongers of the far right to be guiltlessly embraced by the mainstream - McCain, et. al - while such an association is like krytonite across the aisle.  If the Republican’s insist on playing the Jerimiah Wright card in the general then the Democrats have a weapon of at least equal potency; more when you factor that this zealot’s words speak to heart of American foreign policy.
Sphere: Related ContentFed Chief Bernanke Claims We Benefit From Weak Dollar
Posted on May 8, 2008
Filed Under Economics, Monetary Policy | Leave a Comment
In his recent testimony on Capital Hill, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke cited the benefits of a weak dollar policy, in particular how a feeble dollar boosts exports and export related jobs and positively impacts the trade deficit. Are you f&*%in’ kidding me? This old yarn has been bandied about for years to help justify our failure to stand up while the greenback gets bloodied in currency markets.
Yes, a weak greenback lowers the cost of American goods in foreign markets and boosts the cost of imports here, but the positive impact on jobs is short-term at best. Currency exchange rates are not fixed and along with the prices of basic commodities quickly adapt to the weakened dollar. Any positive impact that the falling dollar has on trade and jobs is thus quickly wiped as soaring costs move to equilibrieum with exchange rates. As I’ve written about repeatedly, the 70’s era pricing pressures that we are experiencing now are a biproduct of reckless monetary policy by the Fed and irresponsible fiscal policy in Washington. We are all experiencing the pain of the government’s short policies, but I’m not sure I see anybody feeling those benefits Bernanke was talking about.
What I don’t get is why our government officials lets the Fed Chief get away with such bunk without even calling him on it.
Sphere: Related ContentAn Alternate Take on Operation Chaos
Posted on May 2, 2008
Filed Under Democratic Primary | Leave a Comment
The conventional wisdom suggests that Operation Chaos - the Rush Limbaugh call for Republicans to cross party lines and vote in Democratic primaries for Hillary - was being employed because Republican’s viewed Hillary as the weaker opponent come the general election. Let me suggest an alternative theory: Conservative talk radio, led by Limbaugh, O’Reilly, and Hannity might actually clamor for a Hillary Clinton presidency, seeing it as a steady diet of red meat for their rabid following. It’s the mirror image of the theory that Jeremiah Wright wants Obama defeated to keep himself powerful and perpetuate the arguement of black suppression.
Sphere: Related ContentWhat’s Really Behind the Fed Rate Policy
Posted on May 2, 2008
Filed Under Economics, Fed Policy | 1 Comment
The supposed rationale behind the Federal Reserve’s low interest rate policy is to get extra cash into consumer’s pockets enabling them to buy buy buy and keep that economy humming along. So why is there nothing in my pocket save for a linted Werthers wrapper, a guitar pick, and a crumpled gas receipt?
One needs look no further than the Bush administration’s reckless fiscal policy to understand why the US is teetering on the precipice of economic collapse. Dubya inherited a $5.6 trillion dollar surplus, a product in part of Poppy going back on his “read my lips” pledge and signing the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. The ensuing hike in the top income tax rate to 31% ultimately cost Daddy a 2nd term. Rather than continue with the government’s suddenly sound fiscal policy by using the surplus to shore up the country’s sickly entitlement programs and pay down the the debt, Junior came into office and pissed it all away through a series of ill-advised tax cuts. The tax cuts were not grounded in sound economic theory, but were a political gimmick to help defend Bush’s right flank against Steve Forbes in the 1999 Republican Primaries.
Professor Ling, my macro economics professor in college, had a rather shaky command of the english language and as such few of us ever understood a thing he said. The concept that did lodge itself in my brain was one he repeated with mantra like regularity: Guns or Butter. “Government must make choice,” would say Ling. It seems Mr. Bush never did take economics, for once he impaled the budget with those nasty tax cuts he proceeded to fight a pair of wars, increase farm subsidies, gift wrap a $ 1/2 trillion new entitlement to seniors in the form of a brobdingnagian prescription drug benefit. Wait a minute - that’s guns AND butter. What about Dr. Ling? The good Dr. failed to brief us on the Amex card theory or buy now pay… never.
With the surplus far off in the rear view mirror, Bush has been charging up the national credit card at a rate that would earn every citizen enough frequent flier miles for a first class trip to the sun. What does this have to do with lower interest rates you ask? Just hang with me as I tie this all together. So we are in serious debt, primarily to the Chinese, but also Japan, Brazil, Great Britain, and on and on. So out of hand is our debt situation that repayment could come only with painful, politically lethal cuts in programs that would affect us all. Our nation’s finances are such that the credit rating agency Moody’s has threatened the nation’s AAA rating unless vast changes are made to our finances. Wow. US Treasuries as junk bonds. Who would have thought that back in the days of the hanging chad?
All of which has sent the US dollar to plummetting resulting in record food and energy prices as it takes more dollars to purchase the same amount of commodities in foreign markets. Oil prices move inversely to the US dollar. As our dollar trades lower the price of oil - and by extension food, gas, coco puffs and everything else - goes higher.
And here, friends, is my point: When the Fed lowers interest rates it causes the dollar to fall further (securities paying lower rates have less appeal on the open market). From this you can see that the current Fed policy is counter intuitive. If the Fed wanted to put more money into the consumer till they would be adhering to a strong dollar policy. This would cause oil prices to drop precipitously, placing far more cash in consumer’s pockets than would any cut in interest rates.
So if this is the case, then what is the Fed up to? Sit down now because the answer is rather frightening. The operative word my friends is monetization.
Let’s say that one slowly…Â M O N E T I Z A T I O N.
Without getting to deep into arcane economic policy, monetization is the process by which a government essentially cranks up the printing press and floods the market with dollars (or rubbles, shekels, marks, etc.). The excessive liquidity devalues the currency and those devalued dollars are used to pay off the nation’s debts. This reason this appeals to the morally bankrupt pol is because nobody realizes you have done it until you’ve long packed the white house china in your duffle and jetted back to the ranch. In your wake those on fixed incomes are poverty striken, a nation’s savings has been wiped out, and the setting sun of an empires goes dark. It’s quite a price to pay to bookend our troops on the Ayotollas’ borders. Let’s add proliferation of nukes in the the most unstable region in the history of the galaxy to the bill.
If you don’t believe this is what is going on, go grab a shopping cart at your supermarket and see how much a hundred dollar bill fills it with when Bush first came to office. We are nipple deep into the process of monetization and devaluation. Maybe it’s time to put flag pins and roosting chickens aside and examine some of real issues that the next president will be grappling with.
Sphere: Related ContentWhy Indiana Matters
Posted on April 25, 2008
Filed Under Democratic Primary, Politics | Leave a Comment
With the demographics of North Carolina heavily favoring Barack Obama, a win there is a near certainty for the Democratic frontrunner. More telling on the Senators prospects and the ultimate resolution of this endless Democratic primary will be the outcome of Indiana.
Where the Obama campaign has failed thus far is cutting into Clinton’s base—woman, seniors, blue-collar males—in the big states. The just completed Pennsylvania primary reinforced this worrisome trend, a trend that saw Obama unable to break out of the high 30% range in these key Democratic constituencies.   The Democrats cannot afford to put states like Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania in play in the general. In fact, no Democrat in the last 50 years has ever won the white house without winning Pennsylvania, a fact Hillary’s campaign has been repeatedly reminding the super delegates of.
Obama’s inability to win over these former Reagan Democrats has given Clinton a rationale for forging on. Obama needs to find a way to connect with these groups, for they make up a sizable chunk of the Indiana electorate. Doing so will put to rest much of the questions regarding his electability and likely put an end to Clinton’s white house bid, a development that would allow the Illinois senator to move to the center and better position himself against John McCain.
Sphere: Related Content
