The Ottawa Senators, that is. I don't know the first thing about the post-lockout NHL, or want to, but I know the Stanley Cup will be appreciated more in Eastern Ontario than it will in Anaheim (of Los Angeles).
As for the august body on Capitol Hill, I'm not going to join the chorus of denunciation. Charges of cowardice, betrayal, and trasformismo have been raining down upon the Democratic Senators who voted in favor of the emergency appropriation bill for Iraq and Afghanistan. As best as I can tell, this is because these villains actually wanted to approve the funds, which most of the denouncers didn't want to happen in any form. The big issue seemed to have been around putting conditions in the appropriation which would prevent Bush from signing it. Which would seem to be a strange approach to providing funds if one actually intended the funds to be spent.
I think the Democratic leadership saw that they had milked this contingent angle about as far as they could, and there was not going to be any other exit. This was--sort of like going into Iraq was--choosing to pick a battle on the enemy's choice of turf. The constitutional deck was stacked for the President on this one, short of the Democrats actually finding the will to deny Bush the funds altogether.
Even next year that will be unlikely; I won't say it would've been premature to cut off funds this year, but it was a stance that would have provoked an even bigger constitutional crisis, once again with the Executive holding the trumps.
In other words, I'm not going to condemn Joe Biden for voting for the funding resolution. I'm not going to praise, or to blame, Obama or Clinton much for their votes, either; it was symbolic either way--we knew Bush would get his surge. The Iraq Scourge Policy bites for the Democrats, as well. Tactically, this was a showdown they should have seen coming and done better to avoid. I will blame any Democrat who tries to use this vote to disparage any fellow Democrat (or anyone at all who tries to disparage Ron Paul, one of the two Republican votes against the resolution in the House).
It's fine for Obama to say that we were within "only 16 votes from ending the war"; that's about a country mile. The real harm of this may be that those who thought everything had changed after 2006 may be disillusioned for the battles yet to come. There will be another showdown, and a better one, if Bush doesn't make the surge a temporary one. Beyond that, though, in spite of a narrow majority in the Senate and a slightly wider one in the House, control of power still remains with the Republicans. And the war is still theirs--whether Bush plays ball with them in '08 (by commencing troop withdrawals) or not, it's theirs. And the GOP's '08 candidates must not be permitted to blame the Bushites for this mess--they've got the stink all over them.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Monday, May 21, 2007
Obama: Must we Now?
I am buying into the logic of conventional punditry that the Democratic nomination campaign will end up boiling down to an attempt to Stop Hillary. Barack Obama may be stuck with the reductionist role of leadership of anti-HRC forces whether he likes it or not, his only other choice being to withdraw.
Personally, I'm not sold on the idea that we need to Stop Hillary, certainly not in the sense that we as a nation desperately needed someone to Stop Dubya. The main fear I have of a Hillary Clinton Presidency is that it may encourage Jeb Bush to think that US isn't as tired of the Clinton-Bush dynasty as it is, and that he'd then run in 2012. At a minimum, that would be terribly demoralizing to those Americans who believe that we still have a republic and not a monarchy or imperium.
Perhaps you can see from that last paragraph that I do not believe that 2008 will necessarily be the last word or even the climactic battle in the political struggle for control. If 2004 was the last, necessary version of the 1968 election, and 2006 was progress all the way to 1974, then it follows that, like 1976, 2008 could be perceived as the critical election throughout the whole campaign, and then be superseded four years later by the true crux of the period (which, if you're following, was the 1980 election between Carter, Reagan, and John Anderson). The fact that the President inaugurated in 2009 is likely to have a combination of lousy circumstances (bad Iraq, Iran, Israel/Palestine situations abroad; a faltering economy at home) when he/she takes the oath of office could mean the post is poisoned, short-term. So, missing out in 2008 might end up being good strategy, totally by accident.
Back to '08, I'm pretty sure that Leader of Anti-HRC Forces is not the role Obama would prefer, but we will see if it is one he can portray effectively. If he can combine with John Edwards at some point, the two of them would make a strong blocking force, one that would attract most of the left wing (even the 1% of hardcore Kucinich backers, if he chose to go that way). I would think that endorsement from Al Gore would come at some point and provide an additional boost. I'm still not sure it would be nearly enough, even to get through the "Five Points" early primary/caucuses (with the addition of naughty Florida), let alone the Unofficial National Primary. (please, not "Super-Duper Tuesday"!), and being leader of the Opposing Forces would pretty much exclude the possibility Hillary would pick Obama as her VP (she should go for an experienced, moderate White Guy also-ran candidate, like Biden, Dodd, or Stealth-Hispanic Bill Richardson).
Obama did choose to get into this one, after all; to me, it would have made more sense to let this one go by. I say this from a firm belief that Barack Obama is the real thing, someone who can make a historic contribution of progress for the country and the world if he gets the chance. I just don't think 2008 is really all that good of a chance for him. But if it comes down to Obama Now! or Obama Never! I guess I'd have to get behind him.
Personally, I'm not sold on the idea that we need to Stop Hillary, certainly not in the sense that we as a nation desperately needed someone to Stop Dubya. The main fear I have of a Hillary Clinton Presidency is that it may encourage Jeb Bush to think that US isn't as tired of the Clinton-Bush dynasty as it is, and that he'd then run in 2012. At a minimum, that would be terribly demoralizing to those Americans who believe that we still have a republic and not a monarchy or imperium.
Perhaps you can see from that last paragraph that I do not believe that 2008 will necessarily be the last word or even the climactic battle in the political struggle for control. If 2004 was the last, necessary version of the 1968 election, and 2006 was progress all the way to 1974, then it follows that, like 1976, 2008 could be perceived as the critical election throughout the whole campaign, and then be superseded four years later by the true crux of the period (which, if you're following, was the 1980 election between Carter, Reagan, and John Anderson). The fact that the President inaugurated in 2009 is likely to have a combination of lousy circumstances (bad Iraq, Iran, Israel/Palestine situations abroad; a faltering economy at home) when he/she takes the oath of office could mean the post is poisoned, short-term. So, missing out in 2008 might end up being good strategy, totally by accident.
Back to '08, I'm pretty sure that Leader of Anti-HRC Forces is not the role Obama would prefer, but we will see if it is one he can portray effectively. If he can combine with John Edwards at some point, the two of them would make a strong blocking force, one that would attract most of the left wing (even the 1% of hardcore Kucinich backers, if he chose to go that way). I would think that endorsement from Al Gore would come at some point and provide an additional boost. I'm still not sure it would be nearly enough, even to get through the "Five Points" early primary/caucuses (with the addition of naughty Florida), let alone the Unofficial National Primary. (please, not "Super-Duper Tuesday"!), and being leader of the Opposing Forces would pretty much exclude the possibility Hillary would pick Obama as her VP (she should go for an experienced, moderate White Guy also-ran candidate, like Biden, Dodd, or Stealth-Hispanic Bill Richardson).
Obama did choose to get into this one, after all; to me, it would have made more sense to let this one go by. I say this from a firm belief that Barack Obama is the real thing, someone who can make a historic contribution of progress for the country and the world if he gets the chance. I just don't think 2008 is really all that good of a chance for him. But if it comes down to Obama Now! or Obama Never! I guess I'd have to get behind him.
Blair's End
Sounds like part of a respectable neighborhood, and it is.
I'm with Fareed Zakaria (on This Week with George Stephanopoulos): Blair's legacy is much more than his doomed decision to dance with Dubya in Iraq. His significance in postwar Britain's political history is right at the top, alongside Margaret Thatcher's. Like Bill Clinton, the only tragedy is that such great talent could have accomplished more.
Blair is certainly right that the greatest opportunity for a British prime minister is to maximize alignment with the US president in critical decisions, though the panel's judgment is that he would have served US better to have agreed with US less. Unfortunately, he lacked Clinton's ability to triangulate, or he may have let his emotional impulse to stand "shoulder to shoulder" with US get the better of him.
I like the notion of Tony Blair going to head the World Bank. The US should not automatically get the post, particularly since we did such a bad job of exercising our prerogative last time in naming Wolfowitz. It may be way out of Blair's area of expertise, but it would continue his policy of annoying Gordon Brown by occupying jobs that Brown knows he can do better.
Speaking of This Week with George, though, I have to say I loved having Katrina Vanden Heuvel of The Nation on the panel with Zakaria and George Will, even if she took a contrary position, lining up behind Jimmy Carter's unchivalrous assessment of Blair's bungle in Babylon.
I'm with Fareed Zakaria (on This Week with George Stephanopoulos): Blair's legacy is much more than his doomed decision to dance with Dubya in Iraq. His significance in postwar Britain's political history is right at the top, alongside Margaret Thatcher's. Like Bill Clinton, the only tragedy is that such great talent could have accomplished more.
Blair is certainly right that the greatest opportunity for a British prime minister is to maximize alignment with the US president in critical decisions, though the panel's judgment is that he would have served US better to have agreed with US less. Unfortunately, he lacked Clinton's ability to triangulate, or he may have let his emotional impulse to stand "shoulder to shoulder" with US get the better of him.
I like the notion of Tony Blair going to head the World Bank. The US should not automatically get the post, particularly since we did such a bad job of exercising our prerogative last time in naming Wolfowitz. It may be way out of Blair's area of expertise, but it would continue his policy of annoying Gordon Brown by occupying jobs that Brown knows he can do better.
Speaking of This Week with George, though, I have to say I loved having Katrina Vanden Heuvel of The Nation on the panel with Zakaria and George Will, even if she took a contrary position, lining up behind Jimmy Carter's unchivalrous assessment of Blair's bungle in Babylon.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Immigration Deal I
I salute the efforts of Senators from both parties and President Bush (and his domestic advisers) in coming up with a compromise legislative proposal on immigration. The bipartisan good feelings about it lasted about two days, then the criticism began from both left and right. This should be a good sign, a true indication that there had indeed been a compromise by both sides, but it doesn't appear to be so. Pundits have already pronounced the new proposal to be dead.
I don't see it that way. The next step will be slight modification in the Senate. Then there will be radical changes to it in the House version, an extended conference, and two very difficult votes on the conference report. If a bill can get passed in both houses, though, I think the President will sign it, and that is why this issue still has potential for actual legislation, unlike most of the current topics of the day.
My principal take on the proposal is that, as it stands now, the provisions to put today's illegals on a track toward legitimacy and eventual citizenship lack sufficient incentives to get them to come out of the shadows. Disincentives, on the other hand, are plenty in the current proposal.
I see the Republicans' support for this proposal as soft, likely to disappear when the House Democratic majority will cut into the punitive provisions (or, more astutely, start to include some short-term rewards--eligibility for social services?-- for those who bite the bullet and register themselves). Only a few from the GOP will end up supporting the final legislation, but it will be enough. As long as Bush keeps to his position.
I don't see it that way. The next step will be slight modification in the Senate. Then there will be radical changes to it in the House version, an extended conference, and two very difficult votes on the conference report. If a bill can get passed in both houses, though, I think the President will sign it, and that is why this issue still has potential for actual legislation, unlike most of the current topics of the day.
My principal take on the proposal is that, as it stands now, the provisions to put today's illegals on a track toward legitimacy and eventual citizenship lack sufficient incentives to get them to come out of the shadows. Disincentives, on the other hand, are plenty in the current proposal.
I see the Republicans' support for this proposal as soft, likely to disappear when the House Democratic majority will cut into the punitive provisions (or, more astutely, start to include some short-term rewards--eligibility for social services?-- for those who bite the bullet and register themselves). Only a few from the GOP will end up supporting the final legislation, but it will be enough. As long as Bush keeps to his position.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Unexpected Evidence of Intelligent Life
Case 1. Swiss scientists discover a planet circling a sun which has the possibility of liquid water. The first such extraterrestrial discovery, the formulas suggest this planet is close enough to its red dwarf sun that surface water on it could melt, yet the planet is large enough to sustain atmospheric pressure. The great thing is that the planet is "only" 20 light-years away; with current technology we could get there in 500 years or so, I think.
While a nice hit to find a planet in the right zone for its sun, I have to think that the chances that this method of discovery will reveal all possible candidates for life are slim. Essentially, they are finding planets these days which are large enough, and close enough, to disrupt suns' position or block a portion of the light from them. The only reasons this one could be detected are that it is so close to us and so close to its sun. Still, it would only take one case to go from possible life to probable to change the way we look at a lot of things.
Case 2. A House panel has put up some opposition to beginning a missile defense system housed in Eastern Europe. This system would be to defend against a future missile emanating from Iran, if you can believe that. It would take five years to construct, so it would be just in time to prevent those Iranians sending nuke missiles raining down on the capitals of their friends in Western Europe. We better get started building those Star Wars!
Apart from the fact that Iran is far from its first nuclear test, let alone weaponizing the nuke or developing long-range missiles, there is one principal fact to consider: nuclear weapon defense systems don't work. I see the system would cost "only" $3.5 billion, so it's a lot cheaper than the ones we've put in which don't protect Alaska.
I'm sorry, I'm getting sarcastic. The folly! At least some of the House Democrats are showing some sense.
I also back their current doomed initiative with regard to the Iraq war. This one gives the Bushites a very short leash, requiring a second appropriation in September to continuing funding The Scourge Policy.
This measure really doesn't suit the Bushite game plan, which is to cause a distraction in the fall so Gen. Petraeus' lack of a report of progress then won't be too much noticeable. If, on the other hand, Congress actually had to consider whether to continue the policy in four months, the status there would be the critical consideration and not so subject to spin. So, a veto of the current proposal would be certain, and override impossible. The proper response would then be another measure, perhaps designed as a sincere compromise, but again with short-term funding: if Bush doesn't like getting funds a few months at a time, he can see how he likes not getting them.
This illustrates one of the most poignant lessons I learned in my childhood: don't be so quick to say no to something you really want and need, just because you don't like the way it's been offered to you.
While a nice hit to find a planet in the right zone for its sun, I have to think that the chances that this method of discovery will reveal all possible candidates for life are slim. Essentially, they are finding planets these days which are large enough, and close enough, to disrupt suns' position or block a portion of the light from them. The only reasons this one could be detected are that it is so close to us and so close to its sun. Still, it would only take one case to go from possible life to probable to change the way we look at a lot of things.
Case 2. A House panel has put up some opposition to beginning a missile defense system housed in Eastern Europe. This system would be to defend against a future missile emanating from Iran, if you can believe that. It would take five years to construct, so it would be just in time to prevent those Iranians sending nuke missiles raining down on the capitals of their friends in Western Europe. We better get started building those Star Wars!
Apart from the fact that Iran is far from its first nuclear test, let alone weaponizing the nuke or developing long-range missiles, there is one principal fact to consider: nuclear weapon defense systems don't work. I see the system would cost "only" $3.5 billion, so it's a lot cheaper than the ones we've put in which don't protect Alaska.
I'm sorry, I'm getting sarcastic. The folly! At least some of the House Democrats are showing some sense.
I also back their current doomed initiative with regard to the Iraq war. This one gives the Bushites a very short leash, requiring a second appropriation in September to continuing funding The Scourge Policy.
This measure really doesn't suit the Bushite game plan, which is to cause a distraction in the fall so Gen. Petraeus' lack of a report of progress then won't be too much noticeable. If, on the other hand, Congress actually had to consider whether to continue the policy in four months, the status there would be the critical consideration and not so subject to spin. So, a veto of the current proposal would be certain, and override impossible. The proper response would then be another measure, perhaps designed as a sincere compromise, but again with short-term funding: if Bush doesn't like getting funds a few months at a time, he can see how he likes not getting them.
This illustrates one of the most poignant lessons I learned in my childhood: don't be so quick to say no to something you really want and need, just because you don't like the way it's been offered to you.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
The 10-Point Program Update
The Program
1. Get control of climate-changing gases.
2. Preserve our biosphere.
3. Rebuild our relations with the world.
4. Visualize our children’s / grandchildren’s society, and the implications of that vision.
5. Reform the UN Charter.
6. Get control of armaments.
7. Establish clearly the political dimensions of privacy and of permissible government intrusions into it.
8. Provide health care to our people.
9. Electoral reform.
10. End the "War on Drugs" (or at least give it some focus on the more harmful ones).
These are long-term goals, but it is worth seeing where progress is being made, where potential progress can be identified, and where there is no sign of progress whatsoever.
It doesn't necessarily follow that the effort should go where there is no progress, as perhaps the efficient way to go is to focus where there is potential progress or in the making. Nothing comes on the list, though, unless we take something off: we're pay as you go.
1. Get control of climate-changing gases. This looks like the effort of a generation or more, once it gets started, and in terms of real action, it's started elsewhere but not here. On the other hand, bipartisan support is rapidly developing for the items that are most urgent, certain, and critical from the US. The key will be focusing their mobilization in the short run around these items. In the long run, we can make the difficult decisions, the ones that require more time and research, about types of biofuels, coal liquification, nuclear power, etc. Right now, it's establishing some sort of handle on total emissions and improving vehicle fuel standards, along with appropriating money for research intelligently.
2. Preserve our biosphere. This is one we better well hope will never be taken off the table. That would mean either the collapse of humanity (which would take it out of our hands), or something worse. This one can't be considered to be going well until we start reversing the decline in habitat for virtually every type of ecosystem (excluding living on the margins of human society).
3. Rebuild our relations with the world. This should be the easiest one. It will basically only require the replacement of George W. Bush--any Democrat would be an improvement, and even most of the stiffs currently under consideration for the Republican nomination (excepting Gingrich).
Britain, France, and Germany all have new, friendly leaders dying for us to show some reason. I'm not going to bother suggesting things for the Bushites, but I expect to refer to this objective frequently in evaluating 2008 candidates.
4. Visualize our children’s / grandchildren’s society, and the implications of that vision. Not much going on so far with this one. In the next few years, though, this will necessarily emerge as a key area which will allow quality candidates to emerge.
5. Reform the UN Charter. A long way off, it seems.
6. Get control of armaments. Not going well.
With regard to domestic gun control, I'm worried that many believe that closing a few legal loopholes in tracking gun registration, or improving instant background checks, will do the job. The barn door's already been left open too long. What we need is improved homeland security--the subject of a separate discussion.
Internationally, nuclear nonproliferation will see only unfavorable results for a while, I'm afraid. I suggest we start our efforts by fighting the development of new nuclear weapons in this country.
7. Establish clearly the political dimensions of privacy and of permissible government intrusions into it. This is clearly post-Bushite business. At this point, I want to hear Democratic candidates show how they can use this issue against the party of the Bushites.
8. Provide health care to our people. I expect this to be the #2 issue in the '08 election behind Iraq/GWOT, and a real strong issue for the Democrats. Let's see.
9. Electoral reform. Too late for actual improvements in this cycle, but I would like to hear some ideas from the candidates.
10. End the "War on Drugs". Little to no hope for progress in the short run. What I'm looking for in general from the society is some consideration of what the actual health risks look like--which drugs are causing the fatalities, the ruined families, the suicides? That way we can at least have the focus on the more harmful ones.
1. Get control of climate-changing gases.
2. Preserve our biosphere.
3. Rebuild our relations with the world.
4. Visualize our children’s / grandchildren’s society, and the implications of that vision.
5. Reform the UN Charter.
6. Get control of armaments.
7. Establish clearly the political dimensions of privacy and of permissible government intrusions into it.
8. Provide health care to our people.
9. Electoral reform.
10. End the "War on Drugs" (or at least give it some focus on the more harmful ones).
These are long-term goals, but it is worth seeing where progress is being made, where potential progress can be identified, and where there is no sign of progress whatsoever.
It doesn't necessarily follow that the effort should go where there is no progress, as perhaps the efficient way to go is to focus where there is potential progress or in the making. Nothing comes on the list, though, unless we take something off: we're pay as you go.
1. Get control of climate-changing gases. This looks like the effort of a generation or more, once it gets started, and in terms of real action, it's started elsewhere but not here. On the other hand, bipartisan support is rapidly developing for the items that are most urgent, certain, and critical from the US. The key will be focusing their mobilization in the short run around these items. In the long run, we can make the difficult decisions, the ones that require more time and research, about types of biofuels, coal liquification, nuclear power, etc. Right now, it's establishing some sort of handle on total emissions and improving vehicle fuel standards, along with appropriating money for research intelligently.
2. Preserve our biosphere. This is one we better well hope will never be taken off the table. That would mean either the collapse of humanity (which would take it out of our hands), or something worse. This one can't be considered to be going well until we start reversing the decline in habitat for virtually every type of ecosystem (excluding living on the margins of human society).
3. Rebuild our relations with the world. This should be the easiest one. It will basically only require the replacement of George W. Bush--any Democrat would be an improvement, and even most of the stiffs currently under consideration for the Republican nomination (excepting Gingrich).
Britain, France, and Germany all have new, friendly leaders dying for us to show some reason. I'm not going to bother suggesting things for the Bushites, but I expect to refer to this objective frequently in evaluating 2008 candidates.
4. Visualize our children’s / grandchildren’s society, and the implications of that vision. Not much going on so far with this one. In the next few years, though, this will necessarily emerge as a key area which will allow quality candidates to emerge.
5. Reform the UN Charter. A long way off, it seems.
6. Get control of armaments. Not going well.
With regard to domestic gun control, I'm worried that many believe that closing a few legal loopholes in tracking gun registration, or improving instant background checks, will do the job. The barn door's already been left open too long. What we need is improved homeland security--the subject of a separate discussion.
Internationally, nuclear nonproliferation will see only unfavorable results for a while, I'm afraid. I suggest we start our efforts by fighting the development of new nuclear weapons in this country.
7. Establish clearly the political dimensions of privacy and of permissible government intrusions into it. This is clearly post-Bushite business. At this point, I want to hear Democratic candidates show how they can use this issue against the party of the Bushites.
8. Provide health care to our people. I expect this to be the #2 issue in the '08 election behind Iraq/GWOT, and a real strong issue for the Democrats. Let's see.
9. Electoral reform. Too late for actual improvements in this cycle, but I would like to hear some ideas from the candidates.
10. End the "War on Drugs". Little to no hope for progress in the short run. What I'm looking for in general from the society is some consideration of what the actual health risks look like--which drugs are causing the fatalities, the ruined families, the suicides? That way we can at least have the focus on the more harmful ones.
By my count, we have short-term optimism around #1, 3, and 8; but pessimism on #2, 4, 5,6, 9 and 10. #7, like the ones where I'm optimistic, and #9, are the ones I'll be monitoring closely for ideas coming out of candidates this time around.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
