The Grape's Vine

Fed to Compound Credit Problem

2008-10-07T10:48:00.002-04:00

The Federal Reserve today announced that it would purchase US Commercial Paper in an attempt to ease the credit crunch impacting corporations throughout the US. (Bloomberg: Fed to Purchase U.S. Commercial Paper to Ease Crunch.) According to Bloomberg, "The Fed's new unit will buy three-month dollar-denominated commercial paper at a spread over the three-month overnight- indexed swap rate." In addition, the nation's central bank will double its cash auctions to banks, raising the amount auctioned to as much as $900 Billion.

Does this remind anyone of a famous quote from Thomas Jefferson? "The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin. If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered."

There is little doubt that we are facing perhaps the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. For the moment, one might argue that the post-Watergate crisis that saw double-digit inflation and double-digit unemployment was worse than what we face today, and if today's crisis were in its final hours I would agree. Unfortunately, we face the dawn of this crisis, not its sunset. If improperly handled, this crisis will yield another Great Depression.

The current spotlight is on sub-prime mortgages, and financial institutions lending significant sums to people that can ill-afford those loans, all on the prospect of being able to sell this bad paper for profit or at worst being able to foreclose on property increasing in value. Truth be told, though, the sub-prime issue is only the tip of the iceberg. The collapse of the housing market did result in the sub-prime issue starting a financial avalanche, but this issue was stacked way atop many other more subtle problems that may well drive us into another Depression.

First and foremost, we are seeing a steady decline in the US job market. The alarm was first raised in 2004 when the AFL/CIO warned that the number of jobs sent overseas had doubled in the past year. In January of this year, the Peterson Institute for International Economics warned that as many as 20 million US jobs out of a 140 million job pool were at risk of off-shoring. That's over 14% of the jobs in the US that are at risk. While our unemployment numbers rise (6.1% as of September 2008), the Consumer Confidence Index continues to barely tread water. Over 25% of the people believe the job market will worsen in the next quarter. That means that 25% of the people are concerned about job security, and based on the Peterson numbers, rightfully so.

Next in line we have rising inflation. The increased cost of food and fuel is crippling most low to middle income homes. Lest we forget, that accounts for close to 95% of the American public. Why is the mortgage foreclosure rate so high? Quite simply, it's because the average American family has had their net income squeezed through rising fuel, home heating or cooling costs, and skyrocketing food costs. That money had to come from someplace, and in too many cases it came from the mortgage bill. This economic crisis will not end as long as the average family cannot afford to pay their basic bills.

This leads us to the topic of debt. The average American credit card-holder is in debt to the tune of $8000, so that's $16,000 per family on average. Tack onto that a mortgage and an auto loan, and it's not hard to see where most of America's income is going. As inflation rose, the number of bills being paid by credit card also grew. Now this credit-card crisis has yet to materialize in the banking industry, but rest assured this crisis will hit home over the next 4-6 months. Credit cards are unsecured loans. As consumers begin to default on those cards, banks will be forced to take write-downs. Who will come to the rescue? You guessed it - the American taxpayer. We've already done it twice, first with the $700 Billion white elephant that just cleared Congress and now by the Federal Reserve's unilateral (and most likely unconstitutional) decision to purchase corporate debt.

If you read that Bloomberg article linked at the top of this post, I'd recommend paying close attention to this one sentence: "Fed officials in a conference call with reporters didn't say how much commercial paper, which hundreds of companies use to finance payrolls and meet other cash needs, it plans to purchase."

Let's ignore the fact that the Fed has no clue how much commercial paper they will purchase. That fact alone bothers me since it's pretty much a blank check being written by the Fed. What bothers me more, though, is that "hundreds of companies use (commercial paper) to finance payrolls and meet other cash needs..." Clearly, the concept of out-of-control debt is not limited to the individual or the family. Companies need to borrow money just to meet their payroll requirements. This issue of debt is rampant throughout our economy. So rampant, that the Fed now feels obliged to offer a unilateral bailout to corporations by purchasing their debt.

So what has the government done to date about this crisis? They've increased debt and they've attempted to make it easier to obtain more debt. In case you've missed it, there's increased talk of yet another interest rate cut to stimulate borrowing. If debt is at the heart of the economic crisis, how are we supposed to believe that increasing debt is going to cure it? Has it not occurred to anyone that the solution is to decrease debt, not increase it?

What was that Jefferson said? "If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered."

Amazing foresight, wouldn't you say?

Election 2008 - Health Care Issue - Obama Version

2008-09-28T10:54:00.003-04:00

The second article in our series of 2008 campaign issues focuses on the Health Care plan proposed by Senator Barack Obama. Details of his plan may be read on the official Barack Obama campaign website.
The Barack Obama Plan

Senator Obama's health care plan emphasizes from the start two points that are at the center of concern for anyone studying a more comprehensive health care solution. Taken directly from his campaign website, the Senator states:

"Under the plan, if you like your current health insurance, nothing changes, except your costs will go down by as much as $2,500 per year.

If you don’t like your health insurance, or you don’t have health insurance, you will have a choice of new, affordable health insurance options."

On the surface that sounds excellent. All of us with insurance would love to see a reduction in costs, while those without insurance are very much in need of some form of affordable coverage. Now, the word "affordable" is very much up for debate since many of those without insurance today can't afford their present bills, let alone anything added on for health care. But for the moment, let's take the statement as written and at face value.

Since the Senator took the time to itemize each of the key points in his plan, I will repeat them hear and comment on each of them. The points I'm listing are directly off his website.

Require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions so all Americans regardless of their health status or history can get comprehensive benefits at fair and stable premiums.

Most company sponsored health care plans do have a pre-existing waiver built in during the annual open enrollment period. As we age, this becomes a necessity, and it's good to see some recognition of this requirement built into a health plan. Mandating it, however, will result in an increase in insurance premiums. Once insurance companies are forced to accept pre-existing conditions by default, the natural response will be to raise the cost for everyone.

Create a new Small Business Health Tax Credit to help small businesses provide affordable health insurance to their employees.

This point is necessary if we're going to require small businesses to provide health insurance benefits, assuming they are sharing in the cost of that insurance. Small businesses are at the heart of local economies, but all too often they exist on a shoe-string budget, surviving from month to month. A mandate from the government that forces a significant increase in their expenses must come with some government protection in the form of tax credits. I fully support this point in the Obama plan.

Lower costs for businesses by covering a portion of the catastrophic health costs they pay in return for lower premiums for employees.

The biggest challenge to our current health care system lies in the inability to provide long-term catastrophic insurance. A single major illness can easily wipe out an entire family's savings and destroy their economic future, and that is for a family that has good health care coverage. It does not take long for coverage to be exhausted in the event of serious long-term illnesses that require extensive care. So I agree in principle with the basis for this point in the Obama plan. Where I find myself skeptical is in the cost. Moving a portion of this burden from the corporation (and individual) to the government does make sense on the surface, but before I fully jump on board I want to see more details around the cost. This one could come with a huge price tag.

Prevent insurers from overcharging doctors for their malpractice insurance and invest in proven strategies to reduce preventable medical errors.

No argument here, although caps on malpractice lawsuits have stumbled in Congress anytime they are proposed. There is no doubt that doctors must be protected from the frivolous lawsuit. What is a misconception, however, is the idea that malpractice insurance accounts for a significant portion of our health care costs. It doesn't. In any case, I support the concept behind this point, regardless of its ability to reduce health care costs.

Make employer contributions more fair by requiring large employers that do not offer coverage or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of their employees health care.

Some states do have laws requiring any employer with 10 or more employees to offer some form of heath insurance. Enforcing this type of requirement is certainly the right approach. The best solution to the health care issue is not socializing the health care system. Rather, the best solution lies in ensuring that anyone that wants a job can find a job, and requiring those employers to provide health care options to their employees.

Establish a National Health Insurance Exchange with a range of private insurance options as well as a new public plan based on benefits available to members of Congress that will allow individuals and small businesses to buy affordable health coverage.

Read this one carefully. I believe the gut reaction of most conservatives will be to scream "socialism" when this point is raised, however if you read it carefully it's nothing of the sort. What Obama is proposing sounds more like a national pooled plan that allows individuals and small businesses to take advantage of the bulk purchasing power already available to large corporations. This concept actually makes a lot of sense, and may be the best solution offered to reduced the cost to individuals or small businesses. It's that loss of bulk buying power that cripples the ability of the individual to obtain affordable health care on their own.

Ensure everyone who needs it will receive a tax credit for their premiums.

As they say, the devil is in the details and this talking point lacks any at all. It's hard to comment on the viability of an option that does not define need, does not define the amount of a tax credit, and fails to account for the funding of that tax credit. This talking point is political campaign fluff, pure and simple.

Lower drug costs by allowing the importation of safe medicines from other developed countries, increasing the use of generic drugs in public programs and taking on drug companies that block cheaper generic medicines from the market

While I'm grateful to see the adjective "developed" used in this context, I oppose the importation of drugs from other countries. The reason, though, may surprise you. A great deal of drug research is done in the United States. We Americans pay a very high premium for that research. Drugs that are imported from other countries are the result of that research, but the cost is not being shared across the board. Rather than allow the importation of cheap drugs - many created as the result of American research - we should require the cost of that research to be passed on to the drugs we export. Our own pharmaceutical companies are not passing that burden on to overseas buyers, so we end up paying an artificially high cost. That's the part that must be corrected, and importing drugs is not the answer.

Require hospitals to collect and report health care cost and quality data.

This is just sound business practice. If hospitals aren't doing that today, then the first question should be "why aren't they?"

Reduce the costs of catastrophic illnesses for employers and their employees.

This sounds great, but without details it's just political campaign fluff. Cost reduction is not something you can mandate, so let's see some details on how it will happen.

Reform the insurance market to increase competition by taking on anti-competitive activity that drives up prices without improving quality of care.

This is another point that sounds very good, but is sorely lacking in details. Before signing up for this one, I'd like to see how the Senator plans to reform the insurance market. Without those details, this one also falls into the campaign fluff category

So now comes the multi-billion dollar question. How will the Obama plan pay for itself? Straight off the website he says:

"Barack Obama will pay for his $50 - $65 billion health care reform effort by rolling back the Bush tax cuts for Americans earning more than $250,000 per year and retaining the estate tax at its 2009 level."

What will pay for it is a tax increase for those making more that $250,000 per year. Now, the question you have to ask yourself is this. What impact will be felt by the lower and middle classes if we increase the tax burden on the wealthiest Americans? In my view, a tax increase at the high end will result in more American jobs being shipped to India and China, lower wage increases (that already trail inflation by 50%), more layoffs, and higher prices for goods and services. Increasing taxes on corporations and the folks that run them is not the solution.

In summary, there are some very solid points in the Barack Obama plan. Overall, I think the plan is a good starting point for discussion. I do not like the method of paying for it, preferring instead that we reduce other areas of the budget to compensate for this increase. On the whole, however, in comparing this plan with the one offered by Senator McCain, I believe the Obama plan will increase the number of people currently insured. I don't believe it will reduce cost - in fact, I believe it will increase cost - but in the long run some form of insurance will reach more Americans.

Technorati: politics news Obama Health Care
IceRocket: politics news Obama Health Care

Election 2008 - Health Care Issue - McCain Version

2008-09-27T12:08:00.003-04:00

Over the course of the next week, we'll attempt to examine each of the major issues facing the two Presidential Candidates. Major topics will include Health Care, Foreign Policy, Taxes, and Energy Policy. The first topic we'll examine is Health Care.

Not unexpectedly, both Senator McCain and Senator Obama offer strikingly different options for health care as part of their 2008 campaign platforms. While nobody on either side of the aisle would dispute that something must be done about the health care situation in the US, finding a viable solution that does not compound the existing problems appears quite elusive. In this first of two articles, I'll review the John McCain Plan and will follow with the Barak Obama plan in a second article.

The John McCain Plan

Details of this plan are found on the official John McCain Campaign website.

Currently, most people employed full time by companies with 10 or more employees enjoy some form of health care as part of their employment benefits. Most of those plans include a pre-tax contribution by the employee and a contribution (on average up to 5 times what the employee pays) by the company. That contribution is not considered income and is therefore not a tax burden imparted to the employee.

The heart of the John McCain plan would change that. Under his proposal, the employee contribution would be made after taxes are deducted, and the employer's portion would be taxable income assigned to the employee. On average, the cost of health care in the US is approximately $12,000 for a family of 4 or $4,400 for an individual. (National Coalition on Health Care.) So under the McCain plan, employees choosing a family plan would see their gross income increase by $12,000 or an individual would see gross income increase by $4,400.

To offset this, what McCain proposes is a $2500 direct refundable tax credit for individuals and $5000 for married couples. He envisions a plan whereby the individual would be able to choose their own health provider, either using the one sponsored by the company or choosing one on their own, with the tax credit being paid directly to the provider. Any surplus in the credit would be deposited into a Health Savings Account.

What this portion of the plan fails to consider is that the only viable option for the employee is the plan offered by the employer. An individual simply cannot obtain the same level of coverage at the same price by purchasing a plan on their own. The corporation has the advantage of purchasing a large pooled plan and invariably receives a better rate than any individual could obtain on their own. To purchase a non-corporate sponsored plan, an individual is going to end up paying $4,400 or more minus the $2500 credit, or at least $1900 out of pocket. That is compared to a national average today of about $880.

It's even worse for the family of four. As stated above, the average cost is $12,000 of which the individual typically pays 20%. So today, the individual has a pre-tax expense of about $2400. Under the McCain plan, that individual (purchasing a plan on their own) would end up paying $7000 and would lose the pre-tax benefits of the current system. That doesn't sound like much of a bargain to me.

Sticking with the employer sponsored plans, the employee may come out slightly ahead based on their tax bracket. For instance, for a family of four in the 15% tax bracket, there would be a potential savings of about $800. The individual may see a savings of about $900. Keep in mind, however, that the surplus goes into a Health Savings Plan, so you only really get to use that surplus if you have a major medical issue in that calendar year. It's a "use it or lose it" savings plan, so it does not add to the discretionary income of the individual or family.

What the McCain plan assumes is that there will be greater competition between the health care providers, thus lowering the costs of health care in general. Unfortunately, the assumption is fundamentally flawed. The deck is already stacked in favor of the corporate sponsored plan, so the individually purchased plans will be minimal at best. What is driving the cost right now is the overall cost of prescription drugs, routine tests, and hospital visits. Competition - or lack of competition - on the part of the providers is not a factor, so attempting to increase that competition will have no positive impact.

In point of fact, the competition between providers already exists today at the corporate level. Each year, corporations review their health care options and attempt to negotiate the lowest cost from a variety of providers. Despite that, we still see significant yearly increases in the cost of health care. This year alone, the rising cost was approximately double the current rate of inflation. So clearly, the driving force is something other than competition between providers.

The second portion of the McCain plan is to attempt to cover, at the state level, those individuals that are unable to obtain insurance. This portion of the plan calls for the federal government to work with states to establish "Guaranteed Access Plans" with "reasonable limits on premiums" and "assistance for Americans below a certain income level."

Not surprisingly, this portion of the plan is a bit vague on the details. The vast majority of people that fall into the the category that would warrant a GAP plan are those with extremely low income levels. Well, at that income level, there is absolutely no discretionary income left after paying just the most basic of bills. All too often, these individuals are floating month to month with at least one bill overdue. For these individuals, no premium is at a "reasonable limit". Given the choice of paying the rent or paying for health care, health care will lose.

It must also be noted that the GAP plans being proposed by Senator McCain are at the state level, not national. This sounds very much like another program mandated by Washington but without any federal funding to back it up. Placing that burden on the states all but insures higher state or local taxes, especially in states with depressed economies or low income levels.

What it all boils down to is my belief that the plan as proposed is neither viable nor beneficial to the average American. I believe this plan will do nothing to reduce the cost of health care, will increase the tax burden on the individual at the state level, and will result in even less people covered by some form of health insurance. I can't support this plan as written.

Technorati: politics news McCain Health Care
IceRocket: politics news McCain Health Care

Financial Bailout Legislation

2008-09-21T08:01:00.004-04:00

Perhaps it is time to be reminded of the lyrics of a popular Buffalo Springfield song. "It's time we stop, hey what's that sound, everybody look what's goin down." As to what's "goin down", I'm not referring to the stock market.

Here is a link to the legislation being reviewed in Congress for a $700 Billion bailout in the current credit crisis: (Wall Street Journal: Financial Bailout Package.)

I first want to draw your attention to Section 8 which reads, "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."

So the Secretary of the Treasury is not accountable either to the courts or to any other administrative agency in the handling of $700 Billion. Am I the only one that has a problem with this? So, what limits do we place on him in the legislation, then? Clearly, Congress must have some protection built in for the taxpayer, right?

Well, then, let's take a look at Section 7: "For the purpose of the authorities granted in this Act, and for the costs of administering those authorities, the Secretary may use the proceeds of the sale of any securities issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, and the purposes for which securities may be issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, are extended to include actions authorized by this Act, including the payment of administrative expenses. Any funds expended for actions authorized by this Act, including the payment of administrative expenses, shall be deemed appropriated at the time of such expenditure."

Wait a second, what was that last sentence again? "Any funds expended for actions authorized by this Act, including the payment of administrative expenses, shall be deemed appropriated at the time of such expenditure."

Am I just too cynical in my old age, or does that pretty much grant the Secretary Carte Blanche in using the proceeds from the sale of any of these securities for such administrative expenses as oh, say, salaries or any other perk you can imagine without court or other agency review? I'd say the Treasury Department just struck the mother lode on this one.

For the record, I totally oppose any bailout package that does not contain the following:

Clear, well-defined oversight by one or more agencies external to the Treasury Department.
Clear, well-defined criteria regarding the situations in which any federal funds may be used.
Provisions stating that the sales of any securities purchased by these funds must be used to off-set the establishment of the fund. In other words, the funds must be used to pay back the tax payer.
A clear set of restrictions placed on the Banking, Brokerage, and Insurance industries designed to prevent a future financial melt-down of this magnitude.

That last point is the key. While I've heard endless talk about bailing out corporations on the verge of failure, I've heard no talk at all about preventing this from ever happening again. We must be mindful that those safeguards were in place prior to the mid-1990s, and they must be reinstated. Those safeguards must include:

Prohibitions on the combined ownership of banks, insurance companies, and brokerages by the same corporations or holding companies. Each industry must be insulated from the other.
Federal requirements regarding the ability of a borrower to pay back a loan. Clearly, leaving it up to the banks as we've been doing for just over a decade is not working. The elimination of federal requirements resulted in a surge in the price of housing as well as a surge in foreclosures and other credit defaults. The requirements must be tightened again, they must be imposed at the federal level, and they must be strict.
Restrictions against interstate ownership of banks and holding companies. We must return to the pre-1990s restrictions against banks operating across state or regional lines. This means that a break-up of the largest banks in the nation is an absolute requirement. It was the elimination of this restriction that allowed this current crisis to be global in nature as opposed to being restricted to small pockets of the nation. Just as the government required the break-up of Standard Oil and AT&T, so too must we require the breakup of the large interstate financial institutions.

It is not enough that we simply bailout the companies that are currently drowning. Tossing them a lifeline is one thing. Before reeling in that lifeline, though, we must first implement the measures that will prevent them from ever getting out of control again. In the meantime, scrutinize very closely what is being proposed and what is being done on the federal level to bail these corporations out.

"It's time we stop, hey what's that sound, everybody look what's goin down."

Technorati: politics news finance bailout
IceRocket: politics news finance bailout

US - NATO Regroup on Afghan War

2007-12-16T10:36:00.000-05:00

Concerns about the state of affairs in Afghanistan have prompted the US and NATO to regroup and reconsider how that war is being prosecuted. The Kabul government is in serious danger of failing, thanks to a resurgence of Taliban and al Qaeda influence in the region, bolstered by intense opium production and drug trafficking. (International Herald Tribune: White House and NATO set thorough review of Afghan mission.)

While the Taliban and al Qaeda were routed within months after the 9/11 attacks, the leadership and the bulk of their militants went underground. For the most part, they were neither killed nor taken prisoner, although al Qaeda leadership was decimated. Over time, however, both have reestablished a foothold in Afghanistan and in the lawless mountainous region in Pakistan. In the past year, the Taliban has made some major inroads in retaking pockets of Afghanistan.

The new tact being taken by the US and NATO appears to center around better international coordination in the military effort. Color me cynical, but one would think that lesson was learned over a millennium ago. I'm not sure why the concept of troop coordination has suddenly come up now. Additionally, the US is pressing NATO to supply more troops since US forces are occupied elsewhere and there simply aren't any US troops to spare for Afghanistan.

There's the second lesson we need to relearn, myself included. During the build-up leading to the Iraq War, I was as gung-ho as the other 70% of the nation supporting the invasion. I fully supported the need to invade Iraq, and - based on Iraq's non-compliance with UN Resolution 1441 - believed then and still believe that the use of force was justified. What I neglected to take into consideration then, and what none of our military commanders seemed to consider is the prospect of fighting a two-front war. Neither did any of us consider that both wars would quickly degrade into a battle against insurgencies, something that our conventional force is ill-equipped to fight.

The US and NATO were fully equipped to take on both Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan simultaneously. In fact, there really is no conventional force on the planet that can stand up to the US and NATO in open combat. Unfortunately, neither the US nor NATO are equipped to battle insurgents in two separate theaters for an extended period of time, and that's what we're doing now. The economic drain alone is devastating, and time is on the side of the insurgents.

So this begs the question, where do we go from here? When we look at the two theaters currently in play, what strategies do we employ to turn the current debacle into victory? Well, first and foremost, I think it necessary to choose our front. We cannot continue to battle in both theaters. We're losing ground in Afghanistan, and the gains we're making in Iraq are coming too slowly.

Perhaps the best course of action is to turn Afghanistan entirely over to NATO and focus our attention on finishing the job in Iraq. Simply walking away from Iraq right now makes no sense at all given the gains that we've made. The economic drain in Iraq has also hit Iran, and that's having a rather interesting positive effect on US and Iranian relations. Iran has even proposed discussing the terrorist groups in Iraq and finding ways to quell the violence there. It's actually in their best interests to do so now, too, since they can no longer afford to finance the insurgency. (Reuters: Iran says to discuss Iraq "terrorist groups" with U.S..)

Ultimately, we need to learn, or should I say "relearn", the lessons from the last 6 years. We can't afford to start a second campaign before the first campaign is won. We also need to relearn what President Bush (41) taught us in the first Gulf War. Before going into combat, know what your objective is, how you're going to meet that objective, and most importantly, how you are going to get out when it's done. We failed to do that in both Afghanistan and Iraq and we're paying the price today.

Technorati: politics news Iraq Afghanistan NATO
IceRocket: politics news Iraq Afghanistan NATO

Bush Seeks to Control JAGs

2007-12-15T21:54:00.000-05:00

The White House has floated a proposed regulation that would require consultation with politically appointed Pentagon lawyers before the promotion of any member of the Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corp. This would effectively eliminate the independence and impartiality of the 4000 military lawyers comprising JAG by forcing them to adhere to a political agenda. (International Herald Tribune: Bush seeks to limit military lawyers' independence.)

Technically, as members of the military the individual members of JAG report through the chain of command to the President. In practice, however, JAG enjoys a tremendous amount of independence; an independence that caught the attention of the White House when military lawyers started to question the legality of certain interrogation methods or the detention of enemy combatants under the Geneva Convention.

Should the proposal be adopted, that independence would be lost. Those officers that did not adhere to the political doctrine would find themselves ineligible for promotion and their careers effectively crippled. The devastating side effect would be a similar crippling of the legitimacy and credibility of the military court system.

Said Major General Thomas Romig (RET), "(It) would certainly have a chilling effect on the JAGs' advice to commanders. The implication is clear: without approval the officer will not be promoted." Romig served as the US Army's top JAG from 2001 to 2005.

At the heart of the dispute is the President's position that the White House has the authority to bypass the Geneva Convention. Enforcing that position is Presidential appointee William Haynes, the Pentagon's top council. It is Haynes that involves himself in disputes with any JAG lawyers that dispute that claim. Under the new proposal, Haynes would be in a position to deny promotions to any JAG officer that disagreed with his (or the President's) political agenda. Those are very dangerous implications for the independence of the military court.

It can certainly be argued that the military court system and the JAG lawyers that service the military should follow the president's lead and adhere to the presidents policy. That's an argument fraught with danger, however. With regards to the Geneva Convention, a series of treaties lawfully ratified by the US Senate, the White House does not have the authority to circumvent or ignore the provisions of the treaty. Part of the provisions in the Fourth Geneva Convention call for a military tribunal to establish the legal status of prisoners held as a result of conflict. It is therefore imperative that the legal branch of the military maintain credibility in the eyes of both the US public and the world.

Using the military in any fashion to circumvent US law or ratified treaties is a most dangerous path. It's a path perilously close to that followed in a number of third-world regimes where the person in power is the one that controls the military. That is a path I would much prefer to see us avoid. The President has a responsibility to enforce the law and the treaties we sign, not find ways to circumvent them.

There's a very popular misconception with regards to the President as Commander in Chief of the armed forces. That title does not grant the President unconditional control over the military. Rather, use of the military and the ability to go to war is reserved for Congress. Granted, that's been usurped since 1945 - the last time Congress issued a declaration of war - however the Constitution is quite clear on the matter. Likewise, funding for the military, and the authorization to even have a military is granted to Congress, not the President. It was quite clear that the founding fathers intended the military to be in the hands of the people, not the President.

What is clear with regards to this JAG proposal is that Congress must keep close watch over the developments. This is not a reporting structure that should ever make its way into practice. Congress, with its oversight authority, must ensure that our military courts remain impartial. The only way to do that is to keep JAG out of the hands of political appointees.

Technorati: politics news JAG
IceRocket: politics news JAG

200,000 Turn Out To Support Hamas

2007-12-15T17:51:00.000-05:00

An estimated 200,000 people gathered in Gaza to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the founding of Hamas, the terrorist organization that gained control of the region six months ago. (New York Times: Gazans Show Allegiance for Hamas.) The terrorist group was created by Sheik Ahmed Yassin, and the Hamas charter written in 1988 still calls for the destruction of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamic State. The region Hamas seeks to control is comprised of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza.

The rally, intended to demonstrate public support for the terrorist group, also shows why a peace accord between Israel and the various Palestinian groups is simply not possible. Hamas gained control in the Palestinian government through free elections and is still extremely popular in the region due in no small part to their anti-Israeli agenda. The slogan displayed in Central Gaza City read, "We will not recognize Israel" but Hamas actually seeks much more. They seek, as previously stated, the complete destruction of Israel.

The same sentiment is prevalent in other nations throughout the Middle East. Saudi Arabia won't even refer to Israel by name, referring only to "that Zionist entity." At the recent Middle East summit hosted by the United States, Saudi Arabia only agreed to attend after stating emphatically that they will not publicly shake hands with any Israeli official. Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has openly called for the destruction of Israel on many occasions.

As long as there are regional anti-Israeli terrorist groups that have the full backing of nations such as Iran and Syria peace in the region is not possible. This is especially the case when those same terrorist groups also enjoy wide public support as is true with both Hamas and Hezbollah.

For some unfortunate reason, brokering a peace between Israel and the Palestinian Authority has become a bell weather issue in American politics. Every administration since Carter has sought to broker a peace in the region and all of them have come up empty. Perhaps now is the time to rethink the entire concept. Hedging our political bets on peace in a region that has had none for the last 3000 years is folly at best.

It's time to walk away from the process. There are fundamental issues between even the rational elements in Israel and the Palestinians that will prohibit any long-term peace. When you factor in the radical elements of Hamas, Hezbollah, and some of the more extreme elements in Israel, it quickly becomes obvious that no treaty will ever work. At least, not so long as those elements exist.

There comes a time when you must recognize that the only solution is to allow two diametrically opposed groups to fight it out. When it comes to Israel and the Palestinians we've reached that point. It's time for us to step out of the ring and allow them to hold the no-holds-barred match that has been simmering since the late 1960s. Whichever side emerges victorious is the one we'll recognize and deal with. At this point, however, I'm no longer willing to waste good American tax dollars trying to broker a peace that isn't possible. Let's step aside, let them fight it out, and the treat with the winner. This one is no longer worth our attention.

Technorati: politics news Hamas Israel
IceRocket: politics news Hamas Israel

CPI Report Confirms Rising Inflation

2007-12-14T19:22:00.000-05:00

The economic reports released today are pretty hard to ignore, and no political spin imaginable can downplay the inflationary numbers consumers experienced in November. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) was up 0.8% in November and now stands at 4.3% yearly. Core CPI (which excludes food and energy costs) was up 0.3% in November and is 2.3% yearly. (International Herald Tribune: New figures show prices rising on both side of Atlantic.)

The yearly numbers only tell part of the story, however. The CPI in August was only 2% yearly. Energy costs in the fourth quarter soared, however, with oil hitting $100 per barrel and actual gas prices at the pump topping $3.00 per gallon with no sign of backing down. In just one quarter, the rate of inflation effectively doubled.

The housing and credit problems have placed FOMC (Federal Open Markets Commission) in a rather difficult bind. In the last quarter, FOMC has clearly adopted a policy aimed at calming credit fears and softening the blow to the nation's largest banks. This policy has manifested in several interest rate cuts, the most recent of which came on December 11th. Unfortunately, that policy is diametrically opposed to combating inflation. An increase in interest rates is required for inflationary control, and it does not appear that FOMC is prepared to do that anytime soon.

One must wonder if we have forgotten the lessons of the late 1970s and early '80s. Have we forgotten the "misery index" popularized in the Reagan - Carter Presidential campaign in 1980? Lest we forget, the nation was faced with double-digit inflation and double-digit unemployment; something virtually all economist thought was all but impossible to achieve. We could be headed in that direction again, for the economic situation is frighteningly similar.

Today we have numerous economists predicting an economic slow-down leading to recession. A recession always implies lay-offs, leading to higher unemployment. At the same time, we have a brewing banking crisis lead by the housing market collapse (also seen in the late 1970s) and the imminent collapse of the credit card industry. These pressures are preventing the Fed from implementing measures to control inflation. At the current rate of inflationary growth, double-digit inflation could be less than a year away.

The real question is which way FOMC should lean. Should the monetary policy be geared at easing the credit crisis or easing inflation? Either path could easily lead to a recession. It would appear that FOMC is concerned that controlling inflation would be the faster route to that recession since it is automatically designed to slow economic growth. A rise in interest rates coupled with the credit collapse could be enough to move growth into the negative column. But allowing inflation to spiral out of control could force the same thing. When consumers no longer have enough discretionary cash to make major purchases, the economy essentially grinds to a halt. We're either at or past that breaking point right now.

At the very least, FOMC needs to adopt a policy that halts further interest rate cuts. There will be a short-term hit on the stock market, especially considering the disappointment investors displayed over a 25 basis point cut on Tuesday. Holding firm on rates would not help lenders reeling from the housing and credit crisis, but it will at least not exacerbate inflationary pressures already fueled by the price of energy. It may buy enough time to allow a controlled increase in interest rates in an attempt to get inflation back on the short leash.

What FOMC cannot do is continue down the self-destructive path that has brought us to this point. The next couple of years look pretty grim from an economic viewpoint. We really don't need FOMC to reenact the economic debacle of the late 1970s. I remember it well enough from the first time around. I'm pretty sure we can all live without the sequel.

Technorati: politics news CPI Inflation FOMC
IceRocket: politics news CPI Inflation FOMC

Morgan Stanley Issues Recession Warning

2007-12-12T18:17:00.000-05:00

Traditionally bullish Dick Berner of Morgan Stanley has issued a scathing appraisal of the state of the US economy. In the extremely bearish report released today, the analyst warns that it may already be too late to prevent a recession given the rapidly expanding credit problems and the collapse of the housing market. (Telegraph: Morgan Stanley issues full US recession alert.)

Citing a third quarter foreclosure rate of 5.59%, Berner stated, "As delinquencies and defaults soar, lenders are tightening credit for commercial, credit card and auto lending, as well as for all mortgage borrowers."

That one sentence pretty much sums up both the current state of affairs and the cause of the current state of affairs. Lenders are struggling with the number of foreclosures in the housing market yet they have yet to acknowledge that they created the problem in the first place. There was a time where mortgage lenders required an applicant to earn their entire mortgage payment in one week after taxes. That requirement fell by the wayside years ago as the housing market rose to new heights, guaranteeing the lender a profit even in the event of foreclosure.

Right up until the collapse, mortgage lenders were handing out sub-prime loans with no money down like they were candy. Now these same lenders, faced with billions of dollars in write-downs are crying poverty and warning of a recession that they themselves created. The housing market is only the tip of the credit iceberg, however. This same lending crunch is about to hit the credit card industry. Business practices by credit card companies such as Bank of America and Discover are such that they virtually force people into default through the highly unethical manipulation of interest rates on even good credit accounts. Congress has taken up that challenge, not that I hold out any hope for something worthwhile coming out of that body.

The Morgan Stanley report, written prior to yesterday's FOMC announcement but released today, predicted a 25 basis point cut in rates this week (which did happen yesterday) and also predicts at least three more cuts in 2008. In so forecasting, Berner stated, "We expect the Fed to insure against the worst outcome."

Perhaps if you make the wrong move often enough, it will become the right move. It hasn't worked yet, but there's always next time. Continuing to lower interest rates in this fashion is counter productive. Not only do the lower interest rates add to inflationary pressures, but they continue to weaken the value of the US dollar against foreign currencies, they continue to exacerbate the credit problem, and they put increased financial pressure on banks already suffering from an inverted yield curve. Somehow, this does not sound like a good strategy to me.

What the report doesn't say is the impact the price of energy will have on the overall economy or what fourth quarter retail sales are going to look like. Anyone that has glanced at their November utility bills can answer the first question. The average consumer is going to be squeezed pretty hard this winter, especially if the current weather pattern continues. While oil may have retreated below $90 per barrel, utility costs are still skyrocketing. That's coming directly out of the household budget and will have an extremely negative effect on discretionary spending.

Likewise, anyone that has been Christmas shopping over the last couple of weeks can tell you what retail sales will look like for December. If you haven't noticed, the stores are empty this year. That's not surprising given the cost of actually driving to the store with gas prices holding firm above the $3 per gallon mark. Online sales will likely be up this year, but as a whole people will be spending significantly less on Christmas gifts thanks in no small part to the soaring fuel costs.

So are we headed for a recession? Absolutely. Growth may appear strong in the most recent reports, but the reports are deceptive and are currently a trailing indicator. Even new housing starts were up in the last report which surprised an awful lot of analysts. But this growth is not sustainable give energy and credit pressures. The average consumer is already being hit very hard by an inflation rate that everyone except the federal government seems to acknowledge as climbing significantly.

While banks have not caused the rising energy costs, they have certainly caused the credit collapse and the housing collapse. What's missing is accountability. The very real result of their unethical business practices goes far beyond lower profits at the larger institutions. The real effect is the toll it takes on the average family that was just scraping by. The number of real families that are losing their homes or going into bankruptcy because of corrupt corporate business practices is staggering, and that is something for which corporate executives need to be held accountable.

Technorati: politics news recession economy credit banks
IceRocket: politics news recession economy credit banks

Christmas and Other Things Forgotten

2007-12-11T19:31:00.000-05:00

We have now entered a time of year that, like everything else in our society, has become over dramatized and over politicized. We've entered The Christmas Season. Yes, I'm afraid the capitals are required in this case for that is what we've done to this time of year. Now, let me preface this entry by telling you that I am a devout Roman Catholic. My friends will tell you that I'm one of the most religious people you are likely to encounter, although you will never hear me preach religion nor will you ever see me attempt to convert one who is not Christian. With that in mind, allow me to begin.

I have come to dislike all that has become of this season. Now, I'm not at all afraid of "atheists trying to wipe out Christmas" as some have professed. I am not concerned about the ACLU attempting to separate Church from State. I really don't care about pink flamingos next to a Santa Claus in front of the city hall in one corner of Rhode Island. (True story, actually, but that's a different topic.) No, what worries me most is that we Christians destroyed Christmas years ago. So today's post is a bit of a history lesson. It is an attempt to remind us of why the Feast of the Nativity of Jesus exists in the first place.

The word "consensus" hardly describes anything that took place in the early Christian Church. Put three Church leaders together and you had three differing views. The squabbles started days after the Crucifixion and they continue through to the present day. By the beginning of the 4th century, one major debate in the Church centered around the divinity of Jesus. There were those that held to the notion of Jesus as Divine Savior, the Son of God. Other equally prominent members of the Church held to the strict humanity of Jesus without a shred of Divinity. This debate became one of the 8 major topics discussed at the world's first ecumenical council, The First Council of Nicaea, convened by the Emperor Constantine in 325 AD.

The findings of this Council are still recited in Catholic and Episcopal Churches today. If you've attended either of these masses, you may recognize the words "God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, Begotten not made." With those words, the Council of Nicaea affirmed and proclaimed the divinity of Jesus, and that has been the official teaching of Christian Churches for the last 1682 years. I've often wondered how many people sitting in church each Sunday understand those words or know why they were written in the first place. The Nicaean Creed, as it is known, is not a prayer - it is a profession of the fundamental beliefs of the early Christian Church, and it is the first written profession to officially proclaim the divinity of Jesus.

The problem, though, is the Church started to focus entirely on the Divinity and not on the humanity of Jesus. For Him to atone for the sins of mankind, His humanity is theologically just as necessary as His divinity. It is for this reason that by 350 AD, Churches around the world started to celebrate the Feast of the Nativity of Jesus - what we today call Christmas. It was to serve as a reminder of the human birth, and therefore the humanity, of the Divine savior. Note that the date of the celebration varied from May 20, to March 25, to December 25 depending on where you were, but the actual date is irrelevant. The importance was on the birth itself, not the date of birth.

This is what we have forgotten today. All of the trappings you see around you - Christmas trees, lights, snowmen, wreaths, candles, plastic Santa Clauses complete with reindeer, etc. - have absolutely nothing to do with the reason for our celebration of Christmas. In fact, all of those are deeply rooted in pagan symbolism more in tune with other festivals celebrated at the same time of the year, but rest assured that none of them are Christian symbols. Even the giving of gifts has turned into a capitalistic fiasco, an exercise in greed and commercialism that has absolutely no place at all in the celebration of any religious holy day.

What we have done is taken the celebration of the most humblest of births, the symbol of the poorest of the poor, and turned it into the most obscene commercial circus imaginable. What offends me as a Christian far more than any "Happy Holidays" political correctness drivel, or the removal of creches from city halls is what we Christians have done to this celebration. Rather than a remembrance day for the humble birth of Christ Divine, we have turned this holy day into a day of gluttony, a day of greed, a day that is diametrically opposed to all that Jesus and early Christianity stood for. We do not need to reclaim Christmas from atheists, we need to reclaim it from ourselves.

Technorati: politics news Christmas
IceRocket: politics news Christmas

France Announces Arms Accord With Libya

2007-12-10T19:13:00.000-05:00

France became the first Western nation to extend a welcome to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, once a pariah in international circles. As part of the diplomatic exchange, France announced an agreement to provide $14.7 billion in contracts for armaments, a civilian nuclear reactor, and a desalination plant. The move was met with mixed reactions among French politicians including protests from Rama Yade, the French Human Rights minister. (USA Today: France, Libya sign deals on armaments, nuclear reactor.)

Gadhafi is one of the great success stories in the Middle East, showing just how powerful international isolation coupled with strategic military strikes can be. Throughout the late 1970s and 80s, Libya was an open sponsor of international terrorism and was implicated in the bombing of a 1989 French UTA passenger jet and the more famous 1988 bombing of a Pan Am flight over Lockerbie, Scotland.

The 1986 US raid on Libya, international isolation, and the overwhelming success of the US-lead Gulf War forced Gadhafi to have a change of heart, however. The ease with which the US and allies drove Iraq out of Kuwait and effectively destroyed the Iraqi air force and most of its tank divisions were enough to convince Gadhafi that he was headed down the wrong path. Since then, the Libyan leader has completely reversed course. Libya has paid retribution for both aircraft bombings, has dismantled its nuclear program under voluntary UN inspection, and has publicly renounced any further support for terrorism.

This is a clear example of what the world community can accomplish provided there is sufficient threat of military force with which to back up the non-violent diplomatic measures. Without the Gulf War, there was no incentive for Libya to change course. The isolation alone was not sufficient. Certainly, the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union was another major factor in Libya's about-face, but when Gadhafi ran the numbers both economically and militarily he clearly saw which side of the world community he needed to join.

Today we face the same opportunity with Iran. As the west continues to increase economic and political pressure on Iran, also a major sponsor of state-run terrorism, it is imperative that we do not ease up on the veiled threat of force. Without that threat always looming over them, the other measures have no teeth and will not stand a chance of success.

Iran today is very similar to Libya in the 1980s. They are open supporters of both Hamas and Hezbollah, terrorist organizations primarily focused on the elimination of Israel. They are clandestine supporters of the insurgency in Iraq, providing both funding and arms to the insurgents. Like Libya in the 80s, Iran finds itself isolated from the world community, and currently under economic interdiction by the UN. The undercurrent, though, is always the threat of military action either by the US or Israel.

That, as it happens, is the key. That threat must remain if non-military means will be successful. Iran is ripe for a Libyan style conversion. An Iran that abandons support for terrorism, that eliminates Hamas and Hezbollah, that ends arms shipments to the Iraq insurgency, and welcomes in UN nuclear inspectors would also find the same support in the west as does Libya. The choice is certainly theirs. But to help them make that choice, the west must keep up the pressure. It's imperative that we not back down on any of the initiatives with which Iran is confronted. We, and the rest of the world, need to learn from the lessons of Libya.

Technorati: politics news Libya Iran
IceRocket: politics news Libya Iran

Bush Poised to Veto Spending Bill

2007-12-09T11:24:00.000-05:00

A pork-ridden spending bill that far exceeds what the President requested is facing a veto if it makes its way to the Oval Office. The White House labeled the bill a "budget-buster", pointing to the $11 billion price tag over and above the original request. (Washington Post: Bush Threatens Veto Of New Spending Bill.)

House and Senate leaders cited the need to fund more border security and more police on the streets as the reasons behind the hefty price tag. As presented, the new budget stands at $500 Billion but Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)charges that the burden is "too much to ask of the American taxpayer."

This is a civics lesson that the general public must learn and remember as we head to the polls in 2008. Leftist critics are fond of pointing to President Bush whenever they talk about our national debt, or out of control spending. What these same critics conveniently choose to forget is that the budget is not in the hands of the President. Congress has the sole responsibility for establishing the national budget. It is interesting to note that in the period where the debt increased dramatically (the 1980s) we had a Democratic controlled congress. When the budget was brought under control and we started moving towards paying off the debt during the Clinton years we had a Republican controlled congress. Neither Reagan nor Clinton had any control over the budget, so they should share neither the blame nor the credit with regards to the debt during their tenure.

True, the post-9/11 Bush years saw a huge increase in debt, and that congress was Republican. We fiscal conservatives on the right point to that as a primary reason why we lost control of congress - that congress abandoned the conservative values that put them there. They diverged too far from the principles that govern the party and the electorate rightly tossed them out. Now that congress is back under Democratic control, however, we are seeing a return to the tax and spend mantra that plagued us for years. It never worked in the past and it won't work now.

Whenever you hear someone complain about the national debt or how much we're spending, be mindful of exactly what the US Constitution has to say about it:

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

The powers of the President with regards to the federal budget are extremely limited. His only option is to request funding from Congress, and it is congressional responsibility to respond yes or no to that funding request. Most in Congress today would prefer to deflect the debt issue onto the President, but there is no valid argument for doing so. There is certainly no constitutional argument, that's for certain. Congress controls the purse strings, pure and simple. Remember that in 2008.

Technorati: politics news Congress Bush budget
IceRocket: politics news Congress Bush budget

Indonesia Pushing Tighter Emissions Pact

2007-12-08T10:37:00.000-05:00

Indonesia, in conjunction with Australia and South Africa, issued a draft proposal on climate change reforms at UN talks aimed at curbing greenhouse emissions. The draft places the burden of drastically cutting emissions squarely on the shoulders of the wealthiest nations, while glossing over the global impact of the world's most populated and most polluted nations. (Reuters: All nations must join climate fight: Bali draft.)

The draft proposal claims that there is "unequivocal scientific evidence that preventing the worst impacts of climate change will require (developed nations) to reduce emissions in a range of 25-40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020."

It's an interesting concept, however there is no such "unequivocal scientific evidence" that climate change - which started at the end of the last ice age some 14,000 years ago - can be reversed at all. Neither is there "unequivocal scientific evidence" that climate change has anything to do with emissions caused by human industry. The implication that there is universal agreement in the scientific community to that effect is both misleading and completely false. The fact is, this is the third such warming period our planet has undergone in the last 250,000 years, and it's safe to say that the last two had nothing to do with human technology. Why, then, do we automatically assume - through the arrogance of human hubris - that we are the cause of this one or that we can do anything at all to stop it?

The US came under a great deal of criticism for refusing to sign the Kyoto protocol due to the exemption of India and China, two of the world's greatest polluters. It should be obvious to anyone that the US cannot agree to economic constraints that exclude the two most rapidly developing nations on Earth, especially when there's no evidence that such constraints will have any impact on the issue at hand.

It's time to come to grips with the fact that the planet's climate is indeed changing as part of a much broader natural cycle. Regardless of what we attempt to change, the polar ice will continue to melt, the average temperature will continue to increase, and the sea levels will continue to rise. It is part of the natural cycle of the planet and it is inevitable. We can no more prevent that from happening than we can prevent the sun from rising in the east.

This does not mean we should do nothing to curb pollution. On the contrary, the issue of waste and the effects of pollution do have to be addressed and should be addressed. Our water supply is in grave danger world-wide, and the quality of the air we breathe is well below the most generous of health standards. Where the conditions are worst, though, is China and India, not the US. You may recognize those two as the countries exempted from anti-pollution agreements.

The bottom line is that the US must continue to resist these efforts to further cripple American industry and manufacturing presented to the world as a heart-wrenching attempt to reverse the natural effects of the planet's climate cycle. If you want the US to participate in this exercise in futility, then the developing nations - especially China and India - must be under the same constraints. Until that happens, and I do not expect it ever will happen, the US must continue to respectfully decline the invitations to cripple our economy. Thanks for the offer, folks, but we'll pass.

Technorati: politics news
IceRocket: politics news

Iran Puzzle Needs Fresh Approach

2007-12-07T22:16:00.000-05:00

Iran continues to dominate the headlines in international politics this week amid a recently released intelligence report that concludes the theocratic regime halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Despite that report, the US continues to push for increased UN sanctions against Iran and continues to paint Iran as a rogue state with strong ties to international terror. (Washington Post: Gates to Gulf nations: Stand against Iran.)

Certainly the latest intelligence report takes a fair amount of wind out of the anti-Iranian sails, although there is still a great deal of NATO support for the official US position. While Iran may have put their weapons program on hold four years ago, they do continue to enrich uranium and still have the ability to restart that program on a moment's notice. NATO agrees with that assessment and supports additional sanctions.

Not surprisingly, the major hold-out continues to be Russia. Not only is Iran a major economic ally of the once and future Soviet state but Iran offers Russian President Vladimir Putin with a fresh battlefield for a cold war style confrontation with the US. Putin, already emboldened by a strengthening Russian economy in the face of a falling US dollar, appears poised to seize any opportunity to thwart US goals in the region.

Perhaps now the time is right to change the game. Sanctions have a long history of failure. Rarely - if ever - do sanctions have the desired effect on the nation so interdicted. Certainly, time is on Iran's side in this case, and there's no reason to believe that sanctions will have any impact at all. So perhaps now is the time to change course.

Rather than impose sanctions and attempt to economically contain Iran, I propose just the opposite. Overwhelm the Ayatollah's personal playground with capitalism. Open and expand trade with Iran and target the mass marketing campaign at the student body and middle class. Prior to the Iranian lead Islamic Revolution, Iran was one of the most westernized nations in the Middle East. Even today there is a very strong undercurrent of western materialism, especially among the younger generation.

Iran is ripe for revolution. Their rate of inflation is already taking its toll and there is already a strong anti-fundamentalist sentiment in the general population. By opening trade with Iran and exposing them to much-desired western goods, we may provide the final catalyst needed to topple the oppressive regime, all without US or Israeli military intervention.

There comes a point where we must recognize that certain tactics have not been effective and that we must change our approach. Isolation did not work in Cuba, it has not worked with North Korea, and there's no reason to believe it will work with Iran. Perhaps now is the right time to unleash our greatest weapon - capitalism. Remind the Iranian people of what they could have and let nature take its course. It's certainly worth a try.

Technorati: politics news Iran
IceRocket: politics news Iran

Democrats Reach Energy Deal in House

2007-12-02T08:29:00.000-05:00

House Democrats announced yesterday that they have reached a compromise deal on an energy bill that may be sufficient to both hurdle a threatened Republican filibuster and also avoid a potential Bush veto. The deal extends certain fuel efficiency requirements for SUVs and pickup trucks out to 2020 while requiring non-public electric utilities to produce some 15% of their energy from renewable sources. As part of the compromise, the deal appears to drop plans to impose $16 billion in taxes on the oil industry. The revenue from those taxes would have been earmarked for research into renewable energy sources and improved conservation. (H. JOSEF HEBERT, AP: Deal Reached to Boost Gas Mileage.)

While I disagree with the solutions proposed in this energy bill compromise, I do give the Democrats credit for at least attempting to address the problem. Solutions are somewhat lacking in Congress these days, so any legislation that attempts to solve the energy issue should be welcome for debate on the floor. My disagreement with this particular piece of legislation has to do, not with any plans to impose restrictions on the auto industry, but with my opposition to agriculture based energy sources (e.g. ethanol) due to the potential impact on our food supply and food costs.

The legislation does correctly target SUVs and pickup trucks. Thanks in no small part to auto industry marketing campaigns over the last decade, Americans have been brainwashed to believe that bigger means safer. As a result, parking lots are filled with SUVs and mini-vans now being used by people in their daily commute to work. With the bigger is safer mentality has come the need for more horsepower. My last two cars (a Toyota Camry and a Hyundai Sonata respectively) have been 6-cylinder cars, and neither of them would win any gas mileage competitions. My Sonata is the worst of the bunch, getting less than 18 MPG in stop-and-go driving.

So first and foremost, I believe we need to address that problem. The solution really isn't improving the gas mileage for those guzzlers, the solution is to get the beasts off the road entirely. Owners of SUVs, mini-vans, and 6-cylinder cars (such as myself) should be penalized for it. A tax credit for owning a fuel efficient car coupled with a tax penalty for not owning one would go much further towards promoting energy conservation than mere legislation will. This is especially true when you consider the wording in that legislation that ties fuel efficiency to an entire fleet average, and not to the individual car.

What we must also address is our overall transportation infrastructure. Simply put, there are too many cars on the road in and around our major cities. Virtually all of that 4-wheel transportation is unnecessary, or at least would be unnecessary if we had a viable inexpensive and timely mass transportation system. Rather than improve the number of ways commuters can get into and out of our cities by car, we should be looking at methods for making it unnecessary to drive into those cities in the first place. I would envision numerous outlying parking areas with continuous electric monorail services and electric shuttles throughout the currently congested cities. The same would apply to areas in many cities and towns that are bottleneck roads. (In Rhode Island, Route 2 in Warwick comes to mind, as does Mineral Spring Avenue in North Providence.)

Of course what I propose sounds radical and would generate a great deal of argument. But just how practical is it to continue down our present course? In Rhode Island we are nearing the completion of a new stretch of I-195 in a futile attempt to decrease the rush hour congestion heading through Providence. While it may offer temporary respite, it is a solution that will last no more than five years given the current rate of traffic growth. When you consider that the project itself has taken over ten years to initiate, execute, and complete, that five year solution doesn't sound quite so appealing.

Radical thought and innovative solutions that will thrust us into the 21st century are precisely what is needed right now. We don't need to simply improve the gas efficiencies of our cars, we need to get them off the road entirely. So where is the innovation? Where is the forward thinking that drove this nation into the industrial revolution, lead the world through the space race, and built the world-wide information network that we enjoy today?

In 1962, President Kennedy set before us an extremely aggressive, nearly impossible goal. One that, with a sense of nationalism that is woefully absent today, we achieved in July, 1969. Kennedy's words in reference to that quest for the moon could well be applied to our energy crisis today:

"Those who came before us made certain that this country rode the first waves of the industrial revolution, the first waves of modern invention, and the first wave of nuclear power, and this generation does not intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of space. We mean to be a part of it--we mean to lead it."

Should we not tackle the quest for a 21st century energy solution and infrastructure redesign with the same attitude, with the same zeal? What we need today is leadership, not political rhetoric. We have the talent in this nation to tackle the energy problem if only we are given the right direction, the right focus, and the right funding. So to our national leaders, I pose this challenge. For once in your careers, lead. Set the initiative and lead us into the future.

Technorati: politics news
IceRocket: politics news

Dollar Woes Signal Global Problems

2007-12-01T16:37:00.000-05:00

The US Dollar continues to nosedive against European currencies, reaching new and troubling levels against both the British Pound and the Euro. While the decline in the dollar is being regaled by our adversaries in Iran and Venezuela, the implications of the weakening currency are global in reach. (Speigel Online: Why America's Currency Is the World's Problem.)

While it is popular among the left in the US to point to the war debt from our involvement in Iraq as the reason for the dollar's decline, the actual situation is far more complex and troubling. Truth is, we're now seeing an economic upheaval in the US similar to that which plagued the late Carter and early Reagan years. Gold topped $800 an ounce last week before retreating to $783 by Friday's close. Many economists are now pointing towards a recession that may be all but inevitable. The national debt has grown at a rate not seen since the early to mid 1980s. Capping it all, however, is the collapse of the housing market in the US.

The housing collapse certainly appears to be the catalyst, however that collapse is truly the inevitable result of long-term unscrupulous business practices primarily in the mortgage and banking industries. The relaxation of credit worthiness requirements and the ability to obtain sub-prime mortgages with no money down has lead to record numbers of foreclosures this year, and threatens to lead the nation into recession. Almost 40% of new home sales over the past two years were for second homes or vacation homes, with buyer exuberance fueled by the bait and switch tactics of a variable rate mortgage with a sub-prime entry.

We are now seeing the next ripple in the housing collapse as the world's top banks begin a massive debt write off due to the record number of bad loans on their books. The write offs are already taking their toll in Europe, and we are starting to see the wave crest over the largest banks in the US. Given the way they've handled the entire mortgage issue, I would find it hard to be sympathetic were it not for the toll the collapse will take on the American worker.

The collapse of the dollar is not entirely due to the mortgage issue, however. The average American has managed to run up a credit debt to rival the one our elected officials have managed to incur at the national level. Now, deficit spending has never hurt the US in the past, but this time around we have major foreign investors questioning our credit worthiness. As our national debt piles up, the value of our dollar continues to fall. With the decline in the dollar, we have energy prices rising astronomically, and that always translates into rising inflation. Deficit spending is now a luxury we can no longer afford.

To counter this wave, it appears the Federal Reserve is poised to lower interest rates again on December 11th, although it will be about as effective as handing someone a bucket to stop a tsunami. Lowering interest rates will do nothing to halt the rising energy prices, the rising rate of inflation, the collapse of the housing market, or the collapse of the value of the dollar. In fact, it could actually add to the problem by temporarily raising the overall value of the already over-inflated stock market.

About the only aspect of our economy benefiting from the dollar's decline is our ability to export goods and services. Unfortunately, we don't exactly manufacture goods the way we used to and are far more dependent on imports than we are on exports. A declining dollar doesn't do the American consumer much good when those items are imported from nations with a stronger currency.

There are some in Europe that believe the dollar's decline is intentional, and there may be some merit to that charge. French President Nicolas Sarkozy came right out and said as much, charging that the US is attempting to boost American exports while weakening Europe's ability to compete in the global market. He may be right. We certainly did just that in the early 1970s, and with our foreign debt at all time highs there is a perverse logic to weakening the dollar in the short-term.

What remains to be answered though, is what solutions to put forth. Sadly, the first solution we will need to accept is that the correction that is coming in the stock market must play itself out. There is very little substance maintaining a DOW average over 13,000. Corporate earnings certainly don't warrant that level, and the projected slowdown in economic growth does not justify the rapid rise in stock prices. Maintaining an artificially inflated market is only going to make the resulting crash much worse.

Secondly, we must hold the line on interest rate cuts. Attempting to stimulate the economy in that fashion does not address the heart of the problem and will be ultimately detrimental to the economy as a whole. In fact, what is needed to stimulate the economy is a reduction in the price of oil, and the only way that will be achieved is through strengthening the value of the US dollar. Interest rate cuts, and the cheaper credit implied by those cuts, is tantamount to giving someone a shot of whiskey to cure a hangover. It is going to add to the problem, not fix it.

Third, we must make the tax cuts implemented a couple of years ago permanent. While that will sound contrary to my next point, it's necessary. The American consumer cannot survive both a tax increase and a rising cost of energy, so like it or not, the tax cuts must be made permanent. Americans are already taking huge pay cuts just through their daily commute to work. With gas now topping $3.05 per gallon compared to $2.29 per gallon this time last year, the last thing the American worker needs is a rise in their income tax burden.

Finally, we must establish a positive budget, not even a balanced budget. We are no longer in a position to engage in the level of deficit spending that has worked well for the last 40 years. Our credit rating no longer permits it. The amount of glut in our national budget is staggering, and it's high time we put people in office that are willing to trim that fat. Now, before anyone here starts beating the "it's Bush's fault" drums, let me remind you that the budget is the sole responsibility of Congress. Remember that when you walk into the polls in November.

What goes without saying in all this is that we must hold our corporations accountable for the unscrupulous business practices that have caused at least part of this mess. There is a reason the banking industry was heavily regulated following the Great Depression. Unfortunately, we seem to have forgotten that history and we're once again allowing banks to do as they will. We saw once before that corporate executives were not responsible enough or ethical enough to be left to their own devices, and with the banking regulations being relaxed or eliminated now, we see once again that they have not changed. We need to put them back on a tight leash.

In the meantime, settle in for a rocky ride. The turbulence we are about to experience economically will be global, and it will take several years to work itself out. The remainder of this decade will be rough indeed.

Technorati: politics news
IceRocket: politics news

FCC Attempts to Assert Control Over Cable

2007-11-27T18:07:00.000-05:00

Relying on a minor clause in a 1984 law, the FCC is attempting to assert regulatory control over the cable industry. The FCC contends that cable companies now reach a wide enough audience and intends to assert control to "ensure diverse programming." (FCC Vote Affecting Cable TV in Jeopardy.)

There is already a regulatory agency overseeing the cable industry and ensuring programming choices appropriate for the local market. That agency is known as the local consumer. All legislation and regulation has done to the cable industry is eliminated programming that was available to the consumer prior to the enactment of such legislation. In the Rhode Island area, for example, several popular Boston area channels were removed from the line-up as a result of legislation intended to protect the local channels if two or more belonged to the same network. That the Boston area channels had always been available over-the-air didn't seem to factor into the equation. That is what legislation and regulation can do to the cable industry.

The FCC has forever been an agency devoted to controlling not only the diversity of programming, but also the content of that programming. The programming freedom enjoyed on the subscription channels has never been available to channels that fell under FCC regulation. Rather than permit the market - that is, we the viewers - to determine what type programming is appropriate and what is offensive, the FCC believes itself to be far better suited to make that determination for us. What has never quite been explained is how the FCC fails to violate the freedom of speech portion of the First Amendment by asserting such control over the type of programming permissible.

Rather than expand the authority of the FCC, what is sorely needed is a retraction of the oversight granted to that agency. The cable industry, and more importantly the American consumer, does not need an extension of the FCC's policies into a programming model that currently best serves the demands of the consumer. More programming restrictions as imposed by the FCC will only result in higher costs and less programming choices. Neither the industry nor the consumer would benefit from either. The FCC is intrusive enough already. We certainly don't need it meddling in the cable industry as well.

Technorati: politics news FCC
IceRocket: politics news FCC

Supreme Court Tackles 2nd Amendment

2007-11-25T22:22:00.000-05:00

One simple sentence in the US Constitution has caused more debate and been the cause of more controversy than any other. That sentence appears in the Second Amendment and is written as follows:

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

For the first time in 68 years, the US Supreme Court will tackle the meaning of that one simple statement. Specifically, they will attempt to clarify the meaning of one simple comma. You see, there are two ways to interpret the Second Amendment. One popular interpretation, and the one lower courts have used since 1936, is that the right to keep and bear arms is restricted to a state run militia. The other interpretation supported by libertarians and those that favor private gun ownership is that the right to keep and bear arms is granted to the individual not the militia.

The Supreme Court has not ruled on this issue in 68 years but has agreed to do so now, offering a decision in July 2008 - just in time for the November elections. With individual rights being weakened considerably every day, ostensibly under the guise of safety, the Supreme Court's decision could have staggering implications.

What most people seem to forget in this entire debate is the attitude of the framers of the Constitution. The basic belief of the men that wrote this document, and those that wrote the second amendment, is that the people have a fundamental inalienable right to overthrow the government. They said precisely that in the Declaration of Independence:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The framers of the Constitution, in drafting the Second Amendment, sought to ensure that the people would always have the means to overthrow a corrupt government. It is not to a well regulated militia that the right to keep and bear arms is granted. After all, the militia belongs to the state and by definition bears arms. In 1787, the individual state militias collectively constituted the US military. Of course the militia has the right to keep and bear arms! No, the right granted in the second amendment is granted to the People, and it is granted as a defence against the state run militia. It is not to the militia that the right is granted, but rather it is because the militia must exist that the people must retain that right.

When you study the Bill of Rights, you find a series of protections granted the people as a direct response to abuses that had been perpetrated against the colonies at least since the start of the Seven Years War (French and Indian War in the US.) The Bill of Rights was intended to prevent the fledgling US government from engaging in the same civil rights abuses, and the second amendment was no exception. That amendment was introduced to directly counter the British practice of disarming the colonists in the years leading up to the American Revolution.

Which way this court will rule is anybody's guess. The Supreme Court has not been overly sympathetic to the rights of the individual in recent years. Especially in the aftermath of 9/11, the Court has ruled increasingly in favor of the Government over the rights of the individual, and the protections written into the Bill of Rights have been continuously eroded. That is the danger we face with this Court taking up the 2nd Amendment challenge at this time. Should the People lose the right to keep and bear arms, then all other amendments in the Bill of Rights become worthless.

Now more than ever we should heed the motto written on the cover of "An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania":

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Let us hope the nine justices that sit the Supreme Court are familiar with that phrase.

Technorati: politics news
IceRocket: politics news

The Internet: Politic's New Mud Pit

2007-11-13T21:13:00.000-05:00

Since my friends all know that I'm politically conservative, I often receive copies of the various e-mail chain letters that bash the candidates on the left. The two most recent letters that I've seen circulate accuse Senator Clinton of being a closet communist, offering a litany of quotes that are blatantly Marxist. The second letter shows a photo of the leading Democrats allegedly reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. Everyone has their hand over their heart except Senator Obama, and the letter goes on to claim that he refuses to recite the Pledge.

First of all, let's clear the air regarding these two e-mail chain letters. First we have Senator Clinton spouting Marxist propaganda. Every single quote in that e-mail chain is accurate. She did in fact say all of them at one time or another. Unfortunately, every single one of them was lifted out of context. When you read the entire context in which she made each statement, the meaning is completely changed and very few people - even conservatives - would have any issue with what she was saying. Here is the truth about the Hillary Clinton e-mail.

Now onto the Senator Obama e-mail chain. To begin with, the candidates were not reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. They were standing for the National Anthem. There has never surfaced any evidence to suggest or affirm that the Senator has ever refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. There is also no evidence at all to suggest that he was at all disrespectful towards the National Anthem in that scenario.

Now, he has taken a good deal of heat for his decision to stop wearing a lapel pin. Personally, I don't agree with his decision there - I've been wearing a lapel pin since 9/11 to show my support for the troops that are currently in combat - but I understand his logic. You see, the lapel pin really has become just another political prop and has lost its meaning. So while I wish he would wear the pin for the reasons I do, I can respect his reasons for not wearing it, and it has nothing to do with his patriotism. Here is the truth about Senator Obama and both the Anthem and the lapel pin.

This is the danger of the Internet. People have a tendency to view anything they receive via e-mail as factual without ever attempting to confirm the veracity of the statements rendered. Now that we've entered the 2008 campaign season, there's no doubt that we're going to be inundated with these false but politically damaging chain letters. They are virtually untraceable but they can do an extreme amount of damage to the candidate. While I don't believe I've heard Senator Clinton make comment about the Marxist letter, Senator Obama is definitely taking the gloves off in responding to his patriotism attacks. That he is responding to this degree is testament to the amount of damage these false accusations can do.

So here's what I wish everyone would do. Don't forward any chain letters until you've verified the accuracy of the letter. Snopes is an excellent reference source for these types of urban legends, and it doesn't take too much effort to verify the claims before spreading the gossip.

Whether or not the candidates deserve fair treatment is pretty much irrelevant. The American voter certainly does deserve fair treatment, and spreading this type of muck does all of us a disservice. It's libel at best, and at its worst it undermines our political process. We need to select candidates based on the issues that affect us the most and based on how each candidate responds to those issues. We don't need slanderous e-mails in the mix spreading misinformation and outright lies about the candidates on either side of the aisle.

Technorati: politics news Clinton Obama email
IceRocket: politics news Clinton Obama email

Gaza Under Siege

2007-10-28T20:30:00.000-04:00

Israel has confirmed that fuel supplies to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip have been reduced, and two of the three major border crossings have been closed. The latter is intended to limit the type and quantity of supplies that can enter Gaza from Israel. In effect, Israel has placed the territory under a state of limited siege in response to over a thousand rockets and mortar shells launched at Israel from Gaza in the last four months. (New York Times: Israel Reduces Fuel to Gaza, Closes Crossing).

Hamas, the de facto government in Gaza, does not recognize Israel's right to exist, and their official charter calls for the complete elimination of Israel. Efforts to negotiate a peace between Israel and Hamas have been fruitless, thus Israel's latest decisions to limit energy and supplies into the territory.

For any siege of Gaza to work, there must be some measure of cooperation from the US and NATO. To the east, Gaza is completely surrounded by Israel, however to the west it borders the Mediterranean Sea. Supplies could theoretically reach Gaza from the Med, although it's unlikely that any of the NATO countries there would allow it.

This latest action by Israel is part of the much larger dance between the US and Iran. Hamas is supported, supplied, and financed by Iran, so any pressures place on the Gaza are likewise felt in Tehran. Indeed, support for Hamas coupled with support for the insurgency in Iraq has stretched Iran pretty thin economically. The timing of this latest economic squeeze by Israel would appear to signal some measure of cooperation with Washington, coming right on the heels of additional economic sanctions against Iran having been announced by the US.

The stakes on both fronts are the same. Hamas seeks the destruction of Israel and has been mounting rocket attacks from Gaza for years. Iran also publicly seeks the destruction of Israel and is, at least according to the US and the IAEA, actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program. The biggest loser should Iran succeed in that effort would certainly be Israel. So cooperation between Israel and the US in the global struggle with Iran does make sense. The unanswered questions are how far Israel is willing to go in throttling the Gaza, and how Tehran plans to increase their aid to Hamas to prevent that government's collapse.

In the meantime, it's important to realize that this struggle is indeed part of the broader conflict with Iran. The more pressure Israel can put on Hamas, the more it helps our cause in the economic sparring currently taking place further east. Now more than ever we need to support Israel's efforts in the Gaza. Those efforts are certainly tied to our own efforts elsewhere in the region.

Technorati: politics news Israel Hamas Iran
IceRocket: politics news Israel Hamas Iran

Cuban Policy Still a Failure

2007-10-25T21:02:00.000-04:00

After some 45 years, US policy towards Cuba remains unchanged. We have had no diplomatic relations since the early 1960s, and we've had harsh economic sanctions in place since at least the Bay of Pigs Invasion. In a speech at the State Department this week, President Bush reiterated our hard-line stance against the isolated island and once again called for a Democratic process to be enacted in the communist regime. (Time: A Hard Line on Cuba.)

This is a familiar refrain, of late. Imposition of sanctions, severing contact with the government, and a call for Democratic reform have been our MO for the past 7 years. You'd think we'd have learned by now that the aforementioned combination simply doesn't work. We've had sanctions in place against Cuba for 45 years. The only thing that will remove Castro from office, though, will be old age. Not suprisingly, sanctions have proven ineffective in dealing with Cuba.

We had sanctions in place against Iraq for over a decade as well. Those sanctions didn't work either, and culminated in the US lead invasion of Iraq four years ago. Sanctions are now in place against Iran - with even harsher sanctions announced today - and there's no reason to believe they'll work this time either. Economic sanctions, especially unilateral sanctions, are about the least effective diplomatic tool in the arsenal, yet we insist on imposing them time and time again.
The other diplomatic ploy that appears popular is the severance of diplomatic relations. If a nation does something you don't like, well, just withdraw your ambassador and refuse to talk to them. That'll get them to change their minds, right? Well, not exactly. Refusing to have discussions with any nation has never accomplished anything. Fortunately, we didn't take that attitude with the USSR throughout the Cold War, since dialogue throughout that period was essential in both our efforts to avoid disaster.

When it comes to nations we don't like such as North Korea, Iran, and Cuba, however, refusing to have a dialog appears to be the strategy of choice. I'm mindful of the words of wisdom imparted by Stephen Hopkins, Rhode Island's signer of the Declaration of Independence, who reputedly said, "I've never heard of an issue that was so dangerous you couldn't talk about it." He had a point. Diplomacy doesn't work without dialog, yet that's the tactic we chose consistently.

The final trend that really concerns me is this effort to impose democracy around the world. Democracy isn't something you can impose on a people. It has to be a philosophy they embrace, and it has to be a natural evolution stemming from the form of government with which they are most familiar. Supporting nations that choose to implement a democracy of their own accord is laudable. Trying to impose it, however, is ludicrous.

Now, the political rhetoric throughout the Cold War certainly was one of promoting democracy. The difference, though, is that during the Cold War we never acted on it. Today, we seem bound and determined to impose democracy whether or not the nations in question actually want it. That policy backfired in the Palestinian territories with the free election of Hamas into a position of power. A democracy in Pakistan would result in a fundamentalist government sympathetic to al Qaeda. A democracy in Iraq, besides being impractical, would likely result in the election of Shiite extremists with close ties to Iran. Are we really sure this is what we want to promote?

So now we return to the question of Cuba. Sanctions didn't work. Political and economic isolation didn't work. Efforts to destabilize Castro's regime didn't work. Perhaps we should try something different. How about actually opening up full trade with Cuba? Has it not occurred to anyone that the influx of US capital in the form of tourist, manufacturing, and agricultural dollars would very quickly topple any communist tendencies remaining on the island? Imagine a Cuba lined with American cruise ships. How long do you think it would take them to adopt a capitalist mentality?

Cuba is not a threat to the US, but they could be an economic gold mine. All it will take is the courage to discard the childish "I'm not talking to you" mentality that has plagued our foreign policy since the Cuban Missile Crisis. It costs us nothing to remove the sanctions against Castro, and we have a lot to gain should we do it. There comes a time when one must abandon failed policies, and this would be a great time to do just that with regards to Cuba. It's also time to learn from those failures and avoid repeating them with Iran. I fear we're heading down the same dead-end path there with much more at stake.

Technorati: politics news Cuba Iran
IceRocket: politics news Cuba Iran

Space Race Part Two

2007-10-24T17:18:00.000-04:00

China launched its first lunar probe today, sending a clear signal that the new Space Race is now underway. The Chinese Chang'e-1 rocket is expected to reach lunar orbit on November 5. China is not the only newcomer in the race to establish a lunar colony, however. Japan placed a probe in lunar orbit several weeks ago, and India has announced plans to launch a lunar probe in April 2008. Ironically, the countries that are falling behind in this new space race are the two original competitors, the US and Russia. (CNN: Chinese rocket blasts off to moon).

The Soviet launch of Sputnik triggered the first space race, seen by the US and USSR as both politically and militarily necessary. Unfortunately, interest in continuing the exploitation of space resources waned following the series of successful US lunar landings in the 1970s. Since then, the US and Russian manned space programs have essentially floundered without purpose or cause with little progress being made in close to 30 years.

All of this is about to change, and once again the target is the moon. Now before anyone dismisses a lunar base as too expensive and scientifically irrelevant, consider both the nations against which we are competing and the real reasons behind that competition. From both an economic and a military standpoint, we cannot afford to have China, India, or Japan - let alone Russia - establish the first successful lunar colonies. It's essential for the US to establish that beachhead while forcing the rest to vie for second place.

First and foremost, there are serious energy considerations that are driving the new race to the moon. The lunar surface is believed to be a major source of Helium-3, an isotope of Helium that has only one neutron instead of two. Helium-3 is rare on earth, but is considered an excellent fuel source for nuclear fusion and is believed to be in abundance on the moon. Better still, it's considered environmentally friendly since the nuclear reaction involving that isotope does not produce any radioactive waste. Controlling the lunar Helium-3 resources puts any nation in the driver's seat when it comes to securing a 21st century energy solution.

Secondly, and equally important, are the military advantages inherent in a lunar base. While there are treaties between the US and Russia pertaining to the non-militarization of space, those treaties do not apply to the current crop of contestants. In fact, it was China that used a land-based missile to destroy an old satellite in orbit last January in a move that sent shock waves through the military communities around the world. Establishing a permanent base on Earth's nearest neighbor is a military necessity.

What is of most concern today is the current lackluster attitude in the US towards returning to the moon. NASA has been on the political defensive for several years thanks to a less-than-impressive safety record in the manned program and a relatively poor batting average with unmanned probes. Current lunar mission plans have us trailing China by at least a decade, and there does not seem to be any desire either within NASA or the US Congress to prioritize manned lunar missions to any great extent.

We're missing the boat, and what's at stake this time is far more critical than anything we faced in 1969. We need to secure a lunar base before any of our economic or military rivals. It's essential for our national security, and it's essential for our economic security. We've just spent the last 70 years overly dependent on foreign powers for our energy needs. Let's not repeat that mistake. Let's ensure that we are in control of the 21st century energy sources, and the way to do that is to ensure our control of the Helium-3 reserves on the lunar surface.

Technorati: politics news China NASA moon
IceRocket: politics news China NASA moon

Obama Too Busy to Vote

2007-10-23T17:19:00.000-04:00

Last month, the US Senate passed a resolution urging the State Department to declare Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. The vote passed the Senate 76-22 as a non-binding amendment to the Defense Authorization Act. (CNN Politics: Obama: Clinton's vote for Iran measure repeats Iraq mistake.)

Since the 2008 Presidential campaign is apparently already in full swing, it seems only natural that the resolution would become political fodder for the throngs of candidates slavering over primary votes. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) drew first blood criticizing Democratic rival Hillary Clinton (D-NY) for voting for the initiative. Obama views the vote as potentially authorizing the use of force against Iran, something the Senate does not intend to signal right now.

Now, I've avoided discussions of the candidates to date, and I intend to continue to avoid such a discussion with thirteen months remaining before the general election. I'm pretty sick of the rhetoric already, and we still have more than a year to go, so we'll leave the discussion of the candidates for another post. Rather, I want to focus on something Senator Obama said on this issue that is really an indictment against the entire campaign process.

According to CNN reports, Senator "Obama said he would have voted against the measure but didn't because he was campaigning in New Hampshire at the time."

Let's think about that for a second. We have a US Senator concerned that a vote on a specific amendment could be used to justify military action against another nation, but that Senator skipped the vote to continue a presidential campaign in New Hampshire for a primary that is still three months away. In the Senator's own words, "This is a problem related to running for president."

Indeed it is. The campaign nonsense has gotten to the point where candidates for president are now spending two years campaigning. If those candidates happen to be US Senators, then they are spending a solid third of their term in office running for a different office. Fortunately, they're not Congressmen who only serve a two year term!

This single vote on this single issue is only the tip of the iceberg. Look at the amount of money spent on each of the campaigns to date. Look at the amount of time already devoted to televised debates for candidates of both parties. Look at the nonsensical jockeying between states to hold the first primaries - a leap frog competition that now has the first caucuses and primaries in January, a full eleven months before the general election.

Our campaign process has spun completely out of control. We have reached the point where only multi-millionaires are capable of running for President and where the final list of candidates is determined not by issues but rather by how much money their campaign has been able to raise. We've reached a saturation point with the electorate whereby the average voter is disgusted with all candidates months, if not a year, before the election is even held.

It's time to leash this beast. It's time to limit the duration of the campaigns, and it's more than time to limit the amount of money that can be spent during the campaign. You see, I recently had a debate with a colleague over whether or not India was the largest Democracy in the world, and the same debate is valid here. My contention is that it takes more than free elections to constitute a Democracy. It also takes opportunity. It takes opportunity for all citizens to be able to participate, and that's what we have lost.

I can remember as a young child my parents telling me the biggest difference between the US and the Evil Red Empire across the sea (the Soviet Union). In the US, they explained, anyone can grow up to be President. That is the opportunity I'm talking about, but it's an opportunity no longer available in the US. Anyone with a multi-million dollar bankroll can be President, but for the average person with more common sense than financially sound genes, well, they haven't a chance.

That's what I think of when I read Senator Obama's comments about missing a vote while campaigning. I think of a campaign process that has overwhelmed our Democratic process. We need to regain control of the campaign season. We need to reestablish the boundaries set by common sense before our politicians make that final leap into the realm of professional campaign artists rather than professional legislators.

Technorati: politics news Obama
IceRocket: politics news Obama

Iraq Concerned Over US Military Presence

2007-10-22T20:14:00.000-04:00

In yet another twist of irony in the soap opera that is Iraq, the Iraqi Parliament is considering a resolution to request UN restrictions on US military action. The resolution comes on the heels of a US raid in Sadr City where Iraq alleges 13 civilians were killed. According to Parliament, the US used too much force when responding to attacks on allied troops despite military claims that 49 insurgents were killed in the clash. (LA Times: Iraqi leaders may ask U.N. to restrict U.S. military.)

The irony is that the Iraqi Parliament only exists because of the presence of US troops in the region. Remove our troops and the first casualty will be the ragtag remnants of the impotent Iraqi government. In the grand scheme of things, the conflict between the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds is well beyond the scope of the existing Iraqi government to handle. Without a strong US presence, that conflict will boil over and the existing Iraqi government will fade into the recesses of history.

A major part of the problem we face in Iraq, and one of the major reasons why my support for the way we are prosecuting this war has waned, is because we are not using the force needed to secure the region. The Iraqi Parliament may think that our force is excessive, but the truth is we're being far too gentle. That, after all, is the advantage the insurgency has in the region, and it's why a conventional force always faces extreme difficulties in attempting to defeat any insurgency. Simply put, the insurgents are willing to do things we are not, and as a result the local population fears them far more than they fear us.

Since the artificial borders were drawn in that region a century ago, what has held the conflicting factions together has been an iron fist. In recent years, that iron fist was Saddam Hussein and his sons. Once that threat was eliminated and it became clear that the US would not brutalize the people in the same fashion, the region devolved into the factional, tribal chaos that we see today.

What it boils down to is that we recognize civilian casualties as something to avoid at all costs. The enemy does not. Until we are willing to adopt that same callous attitude towards civilians in the unstable regions, the insurgents will continue to have the upper hand. Yes, I know that sounds harsh, but establishing a measure of brutality in our policy towards stabilization is what it will take to get the job done. If we're not willing to do that - and I fear we are not - then there is not much point in continuing.

The fallacy of establishing a peaceful, working Democracy in Iraq is just that - a fallacy. There is only one thing that can replace the brutal dictator Iraq had in the person of Saddam Hussein and that is another brutal dictator. Imposing a Democracy there is neither practical nor desirable. Neither is it a valid use of US troops.

So there you have it. Either do what needs to be done, as harsh as that sounds, or back off and allow the factions to fight it out among themselves. We can always deal with whichever groups emerge victorious, but if we're not going to do what we need to do in order to establish control over the region, then there's no point in sitting in the middle of the ring. Focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan, keep an eye on Iran to keep them on their own side of the Iraqi border, but stay out of the civil war that is simmering just beneath the surface in Iraq.

Technorati: politics news Iraq
IceRocket: politics news Iraq

Ali Larijani Resigns Diplomatic Post

2007-10-21T09:08:00.000-04:00

On the surface, the resignation of Ali Larijani, Iran's chief nuclear policy negotiator, may be viewed as the culmination of irreconcilable differences between the moderate diplomat and Iran's hard-line president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In Iran, however, things are rarely what they seem on the surface. (LA Times: Iran's chief nuclear negotiator resigns.)

This is not the first time Larijani has tendered his resignation over frustration's with Ahmadinejad's "no compromise" position. It is, however, the first time Ahmadinejad has accepted his resignation, and that may be the most telling clue of all. Certainly, Iran's official position has not wavered. They intend to pursue a nuclear energy capability, and they continue to assert that their intentions are for peaceful purpose without any desire to produce weapons grade plutonium. Larijani, in his two years of negotiations with the IAEA, Russia, the EU, and the US, has consistently sought a more moderate position. It's that fundamental difference that has frustrated him all along and that has prompted his resignation on several different occasions.

What is significant now is that Ahmadinejad accepted the resignation, removing the one moderate diplomat from the negotiating table. This leaves Iran's hard-line no compromise position as the only one on their side of the offer board. It must beg the question, "why now?". Continued diplomacy, continued negotiations with all parties, was definitely in Iran's favor. The longer Iran could keep the West bottled up at the negotiating table, the longer they would have to develop the nuclear program they truly desired.

Over the course of the past year, Iran has rapidly increased their enrichment capabilities. Cooperation with Russia has likewise increased, almost in direct proportion. The underlying concern with Larijani's resignation is the possible signal that diplomacy is no longer required for Iran to achieve it's goal. It may also signal that Iran has now achieved it, and is capable today of producing weapons grade plutonium.

What Larijani's resignation does is push us that much closer to military action. Once the diplomatic option is no longer being pursued - and it takes a moderate on the Iranian side of the table to keep that option viable - then either Israel or the US will have no choice but to take action. Ahmadinejad certainly knows that, so we must once again question why he chose to make this move now.

If this is a calculated gambit to call our bluff, he may come out ahead in the deal. There's no support in the US right now for military action in Iran, and with the difficulties in Iraq we're not positioned for any long-term action that could result from surgical strikes against the Iranian facilities. As I've discussed in other posts, any strike against Iran must include measures to secure the Straits of Hormuz and to ensure the continued flow of oil. Right now, we'll be hard-pressed to do that without diverting necessary forces away from their missions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

If this is a gambit to call Israel's bluff, however, all bets are off. Coming fast on the heals of Israel's strike against Syria, I would not be too eager to present them with another attractive target. Israel is not at all concerned about the flow of oil to Europe through the Straits of Hormuz and does not share the US concerns about the economic impacts of a strike against Iran. Ahmadinejad may be tugging on Israel's tail at the moment, but that may prove to be a fatal error.

Technorati: politics news Iran
IceRocket: politics news Iran

US Between Kurds and a Hard Place

2007-10-20T08:36:00.000-04:00

Following a series of Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) terrorist style attacks against Turkish troops north of the Iraqi border, Turkey is putting pressure on the US to deal forcefully with the PKK problem. The not-so-veiled threat is clear. If the US does not deal with the PKK, then Turkey will. Indeed, the Turks are under a tremendous amount of internal pressure to respond forcefully, and it is only out of concerns for the political implications with NATO that has caused Turkey to hold back to date. (Reuters: Turkish PM says expects U.S. to act against PKK.)

If anyone other than Turkey does deal with the problem, it will have to be the US. Baghdad has very little influence over the Kurdish controlled territories which have been largely autonomous since the first Gulf War ended over a decade ago. The US, however, is already spread thin dealing with the Sunni and Shiite instability further south and can ill afford to get embroiled in a region that has been relatively stable since the Iraq war began. Indeed, the Kurdish territories have been lauded as a prime example of a successful Democracy in Iraq, so calls for US action against the Kurds leaves Washington in a very awkward position.

The political leverage, unfortunately, is now on the side of Turkey, thanks to the ill conceived House committee resolution calling the 1915 Armenian slayings "genocide". The US is now on the defensive with our closest Middle Eastern ally and may be forced to deal with the Kurdish situation simply as a means to smooth the ruffled feathers in Ankara. These are the consequences of foolhardy meaningless resolutions that have neither weight nor purpose.

Turkey did not rule out joint operations with the Iraqi military to deal with the PKK, however even that measure of cooperation between the current Iraqi government and Ankara would serve to destabilize the north. With increasing calls at home to remove US troops from Iraq, an impending presidential and congressional election in the US that will focus heavily on our strategy in Iraq, and with virtually all US allies announcing troop withdrawals over the coming year, the last thing we can afford is the unification of the Kurds against the current Iraqi government. We simply don't have the resources in the theater to deal with a third outbreak of hostility.

So we truly are between the Kurds and a hard place. Turkey is right in their assertion that the PKK terror activities must be curbed. They are also correct in their belief that only the US can deal with it from the Iraqi side of the border. The timing, however, is miserable, and that fact is not lost on the PKK. The unfortunate reality is that we may well have to allow Turkey to deal with the problem on their own with our blessing. There will likely be little left of the Kurdish population in Iraq and Turkey if that happens, but quite frankly I don't see how the US can afford to be distracted into dealing with a border situation in the north. We've enough problems in the south. The solution, however distasteful, is simple. Give Turkey the IFF codes and let them deal with the problem. Just be prepared for a new resolution coming out of the House.

Technorati: politics news Turkey Iraq Kurds
IceRocket: politics news Turkey Iraq Kurds

Pakistan Nearing the Brink

2007-10-19T18:48:00.000-04:00

Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's return from a self-imposed exile was marred by two bomb blasts in a failed assassination attempt yesterday. Most experts agree that the attacks were likely the handiwork of al Qaeda and Taliban terror groups hoping to thwart Bhutto's entry into the 2008 parliamentary elections. (USA Today: Bhutto blames al-Qaeda, Taliban for 136 deaths.)

The former PM received intelligence reports prior to her arrival in Pakistan that pointed to the likelihood of suicide attacks against her. She also received reports of insiders in President Gen. Pervez Musharraf's government that may be working with the al Qaeda extremists. Bhutto has been attempting to work with Musharraf to build a political alliance in time for the January elections.

Yesterday's attacks point to the precariousness of the political situation in Pakistan. Musharraf has been under siege for some time, politically, and has survived several assassination attempts of his own. Given the strength of al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan, it seems only a matter of time before one of these attempts succeeds. Of yesterday's incident, Bhutto stated that, "It was an attack by a militant minority that does not enjoy the support of the people of Pakistan, that has only triumphed in a military dictatorship."

That may not be a very accurate assessment. Al Qaeda and the Taliban both have a very high degree of support in Pakistan. Al Qaeda maintains numerous bases and training camps in the region, and Osama bin Laden is viewed as a local hero. It is Musharraf's government that does not enjoy the full support of the people of Pakistan, and that is what has pushed Pakistan to the brink.

The greatest danger we face in Pakistan is the replacement of Musharraf's regime with a fundamentalist Islamic extremist government. That is the goal of both al Qaeda and the Taliban, and unfortunately they may be only a suicide attack away from succeeding. An extremist government in Pakistan means a nuclear armed Taliban both in Pakistan and in Afghanistan. It also means a nuclear armed al Qaeda capable of dealing more damage in the west than has ever been conceived. That is what is at stake in Pakistan.

While we spend out time blustering against Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and Afghanistan; while we spend our time verbally sparring with Vladimir Putin, the real powder keg is Pakistan. We were asleep at the wheel when Pakistan developed nuclear weapons capabilities, however we cannot afford to doze off again while these critical events play out in the struggle for control of the Pakistani military and government. What happens over the next few months in Pakistan will likely effect the free world for years to come. Let's be sure we keep our eye on the ball this time around.

Technorati: politics news Pakistan Bhutto Musharraf
IceRocket: politics news Pakistan Bhutto Musharraf

India Likely to Scuttle Nuke Deal

2007-10-16T05:57:00.000-04:00

Every cloud does indeed have a silver lining. While the quiet announcement that India is close to rejecting a nuclear trade deal with the US is a major source of disappointment for the Bush Administration, rejection of the deal is most certainly in the long-term best interests of the US. The nuclear pact would have established a framework resulting in the trade of nuclear reactors, technology, and fuel between the US and India, ultimately establishing the US as the primary supplier of nuclear fuel to that region. (Washington Post: Nuclear Deal With India May Be Near Collapse.)

Political forces in India have grown to the point where such a deal with the US is all but dead. There is a very large anti-west sentiment in large sections of the country, and this nuclear deal appeared to many to be pushing India too close to the US. In some northern India states which I visited recently, there is even an "anti-English" movement growing in strength, establishing a link between the English language and colonialism, something that is still a sore point in India some 60 years after the British left. There was little chance, really, that given the anti-American sentiment in India this deal could garner enough support throughout the nation.

The nuclear deal was ill conceived from the beginning. Many here in the states are concerned that the deal would violate the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty since cooperation on nuclear energy requires a pledge not to develop nuclear weapons. India (along with their rival, Pakistan) is already a member of the nuclear club. The deal also greatly hindered our ability to enforce other nuclear non-proliferation issues through the IAEA and UN Security councils, namely in our diplomatic efforts with Iran and North Korea.

Once one looks under the covers, it becomes obvious that the deal was intended to be a political wedge. India is seen as a useful tool in keeping Pakistan at bay, and increased US-India cooperation is a prelude to the use of Indian bases and airspace once it becomes necessary to deal with the Pakistani problem. Providing nuclear reactors and infrastructure to a nation that experiences several power blackouts daily seems, on the surface at least, a logical choice. It would appear that India was not quite willing to accept the fine print, however.

The problem with the deal, though, is that India is not the US ally that one might think. While they are eagerly accepting US technology jobs, especially in the south, there is a tremendous amount of anti-American sentiment among the people, and even among many of the local regional governments, some of which are communist. India's long history of exploitation at the hands of the west have left them unwilling to become another pawn in the world-wide military theater, and some in the Indian government have rightly seen this nuclear deal for what it truly is.

The deal itself is problematic for the credibility of the US as well. On the one hand, we are condemning Iran and Russia for their cooperation on a very similar deal, right up to the point of imposing economic sanctions and covertly threatening military action in Iran. Then, when it becomes politically convenient, we offer a very similar deal to India, a nation that pursued, developed, and tested nuclear weapons capabilities thus pushing the Indian sub-continent to the brink of war. Something just doesn't add up in that mix.

So it appears India will do what the US Congress should have done in the first place. They will scuttle the deal. They'll do it for the wrong reasons, since ultimately, strong economic ties with the US are in their best interests, but I'm not complaining. I'd rather they make the right decision for the wrong reasons as opposed to plowing ahead with this ill conceived but politically motivated nuclear deal.

Technorati: politics news India nuclear
IceRocket: politics news India nuclear

Politically Motivated House Cripples Turkish Relations

2007-10-15T05:58:00.000-04:00

A US House of Representatives resolution that passed committee last week declaring the 1915 killing of 1.5 million Armenians to be "genocide" is perhaps the most irresponsible move the US Congress has made in years. Given the current state of the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq coupled with unrest along the Turkey-Iraq border, this politically motivated resolution could unravel over a half-century of cooperation between Turkey and the West. (LA Times: Turkish general warns against genocide bill.)

Turkey is naturally outraged over the resolution which Speaker Nancy Pelosi vows will make it to the House floor. Turkey's top General, Yasar Buyukanit said, "If this resolution passed in the committee passes the House as well, our military ties with the U.S. will never be the same again."

Since Turkey is the US and NATO's gateway into the Middle East, that is not an idle threat. 70% of US Air Cargo headed for the Middle East passes through Turkey. One third of the fuel used by the US military in Iraq also passes through Turkey. US bases in Iraq get virtually all of their water and supplies from Turkey, carried into northern Iraq by Turkish truckers. The US military base in Turkey is used to fly C-17 cargo planes into Iraq, thus eliminating the potential for additional casualties by avoiding roads plagued with explosives. That is what Pelosi and company have put at risk with this ill conceived resolution.

So why issue the resolution now? What the Democrats are attempting to do is force the President to change strategies in Iraq, and they are using a NATO ally in the worst way to accomplish it. The loss of Turkey's cooperation in Iraq is precisely what the Democrats hope to achieve since it will severely cripple our ability to prosecute the war. The fact that the damage done to our relationship with a long-standing critical NATO ally will far exceed the time our troops spend in Iraq does not seem to concern them, however.

How convenient for the Democrats, should this ploy actually succeed. They will have crippled US military capabilities in the Middle East for years to come and will likely force the redeployment of US forces throughout Iraq so as to compensate for the lack of supply routes through Turkey. In their minds, they will have shortened the time our troops will be there without getting their hands dirty by overtly cutting off funds as Congress did with Vietnam. How convenient indeed. The reality, though, is this irresponsible Congress has put more American lives at risk and has upset the balance of NATO through their ill conceived resolution.

The resolution, once it comes to the floor, must not pass. Should the left-dominated Congress actually succeed in passing it, escalation of a war between Turkey and the Kurds in northern Iraq becomes all but certain. US casualties will increase in Iraq since our supply routes must now come overland, presumably from Kuwait. Our ability to contain Iran and Syria will likewise be diminished, as will our ability to prosecute the war in Iraq to its fullest. Our relations with Turkey - a key NATO ally - will be forever crippled.

This action on the part of the House is inexcusable, and must certainly be defeated.

Technorati: politics news Turkey Congress genocide
IceRocket: politics news Turkey Congress Genocide

Israeli Strike on Syria Sends Message

2007-10-14T17:23:00.000-04:00

The Israeli Air Force conducted a raid in Syrian air space last month, apparently targeting a complex believed to be a partially constructed nuclear facility. Shared intelligence between the US and Israel confirmed the existence of the facility, based on a North Korean design and fueling speculation of increased cooperation between Syria and North Korea. For their part, Syria would only confirm the destruction of a facility owned by the military but "currently unoccupied." (Jerusalem Post: Syria raid targeted unfinished reactor.)

According to the latest reports, the US was not in full agreement over the timing of the strike since the reactor was years away from being operational. One Israeli official, however, was quoted as saying the strike was intended to "reestablish the credibility of our deterrent power." Indeed, given the lack of threat posed by the facility in its current state, there can be little doubt that the strike was intended to send a message.

Israel has never permitted another Middle Eastern nation to achieve nuclear capabilities, and it continues to be their policy to act presumptively should any nation attempt to deploy a nuclear technology. The strike in Syria marks the second time Israel has destroyed a nuclear facility, the first being in Iraq in 1981 shortly before the Iraqi facility became operational. The timing of this strike is most curious, however, and should cause us to consider carefully the message Israel is attempting to send.

Syria is not the only country in the Middle East attempting to achieve nuclear capability. Iran, with Russian cooperation, is actively pursuing such a technology, despite opposition by the US, France, and the IAEA. The rare cooperation between France and the US will likely result in additional UN sanctions against Iran, but the signal from Israel is that time is running out for diplomacy. The message Israel sent was clearly intended for the West. Should Iran come close to deploying the technology to refine a weapons grade plutonium, Israel will eliminate the Iranian facilities.

This is not a message to ignore since a diplomatic solution is highly unlikely. A military strike against Iran could have world-wide economic implications. Through their control of the Straits of Hormuz, Iran can effectively halt the flow of oil to the West, something that would have severe consequences in Europe. Any action on the part of Israel must be taken in conjunction with the US and our allies since it will take US air and sea power to maintain the shipping lanes and prevent an oil embargo similar to the one that crippled the US economy in the 1970s. Israel cannot do this alone without causing a major energy crisis.

Unfortunately, it will ultimately be necessary to take military action in Iran. Since Iran has the support of Russia and China, a diplomatic solution cannot succeed. Neither is there sufficient time to impose economic sanctions against Iran since their facilities would be operational before the sanctions could have any meaningful effect. Remember, severe sanctions were imposed against Iraq for 12-years to no avail. Iran may have full nuclear capabilities within a year.

So military action in Iran will happen. The question is whether the US will do what we need to do despite the unpopularity of the decision. Will we lend the air and sea support that will be required or will we force Israel to go it alone? If we choose the latter, be prepared for another 1970s style energy crisis. There truly is only one right course of action in this case. Let's hope we have the wisdom to do what needs to be done.

Technorati: politics news Israel Syria Iran
IceRocket: politics news Israel Syria Iran

'05 Raid on al Qaeda Nixed by Rumsfeld

2007-07-08T09:32:00.000-04:00

The New York Times ran a report on Saturday about a planned secret raid in 2005 on al Qaeda leaders at a high level meeting in Pakistan. The raid was intended to capture or kill the most senior level officers in al Qaeda including Ayman al-Zawahri, the number two man in the terrorist organization and the leader of daily operations. According to just released reports, then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld aborted the mission at the last minute over concerns about US and Pakistani relations. (CNN: '05 mission to get al Qaeda in Pakistan aborted, Times says.)

When Rumsfeld cancelled the mission, US SEAL teams were already aboard C-130s in Afghanistan in full mission gear. The intelligence community strenuously objected to the cancellation, however Rumsfeld refused to budge. In his view, the raid needed the approval of Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf, and he did not believe that would be granted due to the size of the SEAL force being inserted.

When you look back at Rumsfeld's tenure as Defense Secretary, it's very hard to overlook the number of missed opportunities that were the direct result of his decisions or intervention. Here in 2005 we had the opportunity to cripple the top leadership of al Qaeda yet passed on the opportunity so as not to anger an unstable, tenuous ally that is a major support of terrorism and of al Qaeda itself. Earlier, with Osama bin Laden virtually imprisoned in Tora Bora, decisions were made to use Northern Alliance mercenaries to capture the terrorist criminal rather than use US troops. We all know the results. Bin Laden was allowed to escape and remains on the loose today (assuming he is still alive.)

Once again, there is a lesson to be learned from history. On April 30, 1970, President Richard Nixon appeared on national television to announce the introduction of ground troops into Cambodia. The decision was extremely unpopular and resulted in numerous campus protests and riots, including the infamous riots at Kent State University in Ohio. The objective, though, was the elimination of Viet Cong strongholds in the allegedly neutral Cambodia. The Viet Cong and elements of the NVA were using Cambodia's neutrality to secure safe havens and to conduct raids on US forces operating in South Vietnam.

While the short term affects of the Cambodia Incursion were detrimental to the President, and also served to lower US esteem around the world, the long term affects were quite dramatic. The US successfully drove the NVA and Viet Cong out of Cambodia and crippled their ability to continue their terrorist tactics against US positions elsewhere. It was the Cambodia Incursion that set the stage for US withdrawal from Vietnam. Without the introduction of ground troops into Cambodia, the US would have been embroiled there well beyond the end of Nixon's term. The President took the necessary - though extremely unpopular - steps needed to cripple the enemy and setup our eventual withdrawal from the region.

The similarities with Pakistan are remarkable. Pakistan is - on paper, at least - a US ally. Despite that alleged alliance, they are a major training ground for al Qaeda, they run schools with an extreme anti-American and anti-Jewish curriculum, teaching the benefits and rewards of martyrdom, and they provide safe havens for those terrorist groups that are fighting US forces across the border in Afghanistan. The US should be no more concerned about US-Pakistani relations today than Nixon was about US-Cambodian relations in 1970. The enemy is basing itself in Pakistan, and that makes those bases a legitimate military target with or without Musharraf's permission.

If the US ever hopes to extricate itself from both Iraq and Afghanistan, then we must eliminate those terrorist strongholds that provide support, funding, and munitions to the terrorists we are fighting in both theaters. That means eliminating Pakistan's blatant support for al Qaeda. It means doing something that will be extremely unpopular and will be perceived as an escalation of the war, much as the Cambodian Incursion was viewed in 1970. It means we must pursue the enemy into Pakistan, regardless of how unpopular that decision is at home and abroad.

Remember, it only takes one side to prosecute a war. Our enemies have no intention of pulling back. Our enemies are not interested in a truce. We will not have peace until we have eliminated these terror groups, and that means eliminating their bases, training camps, and schools in Pakistan.

Technorati: politics news Pakistan Rumsfeld al Qaeda Nixon Vietnam Cambodia
IceRocket: politics news Pakistan Rumsfeld al Qaeda Nixon Vietnam Cambodia

Bush Praises UK Terror Response

2007-07-06T10:09:00.000-04:00

President Bush praised the UK's strong response to the recent failed car bomb attempts saying, "It just goes to show the war on these extremists goes on. You never know where they might strike." In addition to the UK's security measures, the US response is an increased level of security over the holiday period, specifically in airports and other transportation hubs. (CNN: Bush appreciates 'strong' British response; U.S. adds air marshals.)

The UK government response is not the portion that should impress the President or the people. There's a great deal we can learn from the British citizens' response to terror, however. Despite the failed attempts in London and Glasgow, a major concert at Wembley Stadium hosted by Princes Harry and William that would have been a prime target went on as scheduled. I've little doubt that we would have cancelled that concert had it been scheduled here.

We seem to have forgotten that terror attacks are nothing new to the people in the UK. Long before any of us had ever heard of al Qaeda, the British were enduring terror bombings by the IRA, also targeting crowded areas populated by innocent civilians. Even that, however, pales in comparison to what the British endured on a nightly basis throughout the Second World War. Night after night, the British endured the bombings of civilian populations with London being the centerpiece of Nazi attacks.

What continues to impress was the British response in the wake of every terror attack from the Blitz right through to the present day. The response was, and continues to be, to go about their daily business as usual. The attacks do not cause the nation to shut down for a week. They don't cause the British people to alter their plans, avoid stadiums, avoid shopping malls, or avoid subway stations. They thumbed their noses at Hitler during World War II, they thumbed their noses at the IRA in the '70s and '80s, and they continue to thumb their noses at al Qaeda. They learned long ago the lesson that we need to learn. The only way for the terrorists to succeed is if they can get us to alter our lifestyle. Great Britain refused to do that in the Second World War, and they refuse to do it today. That is the response that President Bush should praise.

The worst thing we can do in the face of terror attacks is change our lifestyle. Terrorist tactics are used by groups that are fighting a far superior force. To succeed, those tactics depend on the gradual weakening of the public's resolve. They depend on public pressure to accede to the terrorist group's demands in the hopes that the attacks will subside. Without that public response, the terror attacks are ineffective. The best way for the average citizen to fight a war against any group that uses terror as a tactic is for the average citizen to go about business as usual. Don't alter plans because of terror threats. Don't cancel your flights, your travel plans, your vacations, out of fear of potential attacks. Take a lesson from the people of London. The best response the average citizen can have in the face of a terror threat is defiance. There are lessons to be learned from history if we would only choose to listen.

Technorati: politics news Bush UK
IceRocket: politics news Bush UK

Clinton Tossing Stones in Libby Case

2007-07-05T08:27:00.000-04:00

In what has to be one of the better ironies of 2007, former President Bill Clinton is taking issue with President Bush's decision to commute Scooter Libby's jail sentence. While blasting the President, Clinton said, "You've got to understand, this is consistent with their philosophy." According to the ex-Pres, the current administration "believe[s] that they should be able to do what they want to do, and that the law is a minor obstacle." (CNN: Bill Clinton blasts commutation of Libby's prison sentence.)

Wait a moment. What's that saying about people living in glass houses? Well, for the record, I do not approve of the decision to commute Libby's sentence. I don't support what, in my view, was an abuse of power for political gain, and that is how I perceive the entire Plame affair. Granted, Libby was just the fall-guy for it, and there should have been far more heads on the platter than his. There is little doubt in my mind, however, that the commutation of his sentence was nothing more than a pat on the back for taking one for the team.

What is laughable, however, is Clinton's political posturing on this issue while campaigning with his wife. Are you sure you want to drag the issue of presidential pardons into the campaign, Bill? As I recall, the last days of the Clinton Administration saw more pardons than we have seen from any other administration, unless you count the draft criminals - I mean, dodgers - that received Ford's amnesty a couple of decades earlier. In fact, right up there on the hypocrisy meter is Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich (ironically defended by Libby from 1985-2000), the financier who's ex-wife raised considerable contributions for the Clinton Presidential Library. A political pardon for someone that provided a political service? Shocking, isn't it?

Far be it from Clinton to confuse facts with political fodder, however. In the Libby case, the ex-Pres went on to say, "It's wrong to out that CIA agent, and wrong to try to cover it up -- and wrong that no one was ever fired from the White House for doing it." Okay, Bill, I'll give you that one. You're right, the whole situation was an abuse of power at best, although the illegality of the "outing" was called into question and never really proven. (It's almost like the definition of the word "is", but we won't discuss that one again.) The problem is, Libby was never accused of outing the CIA agent. In another twist of irony, Libby was accused of the very same thing that managed to get Clinton impeached - perjury! The only difference between the two is that Libby managed to get himself convicted.

Now, I can't say I'm surprised to see the ex-Pres twist the Libby affair to his wife's political advantage. That, after all, is what politicians do best, and Clinton always excelled at the political game. What does sadden me, though, is the fact that most people have already forgotten about the Clinton pardon extravaganza. Very few people know why Libby was convicted or even what charges he faced. Fewer still know - or ever even understood - what Bill himself was charged with during the impeachment proceedings or why those charges came about in the first place.

Perhaps that's the biggest problem we face as a nation. Politicians and their handlers are masters of spin. Clinton, Bush, Mcauliffe, Rove, well, they're all cut from the same political cloth. They are the consummate illusionists, experts in misdirection, playing to a worldwide audience in a never-ending carnival. What makes them most successful, however, is the willingness of We the People to be deceived. We place these charlatans in office, then sit back for the next four years enjoying the grand charade, but we seem to forget that it's our responsibility to see beyond the illusions, to constantly look behind the curtain. Politicians on either side of the aisle cannot be left to their own devices. They depend on the gullibility of the general public in much the same way as the carnival ring master, and just like the audience that attends the carnival, we willingly oblige. For our system of government to work, We the People must stay involved. It is our responsibility to keep our politicians in check, and on that score, our approval rating must be lower than that of either congress or the current administration. We may accuse them of not doing their jobs well, but I'm sad to report that we are not doing our jobs at all.

Technorati: politics news Clinton Bush Libby Plame
IceRocket: politics news Clinton Bush Libby Plame

Muslim Doctors Involved in UK Terror

2007-07-04T17:57:00.000-04:00

There are now 8 suspected terrorists in custody in connection with last week's bumbled terror attempts in London and Glasgow. Of the eight, seven are doctors or medical students and the other is a lab technician. Several were recruited by al Qaeda while they were in the Middle East. The number of medical professionals involved in terror attacks may come as a surprise to most Americans, however history has shown that it's much more common than one might think. In fact, doctors have often gravitated to the top of terror cells, presumably because their level of education raises them into a leadership role. (CNN: Militant: 'Those who cure you will kill you'.)

What is hard to fathom is why we continue to allow the enemy to enter our country and continue to allow them to attain high level jobs here. The same issue is true in the UK. It's blatantly obvious that the terrorist problem stems from the Middle East. We are at war with Radical Islam. Why, then, do we continue to allow people to enter this country from the Middle East? Would we have allowed people from Germany or Japan to come here during World War II and take high level jobs? Not likely, since our first course of action was to inter Japanese citizens for the duration of the war.

Today, however, we're too concerned about not offending the Muslims. We're too concerned that whatever we do would be considered "profiling". We're too concerned that it would not be politically correct to close our borders to anyone travelling here from nations that are involved with these terror cells. I don't buy it. We are at war, and likely will be for years to come. I'm not worried about offending people that think nothing of blowing themselves up in a crowd of innocent civilians. I'm not worried about who may be offended by profiling, and I've never really cared about political correctness. What I do care about is fighting this war that has been brought to our shores. So far, I've seen no indication that we're serious about it.

So here's the bottom line. Close the borders to anyone travelling from the Middle East. Close the borders to anyone of Middle Eastern descent. Immediately revoke travel visas or green cards to anyone that is already here that meets those same criteria. Implement meaningful profiling measures that identify people attempting to enter this country that match the profiles of those that commit acts of terror. By all means, let's get serious about fighting this war. In case we haven't noticed, our enemy certainly is.

Technorati: politics news terror
IceRocket: politics news terror

Pentagon's Loss is a Credibility Win

2007-07-03T10:20:00.000-04:00

A military judge refused to grant the Pentagon's request to reinstate charges against Omar Khadr, detained for killing a US soldier in Afghanistan in 2001. The charges against him were originally dropped when Judge Army Col. Peter Brownback ruled that Khadr was not classified as an unlawful enemy combatant and therefore the military courts had no jurisdiction over him. (CNN: Judge affirms ruling to dismiss Gitmo charges.)

The Pentagon will likely appeal the ruling within five days to the Court of Military Commissions Review, however given Khadr's status, it is unlikely that such an appeal will succeed. A Pentagon spokesman stated, "We are disappointed with the judge's decision in this matter." I'm sure they are disappointed, however the ruling speaks volumes for the credibility of the military judicial process.

One of the biggest concerns one has with regards to military tribunals in times of war has to do with the impartiality of the court. For the process to work, and for the Fourth Geneva Convention to have any meaning at all, the military tribunal and subsequent military courts must have credibility. For a military court to dismiss charges against an enemy combatant (as classified by a tribunal) on the grounds that his classification was insufficient to grant the court jurisdiction clearly demonstrates that there is credibility in the system. This is not a kangaroo court where the verdict is a foregone conclusion.

For good or ill, the eyes of the world are on the proceedings at Guantanamo. As with any court proceeding, the process itself as well as the outcome must be able to withstand public scrutiny. Dropping charges against Khadr goes a long way towards demonstrating the fairness of the process and establishing the credibility of the court. The Pentagon clearly lost this one, however the military's credibility and the credibility of the military tribunal process won a resounding victory.

Technorati: politics news Khadr Pentagon
IceRocket: politics news Khadr Pentagon

Congress Debates Detainee Rights

2007-06-27T11:00:00.001-04:00

Congress has resumed debate over the rights of detained suspected terrorists to petition US courts as to their legal status. Not surprisingly, the debate is split down partisan lines with Democrats calling the President "a Tyrant" and accusing him of assuming dictatorial powers, and Republicans referring to the detainees automatically as "unlawful combatants" and terrorists that are prepared to "cut off someone's head with a hacksaw." (Washington Post: Congress Goes Ahead on Detainees' Rights.)

Unfortunately, what is being lost in this entire debate is the actual legal status of these detainees under the Geneva Conventions (and specifically the Fourth Geneva Convention) as ratified by the US Senate. The whole debate comes down to whether or not they are prisoners of war or unlawful combatants. If the former, then they are afforded all the rights of prisoners as laid out by the four Geneva Conventions that we ratified. If the latter, however, then they have no such protections under any law.

So, are they or aren't they? Well, they certainly do not qualify as POWs given most of the requirements set forth in the Geneva Convention. They are not members of the armed forces. While they are certainly members of a resistance movement, they do not meet the qualifications for protection in that they do not "have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance" and do not "conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war." They are not persons who accompany the armed forces in a support role. They are not members of the crews of aircraft or ships assigned to the armed forces.

But here's where it starts to get sticky. So far, everything has been cut and dry. There are, however, several provisions that cloud the issue. Does this one apply?

Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

That may well apply to a number of the native Iraqi insurgents, depending on how you interpret the clause "respect the laws and customs of war." The foreign insurgents that make up the bulk of al Qaida in Iraq do not meet this qualification, but there is the possibility that Iraqi citizens do.

But then there's this provision, which really muddies the waters:

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country...

Under that clause, anyone that is currently detained and at one time served in the armed forces of Iraq or Afghanistan is by definition a Prisoner of War. That standard may well apply to the majority of detainees currently in US custody. This doesn't need Congressional debate since it was already ratified by the Senate when the treaty was signed.

As to the status of these detainees now, the Fourth Geneva Convention makes that quite clear:

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

In no uncertain terms, the Convention states that everyone detained is assumed to be under the protection of the Geneva Convention until their actual status can be reviewed by a competent tribunal. So really, all that is left for Congress to debate is what constitutes a competent tribunal. Everything else is already a matter of law.

For the record, the position we should be taking is to afford the detainees all the protections we would want to see US citizens receive should the roles be reversed. If these detainees qualify as POWs then they should be treated as such. If they do not (as determined by a competent tribunal), then they are at least entitled to humane treatment for the duration of the war. What we do not need, however, is partisan politics deciding either the fate of the detainees or the manner in which we will conduct ourselves in the prosecution of the insurgents and terrorists with whom we are currently at war.

We signed and the Senate ratified four treaties pertaining to the rules of war and the proper handling of those detained. Quit the partisan nonsense and uphold the treaties that we have ratified.

Technorati: politics news Geneva Convention POW unlawful combatant detainee
IceRocket: politics news Geneva Convention POW unlawful combatant detainee

Free Speech? Depends On Who's Talking

2007-06-26T08:37:00.000-04:00

The Supreme Court continued to chip away at rights guaranteed in the Constitution by ruling 5-4 against Joseph Frederick and his "Bong Hits for Jesus" banner. The high court had previously ruled that students in public schools do not have the same rights as adults, something I challenge anyone to find in the constitution, and yesterday's court ruling takes that sentiment a step further. (Washington Post: Court Limits Student Free-Speech Rights.)

The issue with the "Bong Hits" banner, which I admittedly do find offensive, has to do with its apparent promotion of illegal drug use. What the court ruling effectively does, however, is stifle free speech if that speech is being used to seemingly support what is currently an illegal activity. So while I do personally find the banner in question offensive, I find myself even more offended and downright outraged by the court's decision that further tramples on the first amendment. The ability to speak out against current laws, policies, and politics is at the very heart of the first amendment, however that is precisely the type of speech this court would have silenced.

The arguments for women's suffrage would have been stifled under this logic. So would abolitionist arguments since the Constitution made it illegal not to return slaves to their owners. Arguing against prohibition during the 1930s would have been stifled since that would have been perceived as promoting an illegal activity. The ramifications of this type of mindless erosion of our constitutional rights go far beyond the ability of a single student to display a banner that may or may not promote drug use.

According to Justices Alito and Kennedy in writing for the majority opinion, the court's decision pertains strictly to illegal drug use and provides no support for any restriction that goes to political or social issues. How, I wonder, does one separate a discussion on drug laws from political and social issues? Are they not one and the same?

Perhaps we need to be reminded of what the first amendment states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The phrase "or abridging the freedom of speech" does not have any qualifiers. It makes no distinction between the legality of certain actions, political speech, religious speech, social speech, or talking about the weather. The point of the first amendment is simple. The government is not empowered to determine what We the People can state publicly. While the point of Mr. Frederick's banner is not entirely clear, his constitutional right to display that banner is clear.

Several years ago, I mailed each of the nine Supreme Court justices a copy of the US Constitution based on my belief that they had never read the document. Now that we have had a significant turnover in the makeup of the Court, it may be time to do so again. I'm convinced that this crop of justices has never seen nor read the Constitution either.

Technorati: politics news Supreme Court first amendment Frederick Joseph Frederick bong hits for Jesus
IceRocket: politics news Supreme Court first amendment Frederick Joseph Frederick bong hits for Jesus

Blair Hands Reins to Brown

2007-06-25T08:33:00.000-04:00

America's closest ally came under new leadership Sunday as outgoing Prime Minister Tony Blair handed over the reigns to Gordon Brown. For his part, Brown has pledged to maintain close ties with the US, saying that it is in Britain's best interests to maintain a close relationship with the American president. Indeed, it is in the best interests of both nations to maintain a close and open relationship. (Washington Post: Britain's Next Leader Pledges to Battle for 'Hearts and Minds'.)

Prime Minister Brown addressed the issue that dogged Mr. Blair's tenure, stating that he agreed with the decision to go to war in Iraq, however intends to learn the lessons taught by our efforts there. Under Brown, the British foreign policy will be to "reflect the truth that to isolate and defeat terrorist extremism now involves more than military force. It is also a struggle of ideas and ideals that in the coming years will be waged and won for hearts and minds here at home and round the world."

Fortunately for all, the new Prime Minister recognizes that we are in a very real war with radical elements that use terror tactics as a means to impose their will around the world. Mr. Brown is correct in asserting that this war goes far beyond a military conflict. Rather, it is also a war of public opinion and public support in nations that have traditionally been hostile to western ideas and western cultures. The military aspect is easy. There is not a conventional army in the world that could withstand the combined military might of the US and Great Britain. Unfortunately, as we are seeing in Iraq, we are not fighting a conventional army. We are fighting an underground insurgency that defies conventional military tactics. The only way to win this type of war is by first winning the hearts of the local populace - something at which we have not proven overly adept in recent years.

Prime Minister Brown has a rather delicate balancing act ahead of him. He is taking over from a Prime Minister that was often criticised for his unwavering support of US policy and was viewed by many as a Bush puppet. Making matters more difficult for Tony Blair, it was often perceived that US support for British policy was less forthcoming as evidenced by our refusal to embrace treaties on climate change or the world court. The Iraq issue was exceptionally volatile in the UK since the decision to commit British troops was announced by the Prime Minister after a visit to Washington and prior to any debate in Parliament.

It will be interesting to watch how the new Prime Minister maintains a close working relationship with the US while addressing the perception issues that plagued his predecessor. For our part, it is hopefully obvious to the world that the US values the close relationship we have with the UK. We view Great Britain as a close and trusted friend and hope to see that relationship continue under the new leadership of Prime Minister Brown.

Technorati: politics news UK Great Britain Blair Brown Prime Minister
IceRocket: politics news UK Great Britain Blair Brown Prime Minister

Warrantless Taps Revisited

2007-06-24T09:21:00.000-04:00

US District Court judge Royce C. Lamberth, former head of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), renewed the controversial topic of warrantless wire taps in a speech before the American Library Association's annual convention. Said Lamberth, "We have to understand you can fight the war and lose everything if you have no civil liberties left when you get through fighting the war." (Washington Post: Ex-Surveillance Judge Criticizes Warrantless Taps.)

The FISC was created in the aftermath of September 11th, and was intended to provide swift judicial assistance in issuing warrants to wiretap conversations between suspected terrorists and people inside the US. On the surface, FISC sounds like it meets all the legal requirements for issuing a valid warrant, except for one minor detail. The court meets in secret.

Having approved over 99% of the requests submitted by the FBI and NSA, FISC is little more than a rubber stamp for the executive branch. By meeting in secret, the court bypasses the oversight of the most important branch of government in the nation: We The People. There is a reason judicial proceedings are intended to be public. Open proceedings must withstand the scrutiny of the people, and are intended to ensure that the accused is dealt with in a fair and open fashion. Any secret dealings of a court smacks of despotism, blurring the lines between the executive branch and the judicial branch and all but eliminating the checks and balances between the two.

It is not coincidental that the Justice Department and the Judicial Branch of government are separated. They provide a check and balance against each other. Those who represent the government - the prosecutors - do not serve in the branch of government that was created to provide fair and impartial justice. For our system of government to work, those separate and often conflicting entities must remain separate. For any court to meet in secret undermines that separation and undermines the impartiality of the court itself.

The Executive Branch by necessity must place suspected terrorists under surveillance, but it must do so with the approval of the Judicial Branch and the process by which that approval is granted must withstand the rigors of public scrutiny. Said Lamberth, "What we have found in the history of our country is that you can't trust the executive. The executive has to fight and win the war at all costs. But judges understand the war has to be fought, but it can't be at all costs."

That statement is not an indictment on the current administration. Rather, it is an acknowledgment that absolute power cannot be granted to any individual. It is an understanding that the executive branch of government is on a continuous quest to obtain and solidify additional authority. That is true regardless of which political party currently calls the White House home. It has always fallen to the Judicial Branch to rein in attempts to circumvent the Constitution, to rein in attempts to garner powers not granted it under the Constitution, and to maintain that careful balance of authority shared by our three co-equal branches of government.

In the case of warrantless wiretaps, the ends do not and can not justify the means. Liberties once lost are never regained. While it is easily to justify in our own minds the tapping of suspected terrorists, it is imperative that We The People remember that it is our civil liberties, not just those of the terrorists, that are threatened by this action. To surrender our liberties in this fashion is the greatest victory these terrorists could ever hope to achieve. It falls to all of us to ensure that they are not victorious. It is our responsibility to ensure that our civil liberties are not compromised.

Technorati: politics news wire tap FISC Lamberth
IceRocket: politics news wire tap FISC Lamberth

A Question of Checks and Balances

2007-06-22T21:18:00.000-04:00

An oversight agency created in an executive order by President Clinton and subsequently modified by President Bush has complained of a lack of cooperation from Vice President Dick Cheney's office. According to William Leonard, director of The National Archives' Information Security Oversight Office, the Vice President has argued that his office does not meet the definition of an executive branch agency and is therefore exempt from oversight. Furthermore, Leonard claims that the Vice President has recommended the dissolution of the agency under an executive order modification. (CNN: Congressman: Cheney challenges classified oversight.)

The Vice President's claim is tenuous at best, and appears to be based on the following clause in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which reads, "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States." The original text, and the original view of the framers of the Constitution, did indeed envision a single chief executive. Since then, however, amendments to the Constitution have joined the office of the Vice President and office of the President, given specific executive powers to the Vice President during periods of presidential incapacitation. To argue that the office of the Vice President is not an executive branch agency is no longer a viable argument thanks to both the 20th and 25th amendments of the Constitution.

The framers of the Constitution envisioned three co-equal branches of government. Specific duties were assigned to each, but when you look at the specific powers granted to each branch, it is clear that the founding fathers were placing their faith in the Congress, and specifically in the Senate. It is to the Senate that the power of advice and consent has been granted, and it is clear that the framers of the Constitution intended the Senate to provide oversight with regards to the office of the President. While the executive branch was given veto authority over Congress, it is Congress that has the final word with the ability to override a veto. The founding fathers were very careful not to create an executive branch that had too much authority, or that had the ability to override acts of Congress.

What the founders envisioned was a system of checks and balances that would prevent any one branch of government from assuming absolute power. For any branch of government to assume that they are exempt from oversight authority is simply unconstitutional. Oversight of the executive branch by the legislative is at the very heart of our system of government. What is troubling is that the Supreme Court has not upheld this system of checks and balances. In 2001, a challenge issued by the Vice President in his refusal to adhere to congressional requests for lists of energy executives was upheld by the courts. The Supreme Court refused to overturn that decision, thus granting undue authority to the executive branch.

It all comes down to a question of checks and balances. The bottom line is that no one branch of government is supreme. In all cases, two branches of government are required to take action. In the case of the executive branch, oversight on the part of Congress is essential. No agency or office is exempt from that oversight. There can be no exemption from the system of checks and balances that comprise the foundation of our government.

Technorati: politics news Cheney oversight
IceRocket: politics news Cheney oversight

ACLU Hypocrisy in Dearborn

2007-06-21T12:40:00.000-04:00

The University of Michigan - Dearborn plans to install two Muslim Footbaths so Muslim students can complete required ritual washing before their prayers. The cost of the footbaths will be $25,000 and will come out of the state-run university's coffers thanks to an ACLU decision not to oppose the plan. (The Detroit News: Muslims won't fund footbaths.)

According to the ACLU, the installation plan at state expense is a "reasonable accommodation" because Muslim's are currently washing their feet in sinks and thereby spilling the water on the floor. What the ACLU calls "reasonable accommodation" I call "hypocrisy". State funds are being used to install a religious item at a state university. How does that not constitute state sponsorship of a religion? How does this not violate the First Amendment?

The ACLU is quick to jump all over any public religious displays, even if the funding for those displays comes from a private source. Donate a statue of the Ten Commandments to a public park and the ACLU is all over that one. Have the Knights of Columbus put up a Nativity Scene on public land, even though it's paid for privately, and the ACLU is all up-in-arms. But public installation of Muslim footbaths? That's a "reasonable accommodation".

There comes a point where one must conclude that the ACLU is not so much in favor of a separation of church and state as they are in favor of a separation of Christianity and state. I have little doubt that the ACLU would not be supporting the use of state funds for the installation of any Christian or Jewish religious items at UMD, but they are silent when it comes to Muslim items. The hypocrisy in the ACLU's position is blatantly obvious.

Technorati: politics news Muslim Dearborn University of Michigan ACLU footbath
IceRocket: politics news Muslim Dearborn University of Michigan ACLU footbath

Bloomberg Leaves GOP

2007-06-20T08:41:00.000-04:00

In a move that should come as no surprise to anyone, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has renounced his affiliation with the Republican Party and now classifies himself as an Independent. Rumors abound that the move is a prelude to his unannounced 2008 Presidential bid, however those ambitions notwithstanding, the move is certainly consistent with Bloomberg's own political beliefs. (Guardian Unlimited: Bloomberg quits Republican party.)

Originally aligned with the Democratic Party, Bloomberg reclassified himself as a Republican several years ago, however that mantle never really fit. Bloomberg's open support of gay marriage, abortion rights, gun control, and stem cell research are in direct opposition to the Republican platform. His post-911 property tax increase, while likely justified to counter the economic fallout from the terrorist attacks, also put him at odds with Republican handlers. It's no surprise that Mayor Bloomberg is uncomfortable under the Republican umbrella and has chosen to re-categorize himself as an Independent.

While he has not yet declared his candidacy for 2008, Bloomberg certainly appears poised to do so. Sources close to him indicate that the Mayor is prepared to launch a Presidential bid and has set aside up to $1 Billion of his own funds to support the campaign. (Washington Times: Bloomberg poised for third-party campaign.) Given the impact other third-party candidacies have had on prior Presidential elections, one must wonder what a Bloomberg candidacy will do to both parties in 2008.

Republican strategist Greg Strimple believes, "If he runs, this guarantees a Republican will be the next president of the United States. The Democrats have to be shaking in their boots." Well, to be clear, I would not expect a Republican strategist to say anything else. I'm not so sure that it's an accurate statement, however.

When you look at Bloomberg's position on key issues, it seems easy to conclude that he will draw more votes from the left than he does from the right. But that conclusion completely ignores the positions of the leading candidates in either party. Much of what he believes also falls in line with the positions of former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, one of the Republican front runners. Should Giuliani or any of the moderate Republican candidates actually garner the GOP nomination, a Bloomberg run would draw as much from the GOP as it would from the Democrats.

The nation is very much divided into three groups right now. The Democratic party has definitely shifted pretty far to the left, at least in public rhetoric, but the Republican party is divided between the ultra-conservative right and a more moderate wing that is rising to the forefront in the campaign. The bulk of the nation, however, is right smack in the middle, and it is that faction that may well be drawn to a Bloomberg candidacy. With $1 Billion in his war chest before he even starts gathering campaign contributions, it would be folly to dismiss him as a viable candidate in his own right.

The one thing that is a certain outcome should Bloomberg declare in '08 is that the majority of the people will have voted against the 44th President of the United States. There are historical lessons to be learned regarding the impact of third party candidacies. Abraham Lincoln won the presidency in 1860 with only 39% of the vote. In fact, Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in several states. In 1892, the Populist Party ran James Weaver and actually garnered 22 electoral votes, taking 8.9% of the vote. A showing like that in 2008 may be sufficient to send the election to the House of Representatives, something that has not happened in over a century.

Bottom line is, don't discount a Bloomberg candidacy. With his war chest, he is certainly a viable candidate in his own right. His political views are aligned with the majority of the moderate voters, making him attractive to voters from both political parties. When you look at the approval ratings of the Democratic controlled Congress coupled with the approval ratings of the Republican controlled White House, the only conclusion possible is that the nation is clamoring for a change in direction. It is not policy per se, it is the partisan rhetoric that has soured the nation's stomach on today's politics. It's business as usual regardless of which party is in control, and the nation is fed up with it. The nation may well be ready to embrace a third-party candidacy if for no other reason than to extract themselves from the partisan quagmire that has increasingly engulfed us over the course of the past two decades. Given his current state of funding, Bloomberg may well gain sufficient support to give both parties a run for their money.

Please do not interpret this as any endorsement of Michael Bloomberg on the part of The Grape's Vine. I do not support any of his positions on the major issues, and certainly do not endorse him as a 2008 candidate. Understand, though, that his candidacy must be taken seriously. He will definitely impact the 2008 election and may well be the deciding factor in determining who sits in the Oval Office in January of 2009.

Technorati: politics news Bloomberg Michael Bloomberg election election 2008
IceRocket: politics news Bloomberg Michael Bloomberg election election 2008

Passing Blame For Passport Delays

2007-06-19T09:43:00.000-04:00

The Senate is becoming quite vocal in its criticism of the State Department for "excessive delays" in providing passports for US citizens. The current backlog is due to new rules requiring US citizens to hold a passport when reentering the US by air from Canada, Mexico, or the Caribbean. In the past, only proof of citizenship such as a birth certificate was required. In January 2008, the rules will be extended to include any US border crossing including air, land, and sea travel. (Washington Post: State Dept. Faulted on Hill for Passport Delays.)

According to the Senate, the State Department failed to anticipate the huge surge in passport requests, resulting in the current backlog. The State Department lists 10 weeks as the current wait time for new passport applications. 56 senators signed a letter initiated by Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Kent Conrad (D-ND) which read, "It is unacceptable that American citizens were missing trips because the State Department did not fully anticipate the increase in passport applications and take appropriate action to increase processing resources."

As a frequent overseas traveller, I have no sympathy at all for those waiting for passport processing under the new rules. The problem is not a failure on the part of the State Department. Rather, it is a failure on the part of the traveller to plan appropriately. The Department of Homeland Security did not announce these new rules yesterday. The announcement was made on April 5, 2005, almost two years before the rules went into effect! (New Passport Initiative Announced To Better Secure America's Borders.)

Virtually all tour providers, airline websites, travel websites, and State Department websites have been highlighting the new requirements for over a year. Warnings were in the newspapers and virtually any site related to travel in the summer of 2006 advising people to obtain a passport early if they intended to travel out of the country in 2007. Why is it the State Department's fault that people either chose to ignore the warnings or waited until the last minute to apply?

There is something sorely lacking in our society and it is called "personal responsibility". The State Department did its job. It provided adequate notification almost two years in advance. The travel agencies did their job in providing ample warning. The airlines did their job in highlighting the new rules. Who dropped the ball? Travellers that decided to wait until the last minute to obtain a passport. So is it truly unacceptable that their travel plans are being disrupted? No it's not. Travellers that cannot follow the basic rules for international travel are not victims of the system. The best course of action for these travellers is simple: stay home. Next time, pay attention to the rules and follow them.

Technorati: politics news Senate Lieberman Conrad passport passport rules
IceRocket: politics news Senate Lieberman Conrad passport passport rules

Socialized Medicine - Where Free Costs a Bundle

2007-06-18T09:17:00.000-04:00

A comment on my previous entry is based on a topic of sufficient importance to warrant a separate post, not just a comment reply. The question posed by Silas Scarborough was, "Socialized Medicine - where is it?". It's a valid question in light of the rising costs of health care in the US, the outrageous cost of prescription drugs, and the devastating affect catastrophic care has on even affluent Americans.

The most fundamental problem facing socialized medicine has to do with cost. It's certainly not free, and as seen in other nations that do employ this method, neither does it guarantee adequate health care. Let's look at the UK first. The cost of socialized health care in the UK is based on income. The higher your salary, the more you pay. One responder to the question of how well it works there admitted to paying approximately $200 (in US dollars) per month, which is almost three times what I pay per month as a single employee. That makes sense since he's also paying for those that are unemployed.

The problem doesn't stop there, though. As that poster stated, "The service you are provided with depends on which area of the country you live in, we call it the postcode lottery. The more affluent areas, usually have better hospitals and shorter waiting lists." (How well does Socialized Medicine work in your country? When surgery is needed I understand that there is a long wait if the situation is not critical. How long do you wait for an office visit? What is the monthly cost? Are doctors and patients happy?.)

Well doesn't that sound familiar? So even in a country where everyone has access to health care, the quality and accessibility is still based on your own level of income and the affluence of your community. I can't say that I'm overly surprised. It's for this reason that British citizens that can afford it also maintain private insurance and don't rely on the socialized health care. In effect, they get the pleasure of buying their own and paying for those that "can't" afford it.

How about Canada, though? They have socialized medicine as well, and they are frequently the country that Americans point to as the shining example of how this should work. Well, in Quebec, public expenditure on socialized health care amounts to 29% of the provincial budget. 20% of that comes from a whopping 3.22% wage tax imposed on employers (not employees) and the rest comes from federal and provincial income taxes. It costs $1200 per year per person for this socialized system, so a family of four ends up costing $4800 per year.

Unfortunately, in Canada there is no option for private insurance like there is in the UK. It simply isn't legal. A private insurance company is not allowed to compete with the public system. According to Pierre Lemieux in Socialized Medicine: The Canadian Experience, "The monopoly of basic health insurance has led to a single, homogeneous public system of health care delivery. In such a public monopoly, bureaucratic uniformity and lack of entrepreneurship add to the costs. The system is slow to adjust to changing demands and new technologies. For instance, day clinics and home care are underdeveloped as there exist basically only two types of general hospitals: the non-profit local hospital and the university hospital."

Mr. Lemieux also points out one of the major flaws to this type of system, and it's one of fundamental economics. Since the perceived cost of health care has gone to zero, at least for those that allegedly don't have the ability to pay for health care, demand for that care increases dramatically. In Canada, public expenses for health care have increased at a rate of 9.4% annually since its inception in 1970. Because of the rising costs and increased demand, hospitals are unable to keep pace with technological advances. Between 1972 and 1980, the number of hospital beds in Quebec dropped by 21% due to budget cuts.

To control costs, Canada also instituted a ceiling on fees earned by General Practitioners. The net result is that these same GPs reduced the amount of time they spent with patients by 11%. How did Newton describe this? For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction...

The bottom line is that I agree we need to find a means of providing health care for those that truly - and I emphasize the word "truly" - cannot afford it. With unemployment under 4.5%, though, the number of people that are in that category are far fewer than one might otherwise think. Unfortunately, socialized medicine is not the solution. The net result of socialized medicine is a dramatic increase in the cost of health care coupled with a dramatic decrease in the quality of health care. That's not a combination I'm willing to endorse.

Technorati: politics news health care medicine socialized medicine
IceRocket: politics news health care medicine socialized medicine

FDA Barely Glances at Chinese, Indian Drug Imports

2007-06-17T11:09:00.001-04:00

Despite the scrutiny placed by the FDA on American drug companies, imports of both drugs and drug ingredients from China and India are getting barely a glance. Both countries have seen a tremendous surge in drug orders, primarily for generic drugs from India and active ingredients from China. According to the FDA, they'd like to do more to inspect the imports, but they simply don't have the manpower or budget to do so. (Washington Post: FDA Scrutiny Scant In India, China as Drugs Pour Into U.S..)

When one considers the problems caused by imported pet food from China compounded by the tainted toothpaste also imported from China, one would reasonably assume that the inspection of anything coming in from the third-world would be the highest priority for the FDA. Apparently not.

Chinese and Indian imports are attractive here due to their extremely low cost. Of course, the low cost of those imports isn't surprising given the lack of workplace and health standards in those countries, the lack of pollution controls, and the all-but-slave labor that they employ. Naturally, those are the same reasons American manufacturing and technology are being off-shored to those same countries. Whether we choose to admit it or not, by supporting imports from China and India we are effectively supporting a modern day slave trade and child labor abuses that is not legal by any standard, international or otherwise.

In the case of drug imports, we are placing our own health at risk by accepting generics and active ingredients from countries that have already demonstrated their inability to maintain even the most basic of quality and purity standards in other exports. If I cannot trust them to safely ship pet food and toothpaste, how can I possibly trust them to sell me prescription drugs? Have we now reached the point that we are willing to sell our own health to the lowest bidder?

Our trade agreements with China and India have reached the point where they are now a national security problem. We have given these countries control of our industry, control of our technology, and now control of our health care. We are effectively selling America piece by piece, and we are selling it to nations that have never been our allies. Our trade pacts with the third-world are the greatest threat to our national security, yet most corporations, most politicians, and even most of average America is willingly participating in this national yard sale all under the guise of lower prices. Hopefully we'll wake up in time, but to date I see no evidence that we will.

Technorati: politics news India China trade FDA drugs
IceRocket: politics news India China trade FDA drugs

Iran Imposes Hard-Line Crackdown

2007-06-16T11:53:00.000-04:00

Iran has implemented a series of crackdowns aimed at forcing the theocracy back to the oppressive cultural restrictions in place after the Islamic revolution in 1979. According to Human Rights Watch analyst Hadi Ghaemi, "Ahmadinejad has repeatedly stated his goal of purging Iranian society of secular thought. This is taking shape as a cultural revolution, particularly on university campuses, where persecution and prosecution of students and faculty are intensifying with each passing day." (Washington Post: Iran Curtails Freedom In Throwback to 1979.)

The crackdown is hitting college campuses extremely hard. There has been increasing opposition to Ahmadinejad's policies, especially among the youth, and the official response has been detentions and the dissolution of campus social groups. Also targeted is public dress and behaviour deemed offensive to Islam with over 150,000 arrests having been made recently.

Part of the issue facing Ahmadinejad is a failed economic policy resulting in 20% inflation over the last 12 months and a 25% rise in gas prices. The latest crackdowns are intended to squelch the unrest being caused by the economic crisis and are seen as a means of preventing a significant political reaction leading into the 2009 elections.

What this means for us is that Iran is ripe for revolution. The student uprising in 1979 that brought about the Islamic Revolution has long since lost its luster. The younger generation of students is far more western in thoughts, dress, and culture than the previous generation, and the strict Islamic code driven by Ahmadinejad is not well received by the well educated population. Of great significance is the 25% rise in gas prices this year. Iran is an oil rich nation, however they only have one refinery. This makes their infrastructure vulnerable to a single attack, something that would cripple the Iranian economy. This exposure alone makes a revolution in Iran practical.

There are US efforts underway to support a Democratic process in Iran with $75 Million in US funds being diverted for that purpose. Unlike other nations in the Middle East, an Iranian democracy is actually in our best interests. The underpinnings of a cultural revolution have been in place for the past decade, and free elections would likely result in an Iranian government that is far more moderate than we have since since 1979. That does not eliminate the need for a revolution, however.

Since the Shah was removed from power, Iran has been governed by the religious arm, not the political wing. While Ahmadinejad may be the president, it's actually Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who rules the country. No significant changes can occur in Iran without first removing Khamenei, and it will take far more than free elections to accomplish that. What is needed is a political coup not unlike the one that deposed the Shah. Increasing our support for dissident student groups, providing them arms, and providing them funding is our best course of action. A direct US intervention in Iran would be counterproductive. In fact, it was our intervention in Iraq that resulted in the reactionary election of Ahmadinejad in the first place. Rather, the revolution must come from within Iran, and the likely source of that revolution is the current crop of moderate students.

With the Iranian economy already being drained, it is also beneficial to drag them further into the conflict in Iraq. Having their resources drained by their support of the Shiite insurgency would further compound their internal problems. We could help this problem along by encouraging Sunni insurgent raids across the border into neighboring Iranian positions. The weaker the Iranian economy becomes, the greater the likelihood of a revolution to overthrow Khamenei. Such a revolution would deal a severe blow to the radical Islamic war effort since a good deal of covert support and funding is coming from Khamenei's government.

Iran is already spread pretty thin. They are supporting the Shiite insurgency in Iraq, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in the Gaza. The drain on their economy appears to be nearing the breaking point. Now it's just a question of how best to nudge it to drive the population into rebellion.

Technorati: politics news Iran Khamenei Ahmadinejad
IceRocket: politics news Iran Khamenei Ahmadinejad

Senate Stymies Energy Progress

2007-06-15T12:45:00.000-04:00

The Senate took a series of actions yesterday to cripple or kill any progress towards a meaningful energy bill that would address current supply issues while working towards more efficient future energy measures. At the forefront was an amendment by Senator John Warner (R-VA) to authorize off-shore drilling along the Virginia coast in a search for additional natural gas reserves. The Senate killed that measure despite Senator Domenici's (R-NM) assertion that, "John Warner's bill would be the first energy bill to produce energy." (Washington Post: Senate Rejects Va. Offshore Drilling.)

The major objections came from Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) over concerns that an oil spill off the Virginia coast would cause excessive damage to the New Jersey shoreline. I'll pause a moment to allow my readers to recompose themselves.

Okay. Just so we're all clear, the state of New Jersey, with a series of major oil refineries running through the state's central artery, is concerned about an off-shore spill in Virginia. Never mind the heavy dependence New Jersey has on refineries, and never mind that the ports around Philadelphia just to the south of New Jersey are also lined with oil refineries. The potential for a shipping disaster in either of those locations that would impact the New Jersey coast far outweighs any risk imposed by drilling off the Virginia coast. Instead, all this constitutes is partisan political obstructionism. So instead of actually doing something to increase our own supply while reducing our dependency on foreign sources, we are once again handcuffed by partisan politics. Why am I not surprised?

The Senate didn't stop there, though. Also rejected was a proposal by Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) that would require utilities to increase their use of renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, or bio-fuel. That measure was blocked by the Republican side of the aisle, so let's not assume that obstructionism is a solely Democrat tactic.

Of course, what would a meaningful energy bill be without some safeguards for our special interest groups? Now, when it comes to protecting the wallets of the auto industry, the Senate can certainly act in a bipartisan fashion. On the surface, legislation supported by Carl Levin (D-MI) and Christopher Bond (R-MO) sounds good. It requires cars to achieve an average 36 MPG and trucks to achieve 30 MPG by 2022. Oddly enough, this is supported by the auto industry, so a closer look is required. As it turns out, this measure replaces one that would have resulted in a requirement for both cars and trucks to achieve 35 MPG in 2020 but increasing the requirement to 52 MPG by 2030. No wonder the auto industry likes the new measure! I'm certain the average consumer would benefit more from the original, however, but the average consumer has no lobby in Congress.

So the net result is business as usual in the US Senate. Action on a meaningful energy bill is effectively stalled thanks to partisan politics, and measures beneficial to major industry replace those beneficial to the American consumer. Is there any wonder why the approval ratings of both Congress and the President are approaching all-time lows?

Technorati: politics news Senate energy
IceRocket: politics news Senate energy

Troop Surge Appears Ineffective

2007-06-14T12:24:00.000-04:00

A Pentagon report released yesterday reveals that the level of violence in Iraq has not decreased since the implementation of a US troop surge intended to stabilize the country. While the amount of violence did initially decrease in areas where the US troop presence was focused, it simply resulted in a migration of violence towards other areas in which the US was not overly active. (Washington Post: No Drop in Iraq Violence Seen Since Troop Buildup.)

While the concept of a troop surge to quell violence does sound feasible on paper, the reality is that the actual increase was insufficient to address the problems in Iraq as a whole. It also did nothing to resolve the underlying political problems with the Iraqi power centers, and realistically that must be resolved before there is any hope of an end to the sectarian violence that is plaguing the region. A series of goals were set before the Iraqi government with the intention of settling the political and sectarian strife, however those goals have not been met and neither is there any apparent movement towards addressing them.

It is far too simplistic to view the violence in Iraq as being directed at the US. In fact, the US is a very minor target in the overwhelming majority of attacks. Rather, the problem is urban warfare between the Shiite and Sunni factions, a conflict that dates back centuries. Whether or not there is a political or military solution to that problem is in serious doubt. While it is a popular view today to point to the Hussein era as a period where that strife was contained, that is an extremely inaccurate view of the reality of the Iraqi political landscape during the Hussein years. Remember, the US and Great Britain maintained a "no-fly" zone in southern Iraq to protect the Shiites from attacks by Hussein's military. A similar "no-fly" zone was maintained in the north to protect the Kurds from Hussein's attacks. The iron-fist wielded by Hussein in the 90's may have applied to the Sunni Triangle, but it started to crumble fast the further north or south you traveled outside of Sunni controlled areas.

The situation in Iraq right now is not one we can solve militarily. Rather, it will need to be sorted out internally, and that likely means allowing the civil war that has been building since the 1920s to play itself out. British Imperialism followed by covert US intervention during the Iran - Iraq conflict simply put the inter-factional strife on hold. The stranglehold in the Hussein era was already beginning to unravel in the late 1980s, and it has now boiled over. To point the finger at current US military action as the cause of that unravelling is to deny the events that took place throughout the 1980s and 1990s. We certainly hastened it by removing Hussein and the bulk of the Iraqi military, however the knot was untied long before we arrived on the scene.

Now that it has reached the point of open conflict between the Sunnis and Shiites, the best course of action we could take at this point would be to step aside and let them fight it out. With Iran covertly supporting the Shiites, it's unlikely the Sunnis could prevail in that conflict, but until they settle it themselves there is not a lot that we can do other than get caught in the crossfire. At some point we will need to deal with the Iranian problem, but in the interim it is not necessarily bad for the US if Iran becomes increasingly tangled up in a Shiite versus Sunni civil war. As we can attest from our own experiences, that type of conflict can be a significant drain on internal resources.

Given a choice, it would be better for the US should the Sunni factions prevail, however. As a whole, the Sunni sect is less fundamentalist, less fanatical in their interpretation and application of scripture, and overall tends to be more tolerant of western ideas than their Shiite counterparts. Morocco is a good example of a Muslim country that is tolerant of non-Muslim internal populations and is extremely pro-western in its policies. Morocco is a predominantly Sunni population.

Unfortunately for the Sunnis in Iraq, the regions they control have no resources of value to the west. The Shiite territories contain oil and Iraq's only port, while the Kurdish territories contain oil and border a major NATO ally that is more vital to the West than anything Iraq as a whole has to offer. All things being equal, the US would likely champion the Sunnis and put a quick end to the conflict. With natural resources and political realities in the mix, however, we do not have that luxury and will be forced to deal with a likely Shiite victory in the south and central portions, and a Turkish / Kurd battle in the north.

In the interim, we need to step out of the middle. It is not a defeat in Iraq if we recognize that a Shiite and Sunni conflict should not involve US troops, and that we will withdraw until such time as there is a legitimate Iraqi government with which we can deal. I am currently at a loss to find a reason for US troops to attempt to quell a civil war that is truly inevitable. It's better for us all around if we step back, let them fight it out, and then deal with the winner. If it ties Iran up in the process, so much the better.

Technorati: politics news Iraq surge Shiite Sunni Kurd
IceRocket: politics news Iraq surge Shiite Sunni Kurd

Special Interests Wage Energy Bill War

2007-06-13T08:32:00.001-04:00

While the Senate debates an energy bill that is already receiving veto threats from the White House, Senate Democrats are drafting a second measure that would earmark $10 Billion in loans for a coal to liquid fuel project. That bill has significant support among Senators from coal rich states, however it is meeting a great deal of opposition from the environmentalist lobby who oppose both coal mining and the greenhouse gas emissions (primarily carbon dioxide and water vapor) that the coal to liquid conversion would generate. (Washington Post: Democrats Push Coal-to-Liquids Energy Plan.)

The conversion of coal to liquid fuel, while inefficient from a process standpoint, is a viable means of increasing the non-petroleum based fuel additives without placing additional demand on the food supply as would occur with increased use of bio-fuels. Granted, it is not a permanent solution and efforts to develop a new energy source are still required, however any measure such as this that would decrease our consumption of oil based products is certainly worth investigation.

All energy proposals currently on the table are receiving widespread criticism from a variety of sources. The White House opposes a measure to mandate MPG minimum requirements. The auto industry opposes a measure to mandate increased fuel efficiencies. Environmental groups oppose a measure that does not significantly increase the standards for emissions controls. Simply put, there appear to be too many conflicting power groups - including lawmakers on both sides of the aisle - for a viable energy plan to make it into law.

The Democrat proposed coal to liquids measure is already struggling from other leading Democrats, including Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)who wants to include greenhouse gas emissions control in the measure - something which would make the entire process unworkable. Since water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas by volume present in our atmosphere and since water vapor is a natural byproduct from organic chemical reactions, it seems to me that the two measures are mutually exclusive. That alone may make it impossible for this measure to even make it out of committee.

What it all means is that legislators on both sides of the aisle want to talk tough on energy. At the same time, there does not appear to be any desire on the part of those same legislators to set an energy policy that is both viable and productive. With the House and Senate equally divided, special interests groups all lobbying against different aspects of any energy bill that comes up, and the White House vowing to veto any bill that sets concrete standards, it seems clear to me that nothing at all will be done for the foreseeable future.

Technorati: politics news coal coal to liquid Senate Democrat
IceRocket: politics news coal coal to liquid Senate Democrat

Bush Eyes Mullen for Joint Chief's Head

2007-06-12T08:03:00.000-04:00

President Bush's top choice for Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael G. Mullen, may signal a subtle shift in the administration's strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mullen, currently head of the US Navy, has been voicing concern for some time that our extended involvement in Iraq is putting excessive strains on the Marines and Army. (Washington Post: Nominee to Head Joint Chiefs Sees Current Strain on Military.)

The argument is not a new one, however it is an abrupt about-face for the President to appoint one with such views to head the Joint Chiefs. Admiral Robert J. Natter who attended the Naval Academy with Mullen described him as, "A realist [who] would say this is as much a political issue solvable only by the Iraqis as it is a military force issue partially solvable by the U.S. military." That would seem to signal a shift in the administration's focus from a military solution towards a more political solution, assuming one is even achievable in that region.

While a new perspective at the top is certainly a welcome change, we as a nation should be more concerned that a four-year engagement involving approximately 140,000 US troops should pose that great a strain on the military. Indeed, while nobody will argue the hazards of serving in Iraq, by all standards the engagement there is extremely light compared to past wars involving the US. If this engagement has strained the marines and army, then it is high time we addressed that problem and restructured our military to support a sustained conflict.

Vietnam lasted for 7 1/2 years with 4.3% of the US population enrolled in the military. World War II, the Korean War, the American Revolution and the Civil War were all as long as our current engagement in Iraq, and there can be little doubt that the actual amount of combat in those wars was astronomical compared to anything we face today in Iraq, yet the current structure of our military is straining to maintain 140,000 on the battlefield. That is a problem.

The last time we had to mobilize for war we instituted a draft. Unfortunately, the draft concept is flawed from the start. It breeds corruption and pretty much guarantees that only the poor or minorities will end up serving. Oddly enough, the draft was conceived to prevent just that, but never underestimate the ability of the human race to corrupt and abuse any bureaucratic system. In any case, I do not advocate a draft since there is no legitimate reason to believe that it would be any less corrupt, any less racially and socially biased today than it was in 1970. Instead, what I advocate is Universal Military Service.

In my view, every American has an obligation to serve his or her country. When a US Citizen turns 18, then it is that American's obligation to enter military service for a period of not less than two years. No exemptions, no deferments, no objections. Every American serves regardless of race, creed, gender, financial status, or any other category by which people avoided service in the 1970s. Service in the military should also be a prerequisite for obtaining US Citizenship and even for obtaining a visa that extends beyond five-years.

It is time Americans gave back to this nation instead of standing on the backs of a select few. It is also time that we recognize the short-comings of an all-volunteer force with regards to long term conflicts. Take Admiral Mullen's concerns to heart, and develop the plan now to address our ability to maintain a sustained conflict. You can be sure that our enemies will not sit idly by while we gear up when the time comes.

Technorati: politics news Mullen Admiral Joint Chiefs military
IceRocket: politics news Mullen Admiral Joint Chiefs military

Senate Energy Bill on Calendar

2007-06-11T08:17:00.000-04:00

Senate bill S.1419 introduced by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is now on the Senate calendar for consideration. (Washington Post: The Senate's Energy Bill.) There are five key points in the bill, each of which merit discussion:

Require the use of 36 billion gallons of bio-fuels by 2022.
Raise automobile fuel standards to 35 MPG by 2020.
Criminalize price gouging of petroleum fuels during energy emergencies.
Boosting energy efficiency standards.
Improve international cooperation on energy.

Let me begin by saying that I do not in any way oppose the energy debate this bill will foster, nor am I opposed to the intentions of the Senate or the bill's sponsor with regards to the reformation of our energy policy and energy standards. To be sure, both our policy and standards are in serious need of reform. There are, however, some shortcomings in the bill as it currently exists that I wish to discuss.

36 billion gallons of bio-fuels by 2022

On the surface, this sounds both logical and feasible. The more we increase our use of bio-fuels, the less we rely on petroleum or petroleum byproducts for our energy needs. The problem with this approach, however, is that it introduces conflicting needs for grains (typically corn) that could be used for either food or energy. By linking food grains to energy, it creates an economic dynamic that raises the price of a low-cost food source to the much higher level of an energy source. While I agree with the spirit of the bill - find a viable alternative to petroleum products - I do not agree with the use of bio-fuels for this purpose. This section of the bill requires modification such that it does not create a relationship between food crops and energy crops.

Raise fuel standards to 35 MPG by 2020

Is there anyone in the nation that does not support this portion of the bill? Given our current technology, there is no legitimate reason not to implement these standards. In fact, there's no legitimate reason to wait until 2020 for those standards to be realized. This portion of the bill has my full support.

Criminalize price gouging

While I agree with the spirit of this clause, I'm not sure how to enforce it or even define it. Is what we are seeing today truly price gouging or is it the natural course of a free market? One of the most disturbing trends that I see today is not the upward spiral of gasoline prices. Rather, it's the lack of any corresponding downward spiral of gasoline demand. Previous logic held that gasoline consumption would decrease as the price increased. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, that has not held true. Some of it is our absurd propensity for over-sized vehicles under the false illusion that they are somehow safer. But that is not the whole story. The fact is, Americans are on the road longer today than they were a decade ago, even if the length of the commute (in miles) has not increased. There is much more traffic congestion today than a decade ago. There is also a significant amount of road construction along key arteries, especially in heavily populated areas. For me personally, my daily commute has gone from 30 minutes round trip to 90 minutes round trip, even though the distance remains the same. So consumption is actually flat or increasing while prices continue to rise.

The other issue with this section of the bill has to do with the composition of the price of a gallon of gas. In my home state of RI, the local gas station makes on average 8 cents per gallon of gas. That's a bit low when you consider that the station is really making a 2.7% profit on a gallon. The station is certainly not price gouging! The state, on the other hand, is making 43 cents per gallon in taxes! That's a 14.5% profit per gallon. So who is doing the actual gouging? Is it the station or the state? Some would argue that it's the oil refiner, but I'm not even sure that's true since the wholesale price is being set in free market auction at the New York Mercantile Exchange.

Don't get me wrong, I support the spirit behind this portion of the bill. I just don't know how to define gouging or how to enforce it.

Boosting energy efficiency standards

This one's a no-brainer. Improving our overall energy efficiency benefits everyone. It benefits the consumer, and it benefits the manufacturer. The challenge, however, is a conflict between energy efficiency and emissions controls. Unfortunately, the two do not work well together. Improving emissions, controlling pollution (both air and water), and adhering to ever increasing safety and environmental requirements costs energy. Now, I am not suggesting that we ignore the environmental aspects, however we either need to achieve some happy balance between the two or we must refocus our attention on more efficient forms of energy in the first place. Nuclear energy is a good example of that. One of the best ways of improving our overall energy efficiency is to revitalize our nuclear energy programs. It's by far the most efficient energy source we have given today's technology.

Improving International Cooperation on Energy

Good luck with this one. Oh, it sounds great on paper, but the reality is that there are too many competing interests for this to happen. When you look at the developing countries of China and India, their energy consumption is focused entirely on the growth of their economies. China has already stated that their first priority is economic growth, even if that flies in the face of energy efficiency or pollution control. The harsh reality, though, is that international cooperation must include China and India or the debate is pretty much a non-starter. What I have not seen anyone propose is a viable means of bringing China and India into the fold. Until that happens, International Cooperation will be a cute slogan but nothing more.

In summary, there are many aspects of this bill that I support. There are other aspects that need work as outlined above. What I am still waiting to see is a requirement from either side of the aisle that we address the real problem, that being the lack of development towards a new renewable energy source that will meet our long term needs. To date, none of the solutions proposed - bio-fuel, wind, solar, hydrogen cells, even nuclear energy - come close to fulfilling that requirement. So that challenge remains. Let's see some research funding aimed at developing a new fuel source that can bring us will into the 21st century.

Technorati: politics news S.1419 energy Reid senate
IceRocket: politics news S.1419 energy Reid senate

Military Talks "Post Occupation" Plans

2007-06-10T18:09:00.000-04:00

There is now talk in military circles about a smaller "Post Occupation" force in Iraq that does not constitute a total US troop pullout, but also does not maintain current troop levels. The goal is to move roughly two-thirds of the troops out of Iraq by late 2008. (Washington Post: Military Envisions Longer Stay in Iraq.)

My readers can attest that you would be hard pressed to find a more ardent supporter of our actions in Iraq than I. Despite that unwavering support, I find it very difficult to understand the logic behind this "Post Occupation" concept. There's something we seem to have failed to learn from history. It takes roughly twenty four hours for an army of liberation to become an army of occupation. While the people welcome you with opens arms when troops enter the city to oust a tyrant, those same people awaken then next morning and ask why you're still there. That is what happened in Iraq.

In the eyes of most of the Arab world, and likely the world at large, any US troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future will be considered an occupation force. I don't care if that force is 200,000 strong or down to a mere 40,000, it will still be viewed as an army of occupation. Worse yet, with the smaller numbers projected by the end of 2008, our troops will be ill equipped to maintain any order in the areas they do occupy.

Whether or not the current situation in Iraq may be viewed as a civil war is largely semantics. The fact is, there are three faction groups engaged in a violent power struggle, each using the US military both as pawns to engage their enemy and as targets to ferment unrest. Perhaps the best course of action at this point is to allow the three factions to fight it out, then deal with the winner. Continuing to leave US troops in the middle of those three factions without any clear long term objective does not make much sense either politically or militarily.

What concerns me most about the "Post Occupation" force plan is what appears to be a lack of long range planning. Arguably, that has plagued us from the start, but to suggest at this point that we can discuss post occupation while maintaining a troop presence there is ludicrous. It would seem to me that we are merely setting up our troops to be even more of a target for the various insurgencies without giving them sufficient manpower to safeguard their own positions. As supportive as I've been of our actions in Iraq, I do not see how it is possible to support this "Post Occupation" plan without the prerequisites of a stable Iraqi government, a strong Iraqi military force, a strong Iraqi police force, and an end to the insurgency that is currently plaguing the region. Until those prerequisites are met, there is no "Post" anything.

The troop reduction plans as stated appear to be more political than anything. It's not coincidental that the target listed was late 2008. As I recall, that would be right around the next presidential election. It is bad enough that our troops are currently being used as political pawns by the three warring factions in Iraq. Let's make absolutely certain that they are not used as political pawns here in the US. Our troops deserve far better than that. They deserve our support and Congressional funding sufficient to do the job. Most importantly, however, they deserve a clearly thought out long term plan that includes achievable objectives that justify their deployment into a war zone. When I hear this latest "Post Occupation" nonsense, I have to wonder how far removed we are from the latter.

Technorati: politics news Iraq post occupation military
IceRocket: politics news Iraq post occupation military

Pakistan Duplicitous on Nuclear Pact

2007-06-10T09:28:00.000-04:00

In what has to be one of the world's greatest ironies, Pakistan has agreed to join the US and Russia in combating global nuclear terrorism. Well, almost. As Pakistan's Foreign Ministry spokesman Tasnim Aslam said, "While joining the initiative, Pakistan has declared that the Global Initiative does not cover Pakistan's military nuclear facilities or activities." So Pakistan is willing to combat global nuclear terrorism while choosing to ignore one of the greatest potential sources of said terrorism, their own nuclear facilities. (The Hindu: Pak. to join global initiative to combat nuclear terrorism.)

On paper, Pakistan is penciled in as a US ally in our current war against Radical Islam. The reality, though, is that Pakistan is the source, training ground, and refuge for the radical Islamic groups that threaten the rest of the world. Terrorists in Pakistan breed faster than cockroaches and they are just as difficult to exterminate. While it may be true that Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf is a US ally, on paper at least, it is also true that his conversion to our way of thinking came at gun point, and it is equally true that the US does not hold favor with the overall general population in Pakistan. Truly treating Pakistan like an ally is absurd.

In 2004, a former Pakistani nuclear scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan, admitted to running a vast nuclear proliferation network that provided nuclear technology to North Korea, Iran, and Libya. What was the official response from President Pervez Musharraf? He pardoned Khan and called him a national hero. So much for our ally, Pakistan.

Make no mistake about it. Pakistan is a terrorist state with nuclear capabilities. Worse yet, the only thing that stands between them and a fundamentalist radical Muslim regime is Musharraf, and his hold is tenuous at best. Once he is out of the picture Pakistan will be run by the Radical Islamic elements that we are fighting world wide. A nuclear equipped Pakistan simply means that it is inevitable that the terrorists prosecuting their side of the Radical Islamic War will also have nuclear capabilities.

Musharraf cannot currently control his population, nor does he appear to have any real desire to do so. It is only a matter of time before the US is forced to deal harshly with Pakistan. They are providing safe haven for our enemies, they stymie any attempts by the US military to pursue our enemies into Pakistan, and they have already admitted to providing other rogue nations with nuclear technologies. How much more proof do we need that Pakistan is itself a rogue nation?

So it is nice to hear that Pakistan will join the US and Russia in a global fight against nuclear terrorism. I say we start right there, in Pakistan. Eliminate their nuclear capabilities and we've already accounted for the major source of nuclear proliferation to other rogue nations in the region. Once that is accomplished, we can focus on the other major source of nuclear proliferation to rogue nations: Russia. But that's another topic for discussion.

Technorati: politics news Pakistan Russia nuclear terrorism Musharraf
IceRocket: politics news Pakistan Russia nuclear terrorism Musharraf

DHS Wants Tighter Visa Rules for EU Visitors

2007-06-09T10:19:00.000-04:00

On the same day that the State Department is suspending passport rules for air travel from Mexico, Canada, and the Caribbean, the Department of Homeland Security is calling for tighter entry requirements for travelers entering the US from the EU. Many European nations enjoy a reciprocal visa waiver status which means a traveler from the EU may enter the US using only their passport. Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff, however, wants these visitors to register online 48 hours in advance of their flights to the US in the mistaken belief that this will prevent terrorists from entering the country. (The Post Standard: U.S. official: tighter visa rules for EU.)
First of all, these travelers from the EU already have airline tickets. The flight manifests are already allegedly being checked against anti-terror lists to identify passengers that may be potential threats. When they arrive at Passport Control in the US, the travelers are already photographed, fingerprinted, and again checked against a list intended to identify criminals, those wanted for crimes, or suspected terrorists. So we already have multiple checks allegedly in place to prevent suspected terrorists from crossing our borders. Well, all except entry from Canada and Mexico since a passport isn't required at those border crossings, and in many cases there are long undefended and unmonitored swatches where you can cross at will. But that's a different story.

Now, the various law enforcement agencies are already complaining that they are not able to keep up with checking the airline manifests, even though most flights are booked weeks or months in advance, not 48 hours. In fact, if you do book 48 hours or less in advance, you get the pleasure of "special security screening" that tends to be a bit more intimate than your average traveler would prefer. So how is this new online questionnaire supposed to improve things?

It stands to reason that this will now require yet another layer of government workers to process all of these online questionnaires with only 48 hours in which to do so. The FBI can't do it with the airline manifests, and that simply involves a name and address cross reference check, but we are somehow expected to believe that we can effectively implement another bureaucratic layer fully staffed to process these online forms quickly and efficiently. Right. Forgive me if I tend to be skeptical whenever I think of government efficiency.

Aside from the bureaucracy angle, it's also quite impractical for the traveler. The assumption Chertoff is making is that all travelers to the US will have Internet access 48 hours prior to their flight to their overseas flight. I can personally attest that such an assumption is absurd. I've taken a number of overseas trips in the past few years where I've had no online access - or been anywhere near a place with online access - for over a week prior to my flight to the US, let alone 48 hours. One such trip was actually in Canada! Granted, that's not covered by Chertoff's absurd proposal, but think about it for a second. Canada! I spent a week on a tundra buggy out along Hudson Bay watching the polar bear migration. There was nothing resembling Internet access on that trip until I flew from Churchill to Winnipeg, arriving at the hotel only 5 hours - not 48 - before I had to leave for the airport for my flight to Boston.

Once again, the Department of Homeland Security is looking to impose regulations that, had they been in effect in 2001 would have done absolutely nothing to prevent the terror attacks on 9/11. We seem to keep forgetting that the terrorists were in this country legally and had been for some time. They had all the proper paperwork. They had the proper visas. None of the rules either imposed since 9/11 or proposed recently - such as this absurd online registration proposal - would have prevented them from entering the US legally or from carrying out their terror attacks. Let me know when the DHS comes up with something of substance. As it stands now, I'm getting sick of allocating our tax dollars to a department that has added no value whatsoever to either our national security or to our ability to prevent future terror attacks.

Technorati: politics news Chertoff visa EU Homeland Security travel
IceRocket: politics news Chertoff visa EU Homeland Security travel

Putin Offers Sleight of Hand Deal

2007-06-08T09:16:00.000-04:00

Faced with unwavering resolve on the part of the US to develop a missile defense shield in Europe, Russian President Vladimir Putin has reversed course to propose a "partnership" in the venture. The Russian proposal, though, is to simply use an existing radar station in Azerbaijan (currently under Russian lease) rather than building new US controlled radar stations in the Czech Republic and elsewhere. (Washington Post: Putin Offers to Join Missile Shield Effort.)

The publicly stated intent behind the European missile shield is to defend against potential long range attacks from Iran. Russia's position on the missile shield is that it would signal a new arms escalation from the West and would require the former Soviet empire to re-target its own missiles back towards European nations. The offer to engage in a missile defense partnership was proposed several times by the US, first by Reagan as part of the SDI project and again by President Bush in 1990. The partnership offers continued through the Clinton administration and into the current Bush administration. Until yesterday, all partnership offers were summarily rejected by Russia.

What yesterday's offer by Putin does, however, is not introduce a partnership. It places control of the entire missile shield project directly into the hands of Russian controlled facilities and personnel. Fortunately, there is no US commitment to accept this sleight-of-hand, and it will likely fall apart before Air Force One even leaves European air space.

One of the biggest problems with the proposed deal is centered around Russia's economic and military ties with Iran, the very nation cited as one of the reasons for the need for the shield in the first place. Iran does not currently have long range missiles capable of reaching Europe, however the technology to develop such missiles is currently being provided by both Russia and China. Existing Shihab-3 and Shihab-4 missiles with a range of close to 3000 kilometers were developed with Chinese and Russian assistance. Additionally, Russia is the primary supplier of Iran's current nuclear technology research which, as you may be aware, is the subject of much angst in the UN Security Council.

Forgive me if I don't trust Putin's motives in proposing this partnership. I'm a bit skeptical about using Russian staffed radar facilities to monitor a nation with whom Russia is directly partnered. President Bush may have looked into Putin's eyes and seen a good and honest man. When I look into them, I see a KGB hard-liner that is still pining for the good old days of the Soviet Union. The only response practical with regards to the Russian partnership offer is a resounding "Nyet". They are more than welcome to work with us in developing the missile shield using new facilities throughout Europe, but there is absolutely no way we can accept the use of an existing facility under Russian control at the expense of those newer developments. Let us not forget the old Russian proverb that says, "Trust but verify". Let's not be overly naive about Putin's motives. Let's not be foolish enough to trust Iran's ally in the development of an anti-Iranian missile shield.

Technorati: politics news Iran Putin Europe missile shield Russia
IceRocket: politics news Iran Putin Europe missile shield Russia

G8 More of the Same Rhetoric

2007-06-07T14:54:00.000-04:00

The G8 Summit today focused on the two key issues of emissions controls and energy efficiencies. Some papers in the US and indeed, around the world, are heralding an agreement between the US and Germany with regards to emissions limits. (New York Times: Europe and U.S. Reach Climate Deal.) I would advise those papers to read their own articles on the subject before jumping to that wild conclusion.

What effectively happened today with regards to emissions controls is that President Bush gave Chancellor Merkel a political bone by agreeing to "seriously consider" a European proposal to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50% between now and 2050. While I'm certain that Chancellor Merkel will make good political use of that statement, it is truly a statement without substance. There is no commitment involved at all when one agrees to seriously consider a proposal.

The reality is that any global agreement involving the US will hinge entirely on the President's offer to bring China and India back to the table. There's good reason for that, since the US cannot agree to any emissions controls that will potentially increase the cost of manufacturing here until China and India make similar agreements. The economic implications of such an agreement without the two most rapidly developing nations are staggering. We simply can't agree to it without putting similar constraints on them. The US has already lost too much manufacturing might to third-world countries thanks to cheap (bordering on slave) labor. To pile emissions control restrictions on US manufacturing without similar constraints on China and India would cripple what little manufacturing remains in this country. So if the Chancellor truly wishes agreement on emissions control, she had best work with us to get China and India back to the table. There is no agreement without them.

The topic of energy efficiency also surfaced, and I'm a bit perplexed by the US stance on this one. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Chancellor Merkel's chief energy advisor, expressed concern over the status of a German proposal to increase energy efficiency by 20% before 2020. The stance taken by the US is that efficiency goals should be set individually by each nation, and that it should not be a global mandate. The logic behind that escapes me.

Increasing energy efficiency simply makes good economic sense. It follows logically that, as the efficiency increases, the cost of energy decreases. That has to be good news for American business as well as the American consumer. Why would we not support a 20% goal by 2020? Even without the economic potential, it makes good political sense. When the average American thinks "energy", they immediately think of gasoline prices, even though the two are not directly related. Championing an energy efficiency policy would play very well heading into an election year whether or not the goal is actually achievable.

What it all comes down to is this, though. We are in the midst of yet another G8 Summit, but there is nothing new and nothing of substance forthcoming. The script is the same, it would seem. G8 leaders arrive, they are met by protests and riots, they sit around and pontificate over global warming, emissions controls, and energy prices, and they ultimately go home with nothing having been actually decided or agreed upon. Somebody wake me when we decide to get serious at one of these summits. For now, it's almost as bad as reading the latest in the Paris Hilton jail saga.

Technorati: politics news G8 greenhouse energy global warming
IceRocket: politics news G8 greenhouse energy global warming

Immigration Bill Support Wanes

2007-06-07T09:23:00.000-04:00

A compromise immigration bill just barely survived a series of challenges in the Senate yesterday. Attempts to add numerous amendments to the bill were narrowly defeated, while a single amendment to shut the program down after 5-years barely passed on a 49-48 vote. (Washington Post: Immigrant Measure Survives Challenges.)

Whether or not the bill ultimately passes is largely irrelevant. Like most of what is coming out of Congress, the bill attempts to morph multiple problems into a single solution that in reality accomplishes virtually nothing. There are three fundamental problems facing us today with regards to immigration policies, and those three problems need to be addressed separately.

First, we have the problem of illegal border crossings which allow people to enter this country without the proper documentation. Regardless of what happens with the other two issues, that problem needs to be solved immediately. There is no legitimate reason for any person to be able to cross our border without proper documentation. Large swatches of our borders both north and south are largely unprotected, so crossing into the US without attracting attention is much easier than the average person would believe. Those borders need to be secured and they need to be monitored. Until that is done we will continue to have an illegal immigration problem. Passing more legislation is laughable without first securing our borders.

The second problem has to do with tracking long term visitors to this country and dealing with those that have exceeded their visa limits. The challenge this presents very quickly turns into a privacy issue. There aren't many - if any - ways to track non-US citizens without also tracking US citizens, and I certainly don't advocate that. We already have enough of a Big Brother environment here without additional tracking imposed on everyone's movements. There are, however, some steps that can be taken to mitigate the problem without becoming too intrusive. There needs to be a requirement for proof of citizenship or proof of legal status when seeking employment, obtaining a driver's license, renting an apartment, buying a home, etc. That is reasonable and will help identify people that are not here legally whenever they engage in a major activity. It won't catch everyone, but it will certainly catch more than we do today. In any event, this issue must be solved and, while it is tied to the first issue, it is in fact separate and should not delay the resolution of issue one.

The third problem is what to do with the millions of illegal immigrants that are already here. Some estimates claim 12-million but the actual number is irrelevant. The point is, they are here, they are illegal, so what are we going to do about it. Well, here's where I'm going to shock my conservative peers. What we do is make them legal. It is not practical, nor is it cost effective, to attempt to track down 12-million people using government, military, or police resources. The only way to identify the current illegal aliens is with their cooperation. Therefore, it must be in their best interests to come forward and obtain legal status. Imposing fines, requiring the head of household to leave and apply to come back, etc. is absolutely absurd. That only provides incentive to remain below the radar. The bill as offered is ludicrous.

Yes, I realize what I am advocating amounts to amnesty, and that does effectively reward 12-million or so people for breaking the law. It is, however, practical and cost effective. Unless the people already here have a reason to come forward, an assurance that they will not be separated from their families, and an assurance that they will not be financially penalized, identifying the 12-million already here will never happen. So as distasteful as it is, amnesty is really the only viable option.

So where does that leave us? Well right now it leaves us with an immigration bill that is laughable. It leaves us with a bill that will not address the people already here, will not prevent additional illegal border crossings, and will not provide for the tracking of people holding expired visas. About the only thing it provides is a political feather for senators heading into an election year, but like most campaign rhetoric, it truly holds no substance.

The challenge is still before Congress to address the immigration issues. I also challenge them to address them as three separate and unique problems that must be solved. As long as all three issues are bundled into a single piece of legislation, progress towards a viable immigration solution will be stymied.

Technorati: politics news immigration senate
IceRocket: politics news immigration senate

D-Day Remembered

2007-06-06T17:58:00.000-04:00

Today marks the 63rd anniversary of D-Day, a day when over 2500 allied soldiers were killed and another 8000 were wounded in the heroic effort to liberate France from Nazi occupation. Defense Secretary Gates marked the day with a visit to the Normandy American Cemetery where 9837 American soldiers are buried, most of whom died either on D-Day or in the days immediately following the start of the invasion. (USA Today: Pentagon Chief Honors D-Day Troops.)

Rarely do I use the word "heroic", and rarely do I assign the hero label to any group of individuals. For the soldiers that executed the invasion on the Normandy beaches, however, words like "hero" and "heroic" hardly seem sufficient. Imagine just for a moment being in that first wave of amphibious landing craft heading for the beaches. Imagine for a moment knowing that the full might of the Nazi defense lines would be focused entirely on you. Imagine hitting that beach knowing your chances of surviving the next few moments were next to nothing. Yet these soldiers did precisely that, not because they were ordered to, not because it was their job, but because they knew that their sacrifice was essential if France was to be liberated from Nazi oppression. Indeed, the men and women alive in 1944 are not known as "The Greatest Generation" for nothing.

Why, though, with our troops currently engaged in a seemingly endless conflict in Iraq do I choose to focus on events 63-years past? Because the efforts of those servicemen in 1944, the sacrifices their families endured, and indeed the hardships and sacrifices we as a nation endured then are more relevant today than ever. In 1944 on the beaches of Normandy, our troops were fighting on foreign soil against unbridled evil. They were fighting an enemy that was systematically attempting to eradicate entire races in their quest for world dominance. They were fighting an enemy that was focused on the subjugation of all of Europe, and despite popular belief, also had its hateful eye on the United States.

Today we face a similar enemy with similar goals. We face an enemy that seeks the eradication of not only an entire race, but also of entire religions. We face an enemy that would reshape the world into their image, and not only has its sites set on the United States but has actually attacked us here and seeks to do so again. The difference today, though, is that the enemy does not have a single head of state. Rather, the enemy is scattered, with each pocket of soldiers more fanatical than the last. The enemy does not wear a uniform and does not wage war along a standard front using traditional weaponry. Indeed, the enemy we face in 2007 is far more dangerous than the one we faced on the beaches of Normandy in 1944.

What's worse, though, is that today, unlike 1944, we as a nation do not think or act like a nation at war with a deadly enemy. We complain about Iraq being a quagmire, and we lament over the soldiers and civilians killed in homicide bombings in Baghdad, but we lose sight of the larger picture. 19 civilians were killed by a Fedayeen car bomb yesterday in Fallujah, and that garners a lot of press and results in even more "we shouldn't be there" rhetoric. But how many of you reading this know about the 15-year old boy murdered by Islamic radicals today in Thailand? How about the courthouse bombing in Algeria today that killed one person and injured 8 others? You haven't heard of those? Well surely you know about the Afghan doctor that was beheaded yesterday by Sunni extremists, or the female head of a girls school in Afghanistan that was killed yesterday by Islamic fundamentalists? No? Well, that is at the heart of the problem.

Make no mistake about it, we are at war, and I don't mean in Iraq. We are at war world wide against Radical Islam. Iraq is getting the headlines these days, but Iraq is only one location in the global war against an enemy that seeks to destroy every religion except their own brand of Radical Islam, and to subjugate every nation in the name of Allah. The anti-Iraq crowd will continue to count the American casualties since our invasion and overthrow of Hussein. Well, here's another count that is more significant, at least to me. As of this date - June 6, 2007, Islamic Extremists have committed 8508 acts of terror since 9/11. We are at war, folks. Let's make sure we win this one.

Technorati: politics news Normandy D-Day Islam Muslim
IceRocket: politics news Normandy D-Day Islam Muslim

Muslims Object to Villain Tag on "24"

2007-01-21T19:31:00.000-05:00

It appears that the current season of '24', the popular action drama now in its 7th season, is once again upsetting Muslims. Without going into too much detail on the plot, this season's villains are radical Islamic terrorists waging war inside the US. This has Muslim organizations across the nation screaming "foul". CNN: Muslim's Protest '24'.

I find it somewhat ironic that the Muslim community is upset with the way they are portrayed on a fictional TV show, yet they seem to have no objections to the actions of their own number in real life. The reality is, there is far less anti-Muslim sentiment in the US today than you might reasonably expect given the actions of Muslim radicals world-wide.

The silence of the Muslim community both here and abroad is deafening when a radical Islamic group commits a homicide bombing - killing innocent women and children in the process - or when they destroy a church or mosque. Well, by their very silence they are condoning that activity. If the Muslim community wants to change their image, then the Muslim community needs to become vocal in their opposition of the antics that are tarnishing that image across the world.

'24' is simply depicting very viable terror scenarios as part of their series. Like it or not, the primary terrorist threat today comes from radical Islam. If the moderate element within the Muslim community wishes to divorce themselves from the actions of their radical counterparts, they are more than welcome to do so. Join us in the fight against these extreme terror groups. Remaining silent, however, only makes you part of the problem.

Technorati: politics news Muslim terror 24 Islam
IceRocket: politics news Muslim terror 24 Islam

Alito, Court Trash Fourth Amendment

2006-06-16T13:25:00.000-04:00

Newly appointed Supreme Court justice Samuel Alito cast the decisive vote in greatly expanding the search and seizure powers of the police while crippling the Fourth Amendment in the process. (San Francisco Chronicle: Police intrusion for evidence allowed
Knock, announce not always needed, high court rules.)

The Supreme Court claims that police intrusions onto private property are already protected by other means, citing "the increasing professionalism of police forces" as one such measure. Forgive me if I don't trust the professionalism of the police force to be a deterrent in violating search and seizure protections built into the US Constitution. Professional or not, the police will take and use as much authority as they are granted and will continue to attempt to extend that authority. There is a very good reason that law enforcement and the courts are not in the same branch of government. Unfortunately, the current Supreme Court is failing to provide the proper checks and balances against unlawful procedures by the police.

With today's ruling, any evidence seized during an unlawful search would still be admissible. It would no longer be considered tainted, thus eliminating any real need to avoid an unlawful search in the first place. With this ruling, the 4th Amendment suddenly becomes unenforceable.

Since the early 1970s there has been a constant erosion into the constitutional protections granted the citizens of the US. This ruling by the court is only the latest in a series of moves that transcend every administration since Nixon. Certainly aspects of the Patriot Act and the "security-mania" environment post-9/11 have fueled the move, but the truth is this erosion is not unique to either Republican or Democrat administrations nor is it something new. Both are equally guilty in eroding our rights. (Remember, it was Bill Clinton that issued executive orders authorizing the search of Section 8 housing without warrants on the grounds that they were funded by the government.)

If anyone wonders why the first and second amendments exist, this is precisely the reason. So where is the outrage from the press? Freedom of the Press exists to expose this type of abuse, to make the public aware of what's happening, and to stimulate the reactions necessary to counter it. The press should be all over this one, but somehow I doubt there will be much of a stir. Personally, I'm steaming. I very much fear that we are spiraling into a police state, and worse yet I fear that we're doing it with the consent of the people. Freedoms lost are never regained, and right now we're losing rights by the bushel.

Technorati: politics news Alito Supreme Court 4th Amendment
IceRocket: politics news Alito Supreme Court 4th Amendment

UN's Brown Whines About US Support

2006-06-08T06:20:00.000-04:00

UN deputy Mark Malloch Brown openly criticised US support for the UN in a widely publicised speech yesterday. Brown complained that the US is undermining the UN and using it as a political tool without defending the UN against criticisms at home. According to Brown, "The prevailing practice of seeking to use the UN almost by stealth as a diplomatic tool while failing to stand up for it against its domestic critics is simply not sustainable. You will lose the UN one way or another." (Telegraph: US failing to aid the UN, says Annan's deputy.)

Lose the UN? Could we ever get so lucky? Like the League of Nations before it, the UN's best course of action would be to fade into the distant memory of a failed history. Idealistic at best, the UN is an exercise in incompetence and a recipe for corruption. It is not the US that is failing to aid the UN, it is the UN that is failing itself.

The United States currently spends over $3 Billion on the UN; more than any other nation on the planet. The US also provides more troops for UN missions than any other nation on the planet. When it comes to supporting the UN, The US and the American taxpayer do far more than any other nation and bear a far higher burden than any other taxpayer. What Mr. Brown seems to fail to understand is that without the United States there is no UN. Just as the League of Nations folded without US support, so too will the UN.

It's high time we drove that point home. It's time we stopped using American troops as the UN's military force. Let the rest of the world take up that burden for a change. It's time we stopped wasting $3 Billion dollars per year on a grand debating society. That money is far better spent at home. It's time we reclaimed some prime real estate in Manhattan. Let some other nation host this collective body of leeches who's sole purpose seems to be to prolong any given crisis. It's time for the UN to fade into distant memory.

Technorati: politics news Brown UN
IceRocket: politics news Brown UN

Chavez' Luster Wearing Off

2006-06-07T06:25:00.000-04:00

Peruvians voiced a resounding "NO" to Hugo Chavez in this week's election of Alan Garcia as President of Peru. In the weeks leading up to the election, pro-Chavez candidate Ollanta Humala had a commanding lead. That is, he lead before Chavez stepped in, attempting to assert his own stamp on Peru's elections. The move backfired, giving pro-American candidate Garcia the victory. (VCrisis: The impact of Alan Garcia's victory on the Latin American political scenario.)

Peru is not the only place where Chavez is starting to feel the heat. Attempts to influence elections in Mexico are being met with the same resistance as was seen in Peru. Given the choice between allying themselves with the US or with Venezuela, it's unlikely Mexicans will choose the latter.

Even Chavez' luster in Bolivia is beginning to wear thin. His attitude toward recently elected Evo Morales is being viewed by Bolivians as patronizing and, in many cases, downright insulting. Morales is starting to chafe at being perceived as a Chavez puppet while the Bolivian people are growing increasingly angry at Chavez' public antics that are seen to demean Morales.

Further south, Brazil and Chile want little to do with Chavez. The election of Garcia in Peru effectively presents a united anti-Chavez front controlling most of South America. Even Kirchner in Argentina is wavering in support of Chavez, accepting money from the Venezuelan government but offering very little in return.

Chavez may well find himself isolated. What was once seen as a tidal wave of anti-American sentiment south of the border has now rebounded into a very loud anti-Chavez chorus. Perhaps now Latin America will see that it is the support of the US, not socialist Venezuela, that can bolster their economy, improve their infrastructure, provide jobs, and educate their children.

Technorati: politics news Garcia Chavez
IceRocket: politics news Garcia Chavez

NH Nixes Driver's License Regulations

2006-04-26T06:15:00.000-04:00

New Hampshire, the state with "Live Free or Die" written across the top of every license plate, is taking a strong stand against federally imposed standards for the issuance of driver's licenses. A measure prohibiting the state from adopting the federal standards passed the New Hampshire House and is expected to easily pass the Senate. The governor remains undecided, however there are certainly enough votes to override any potential gubernatorial veto. (Boston Globe: N.H. leads a rebellion against driver's license regulations).

Representative Neil Kurk said, "I don't believe the people of New Hampshire elected us to help the federal government create a national identification card. We care more for our liberties than to meekly hand over to the federal government the potential to enumerate, track, identify and eventually control."

Kurk is right on the mark. This federally mandated identification program is yet another knee-jerk reaction by Homeland Security that infringes on individual privacy, better enables the federal government to track and monitor every citizen, and does absolutely nothing to address the events that resulted in 9/11. When you look under the covers, absolutely nothing enacted by Homeland Security would have prevented those attacks from being successfully executed. What we have seen, however, is a non-stop erosion in our constitutional rights, our right to privacy, and our personal freedoms all under the false guise of increased security. The attacks on our way of life continue, only they are being perpetrated by a department that comprises part of our federal government.

Kurk went on, "It's not going to promote national security. It's not going to help us prevent illegal immigration. It's just going to help the government keep tabs on ordinary citizens. Remember, the 9-11 terrorists were in this country legally and had legally obtained documents."

Also correct. In fact, there would be absolutely nothing preventing any other group of terrorists from entering the country in the same fashion. They were here legally. They all had valid documentation. None of the measures implemented in the last 5 years would have kept any of them out of the country.

What worries me more than the measures being imposed by Homeland Security is the willingness with which people accept the non-stop erosion of our personal liberties. That erosion is a far greater threat to American values than any attack ever perpetrated by a terrorist organization, yet we the people are willingly embracing and encouraging it just for the illusion of increased security.

From the sovereign state of New Hampshire echo the words spoken by the Patriot Patrick Henry on March 23, 1775. "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" Well spoken, Patrick.

Technorati: politics news New Hampshire Kurt Driver's License
IceRocket: politics news New Hampshire Kurt Driver's License

Rumsfeld Under Siege

2006-04-17T06:16:00.000-04:00

In an unprecedented show of discontent, a half-dozen retired generals have openly called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. More significantly, some of the generals in this list participated in the pre-war planning for the invasion of Iraq and voice numerous complaints that the Pentagon was ignoring the advice of military commanders. (CNN: Pentagon fights back over Rumsfeld).

With the war now in its third year, there is growing discontent at home over the state of affairs in Iraq amid prospects for civil war and the implementation of a fundamentalist regime hostile to American interests. Rumsfeld is certainly the primary target for criticism since he is perceived as the architect of the pre-war plans.

There are two points that I hope are indisputable. First is that the military phase of the Iraq war was flawless. To overthrow Hussein's regime in the short time it actually took while completely dismantling the Iraqi military in the process is nothing short of phenomenal. By all accounts, the phase of the war far exceeded anyone's expectations.

Second, the post-military phase of rebuilding a new Iraqi government and stabilizing the economic and political environment in Iraq has been deplorable. Enthusiastic and Idealistic pre-war estimates that assumed the war would pay for itself using Iraqi oil and that the people would overwhelmingly embrace the US, not as occupiers but rather as liberators, have fallen so far short of expectations as to be comical. As successful as the military phase was, the post-war phase has been a travesty.

The question on the table, though, is should Rumsfeld resign? Sadly, I must answer yes to that question, but not for the reasons one might expect. I certainly do want to see those responsible for the post-war phase held accountable for that overwhelming miscalculation, but I don't think that someone is Rumsfeld. Rather, I'm concerned that the military has lost confidence in their Defense Secretary. When that happens, it's time to put a new man in charge. Support for Rumsfeld among active military personnel has been uncomfortably quiet, and this is a case where silence implies opposition.

Civilian control of the military is one of the fundamental pillars that support our freedom. For that to work effectively, however, the military must have confidence in those civilian leaders. That confidence has been eroded over the last three years. What is unfortunate is that the erosion is due, not to any military failures - there have not been any - but rather in our use of our armed forces for non-military purposes. Rebuilding nations after a war has never been our strong suit. Our military is designed to win wars, and it does that extremely well. The aftermath, however, is more problematic.

The constraints placed on the military in post-war reconstruction almost doom it to failure from the onset. What is needed in this phase is absolute martial control of the region. Instead, we're putting the military in the position of enforcing the peace while attempting to show a kinder, gentler side. It doesn't work. In fact, it's perceived as a weakness by our enemies and it's being exploited by the insurgency. It is only with an iron grip that stability will be restored in Iraq, and that is not something our leadership is willing to exercise.

So yes, Rumsfeld does need to take one for the team. He needs to set stubbornness aside and step down. It will not change anything in Iraq, however it will allow a new Defense Secretary to start with a clean slate. That may well be necessary to restore the military's confidence in their leadership.

Technorati: politics news Rumsfeld
IceRocket: politics news Rumsfeld

India Nuke Deal Ill Conceived

2006-04-06T06:19:00.000-04:00

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday to lobby for the President's plan to share nuclear technology with India. Now, this is not nuclear weapons technology - they already have that - but rather nuclear energy technology, a distinction Iran is attempting to sell in their own dealings with the world community. (Washington Post: Rice Appeals For Nuclear Deal for India).

Does the distinction really matter, though? Not in my view, and certainly not in the case of India, a nation that has refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and who secretly developed and tested a nuclear weapon right under our noses. That foreign intelligence failure launched a mini arms race between India and rival Pakistan, and leaves the region smoldering in a temporary cold war that only awaits the removal of Musharraf to escalate into something tragic.

Coupled with the Dubai Port debacle, this plan to bolster India's nuclear capabilities underscores our government's true priorities in the grand scheme of foreign relations. When the balance sheets are tallied, it is the profit and loss line that wins, not the security line. India is a prime market for cheap labor, especially in the technology sector, they are now enjoying the many benefits of a relationship with the US in exchange for a cheap work force. National security be damned if it improves the bottom line for corporate America.

What suffers beyond our national security, however, is our credibility. It is difficult to take a hard line against Iran while rewarding two other nations (India and Pakistan) for developing and testing nuclear weapons in defiance of UN edicts against nuclear proliferation. It is difficult to sell the American public on the idea that our government's first priority is national security when, in the name of profit, we are willing to sell our ports to a Middle East government owned company and we're willing to enhance nuclear technologies in a nation that is a heart beat away from war.

Our dealings with India are ill conceived. It is not in our long term best interests to reward them for their nuclear proliferation. That is a headache that will haunt a future administration. It is not in our best interests to encourage the outsourcing of technology and call-center jobs to India. That move will come back to haunt the American worker and it may very well come back to haunt the economy as a whole. It will certainly hinder our foreign policy options when the aforementioned future administration is forced to handle the escalation of tensions between India and Pakistan.

Many of the foreign policy problems we are facing today are the direct result of short-sighted or poorly planned initiatives on the part of prior administrations. Future administrations will be forced to deal with the results of today's poorly conceived and short-sighted dealings with India.

Technorati: politics news India Rice Condoleezza Rice
IceRocket: politics news India Rice Condoleezza Rice

Iran Girding For War

2006-04-03T06:16:00.000-04:00

While the UN dithers, Iran is preparing for a military showdown with the west. The latest move comes in test firing a new torpedo, conspicuously similar to a 1995 Russian design, that is capable of targeting multiple ships and eluding radar. (Bloomberg: Iran's Navy Says It Successfully Test-Fired High-Speed Torpedo).

Meanwhile, efforts in the UN remain deadlocked with neither China nor Russia supporting any form of sanctions or military threat against the rogue nation. A recent UN resolution calling for Iran to halt efforts to enrich uranium was all but meaningless. It carried about as much weight as a letter to the editor in your local newspaper. Without the support of China and Russia, both nations with veto power, the UN will effectively remain on the sidelines.

The latest developments in Iran push us much closer to a US military response. The new torpedo, which was shown in Iranian media broadcasts this weekend, threatens shipping in the Gulf and would certainly be used as an economic counter measure by Iran once the shooting starts. Iran frequently attacked ships in the gulf during their 1980 conflict with Iraq and had numerous clashes with military warships patrolling those waters. This new torpedo raises the stakes in control of the major oil shipping lanes.

Also problematic is the risk this now poses for the US 5th fleet stationed in the Gulf. Until now, no nation in that region could touch US warships patrolling the gulf or using carriers in that region to launch air assaults against Middle Eastern targets. This torpedo traveling at speeds up to 233 MPH could change all that.

What is clear is that the US cannot afford to wait for the UN to move. Perhaps the best course of action now is to provoke Iran into firing the first shot; a Persian Gulf equivalent to the Gulf of Tomkin. All we lack at the moment is an excuse to take out Iran's military potential. A retaliatory response, unlike a preemptive strike, needs no UN approval to be justified around the world.

However we go about it, 2006 must see action in Iran. Giving them another year to develop nuclear capabilities or increase their defensive and offensive capabilities against US troops both in Iraq and in the Gulf makes absolutely no sense. Forget the UN. Russia and China have blockaded those efforts. The time has come to see which of our allies are willing to take a stand. Either way, unilaterally or with allies, we must address the Iranian problem now.

Technorati: politics news Iran torpedo Hoot
IceRocket: politics news Iran torpedo hoot

Pakistan: Headache for Next President

2006-03-21T06:10:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, Pakistan test fired a cruise missile capable of delivering either a conventional or a nuclear payload. The missile has a range of about 310 miles and is primarily seen as a deterrent in the ongoing struggle between India and Pakistan. (BBC: Pakistan launches cruise missile).

Pakistan made waves a few years ago when they joined the nuclear club and launched a flurry of diplomatic desperation talks including the US and India. A visit by Secretary of State Rumsfeld to both Pakistan and India managed to defuse the situation at least temporarily, but in all likelihood the current state of relative calm is only a brief interlude.

In a recent speech, President Bush made reference to Pakistan as part of an overall goal to bring Democracy to the "Arab World". (We'll gloss over the fact that Pakistan is not an Arab country. We know what he meant.) In my view, a democratic Pakistan is about the worst thing that can happen in that region. As things stand now, Pakistan will likely be the greatest headache facing the 44th President of the United States. Sometime during the tenure of our next President, there is the increasing likelihood that there will be a change at the top in Pakistan. That, not Iran and not North Korea, poses the greatest danger to the US and our allies.

A Democratic Pakistan - something I see as impractical at best and more than likely impossible - would virtually guarantee a fundamentalist Islamic government with very strong ties to terrorist organizations including al Qaeda. Pakistan being a nuclear power, that essentially means nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists; not a pleasant prospect.

While the present Pakistani leadership is cooperating with the US in the War on Terror, albeit with numerous restrictions that have hindered our ability to contain terror cells in that region, the populace openly supports radical Islamic terror groups. Many consider bin Laden and other leaders of al Qaeda to be heroes, not villains. Once Musharrif is out of power, and bear in mind that he has been the target of 4 assassination attempts, there is a strong likelihood that his successor will be very anti-American and is also likely to have closer ties to terrorist organizations.

When Americans take to the polls in the 2008 election, national security will still be the biggest issue facing us. Conflict with Iran and probably the status of Iraq will fill the headlines, but it is Pakistan that the winner of that election will have to confront. It is Pakistan, not Iran, that is the America's greatest threat.

Technorati: politics news Pakistan Iran
IceRocket: politics news Pakistan Iran

XXX Domain - It's Baaaack

2006-03-20T06:20:00.000-05:00

The US Senate has once again taken up the call for a .XXX internet domain in legislation aimed at compelling President Bush to establish the world wide red light district. This measure was killed once before amid strong objections by Christian conservatives that were concerned the domain would make it easier to find porn on the web (if that's possible.) Proponents of the legislation claim it will make it easier for software to filter sights thus "protecting" children from seeing pornographic material online. Of course, that software won't stop them from finding the magazines under dad's mattress like our generation did. (Family News: .xxx Domain Bill Returns).

My opposition to this bill transcends many different levels. First of all, the US government has no oversight authority in the establishment of internet domains, and I'd like to keep it that way. Neither Congress nor the President have the authority to create an internet domain nor do they have the authority to require web sites to conform to any naming standard.

The internet has grown into an international entity that embodies the concept of free speech. The only thing any government can do is corrupt that free exchange of ideas. Whether or not any individual or government approves of pornography is irrelevant. Once a government regulates one aspect of free speech, the foundation is laid for that government to regulate all aspects of speech. I'm not willing to give them that beachhead by acknowledging any right of the government to regulate pornography on the internet. The issue is bigger than that.

Much of the pornography found on the internet does not originate in the United States and therefore is beyond the control of the US Congress. Legislation of this nature by the US Senate is just as bad as the legislation in China that required Google to filter certain search terms and the results displayed to Chinese citizens.

What it comes down to in its basic form is responsibility. With freedom comes responsibility, and this legislation is designed to absolve us of ours by limiting freedom. If people do not want to visit porn sites, the solution is simple. Don't visit them. If parents don't want their children to visit porn sites, the solution is equally simply. Be aware of what your child does online. In other words, be a parent.

Making it easier for filtering software to block sites is neither a good reason to impose government interference on the internet, nor in this case is it a valid argument. Porn sites typically carry more meta tags than you can count ensuring that any mention of a search term that remotely hints at sexual content will find their site. Today's filtering software keys off these tags to determine if the site's content should be blocked. That methodology is far more efficient and accurate than relying on the website provider to create their site with a .xxx domain name - something that is unenforceable by the US government.

With luck, there will be enough opposition once again to kill this measure yet again. Sadly, I'm not convinced it will stay dead.

Technorati: politics news .xxx xxx domain Senate pornography
IceRocket: politics news .xxx xxx domain Senate pornography

NASA Priorities Completely Backwards

2006-03-17T08:31:00.000-05:00

NASA researches are expressing dismay and outrage over the latest budget priorities as current projects and future missions are scrapped in favor of dead-end projects. NASA has focused its current budget on maintaining the Space Shuttle program through 2010, finishing the International Space Station, and developing a replacement for the Shuttle. Budget casualties, however, are deep space missions such as Dawn, a project intended to place a probe in orbit around Vesta and Ceres. (Astronomy: Scientists sound off on NASA budget).

The most successful and scientifically beneficial missions since the Apollo program have been the planetary and deep space missions, yet these are precisely the missions now being cut in an ill-conceived attempt to keep the Space Shuttle program on life support. Despite the relatively low cost of sample return missions such as Stardust which recently returned particle samples from a comet, these types of missions are unpopular with NASA administrators and are now on the chopping block.

Repercussions to Project Dawn's cancellation are being felt across the pond as well. The European Space Agency who also had a vested interest in that project is angry at NASA's decision to cancel the project and views it as a sign that the US is no longer a reliable space partner. Said Gerhard Neukum, the ESA's head of the Mars Express image processing team, "This was not a good way to treat things in terms of international cooperation. Things are degrading, and I'm not the only one who feels that way."

NASA's priorities are definitely backwards. The Shuttle program is dead, but apparently the NASA administrators are not willing to release the body. The ISS program is so scaled down from its original design as to be all but worthless. The future of all space programs is not near earth exploration, but rather interplanetary research both manned and unmanned. Current NASA administrators clearly lack the vision to lead the floundering US space program in that direction, however. A change in leadership within NASA would be refreshing and would be most welcome both here and abroad. Given NASA's current direction, there are few prospects for the US leading any major initiatives in space exploration. With the European and Chinese space agencies on the rise, losing that initiative may prove to be an extremely costly mistake.

Technorati: politics news NASA ESA Space
IceRocket: politics news NASA ESA Space

Bush Reaffirms First Strike Policy

2006-03-16T06:27:00.000-05:00

In a 49-page report to Congress, President Bush reaffirmed the US policy he enacted in 2002 which provides for preemptive strikes against nations potentially planning an attack against the US with weapons of mass destruction. (Union Tribune: Bush security strategy reaffirms strike-first policy, sees Iran as possibly greatest threat).

That policy has come under fire of late with critics citing faulty intelligence in Iraq as an example of why preemption doesn't work. Until 2002 US policy had opposed launching preemptive strikes and was the cornerstone of our waging the cold war. However, given the number of rogue nations that either have nuclear weapons (such as Pakistan) and the number of rogue nations such as Iran that are trying to develop nuclear weapons, a policy of preemption is absolutely required. A nuclear equipped Iran or a fundamentalist regime change in Pakistan are worst case scenarios that would most certainly prompt a US preemptive strike.

President Bush commented on the policy saying, “When the consequences of an attack with weapons of mass destruction are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialize. ... The place of pre-emption in our national security strategy remains the same.”

The President is correct. What is needed in addition to this policy, however, is significant improvement in our intelligence gathering capabilities within rogue nations as well as a restoration of our credibility with regards to foreign intelligence. The argument for war in Iraq is seen world-wide as a failure of US intelligence (despite the same conclusions being drawn by France, Germany, Spain, and Great Britain) and that public perception will certainly make it more difficult to sell a skeptical world on the need to act preemptively elsewhere.

Iran is one of the nations benefiting from the loss of foreign intelligence credibility. Efforts to sanction Iran - or even merely warn them not to develop a nuclear program - have stalled in the UN Security Council. Neither Russia nor China support any measures that appear at all confrontational. While their motives have little to do with foreign intelligence and more to do with their strong economic ties to Iran, the fact that the US has lost credibility has contributed to our inability to gain more widespread support for sanctions.

Still, the policy of preemption is sound. It does not make sense to wait for the enemy to strike first when the results of that strike could be a nuclear, chemical, or biological attack against US interests or allies. If that means acting unilaterally or without the support of the UN, then so be it. US foreign policy is set in Washington, not in New York, Paris, or Brussels. In the final analysis, the President reports to the American people, not to the United Nations. It is our responsibility to ensure that rogue nations do not gain the ability to cause harm to US interests. If that means acting while the UN stumbles along in endless and fruitless debate, then we will do just that.

Technorati: politics news Bush preemptive UN Iran Iraq
IceRocket: politics news Bush preemptive UN Iran Iraq

Bush To Promote Iraq Progress

2006-03-13T06:24:00.000-05:00

Facing the lowest popularity numbers of his presidency, President Bush will take to the airwaves in a series of speeches designed to garner public support for our efforts in Iraq. The speeches come at a time when polls show the largest number of Americans to date questioning a successful outcome in Iraq and expressing displeasure with the President's handling of the war.

Recent polls show that four out of five Americans believe the conflict in Iraq will escalate into civil war; an opinion that increasingly appears more like hindsight than prognostication. With armed conflicts between Shiites and Sunnis on the rise, it would be a hard sell to convince most Americans that Iraq is not already embroiled in a civil war.

Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in the sales pitch to America is the administration's continued insistence that a democratic Middle East is the right approach. Few Americans believe that Democracy can flourish in Iraq. Recent elections in the Palestinian Congress emphasize the perils of promoting Democracy in a region where terrorism and anti-American or anti-Israeli sentiment has popular support. Thoughts of Democratic elections in Pakistan are enough to give even the most optimistic supporter of the policy nightmares for weeks.

Democracy is not a form of government suitable for everyone, nor is it in our best interests to promote popularly elected governments in every part of the world. The sad reality is that there are times when a dictatorship is the right solution, not just for American interests, but also for the betterment of the people in that region. Iraq is one of those places where a call for Democracy virtually guarantees continued armed conflict.

The President will have a very difficult sales pitch to make in his coming speeches. He's going to have to convince a skeptical public that progress is being made in Iraq while news reports continue to show a country backsliding quickly into civil war. He's going to have to convince a skeptical public that promoting Democracy in Iraq is the right approach while the lessons learned from Hamas' recent election show that Democratic elections do not always turn out in our favor. Most importantly, he's going to have to convince us that we are capable of sustaining our efforts in Iraq while the likelihood of military action in Iran continues to increase. It will be a tough sell at best.

Technorati: politics news Iraq Bush
IceRocket: politics news Iraq Bush

On Vacation Until March 8th

2006-02-19T21:07:00.000-05:00

I will be on vacation without access to the internet until Wednesday, March 8th. The Grapes Vine will continue its daily commentary at that time.

Hamas Abandons Peace

2006-02-18T23:17:00.000-05:00

Hamas formally took office today, taking control of the Palestinian Parliament. Mahmoud Abbas, current Palestinian leader, asked the Hamas leadership to recognize existing peace deals with Israel and to continue down the roadmap to peace. Mushir al-Masri, a leading Hamas legislator, rebuffed the call, saying that negotiations with Israel were "not on our agenda." (CTV: Hamas takes power, rejects calls for peace talks).

Israel is expected to respond on Sunday with additional sanctions against the Palestinians and is expected to seal off the Gaza Strip to keep out thousands of Palestinian workers. There can be little doubt that the prospects for peace in that region are now slimmer than they were in 1967 before the 6-day war.

Hamas is also besieged by the US who on Friday warned other Iran and other Islamic nations not to fund Hamas. Iranian support for Hamas may well be another point raised in the UN when sanctions and military action are brought before the Security Council.

What is clear is that Hamas - and by default the Palestinian people - now find themselves isolated. With the US and Israel turning the financial screws, it's questionable how long Hamas can maintain control. It's also almost a certainty that terror attacks will continue against Israel. Now that those attacks will be coming from the legitimate government of the Palestinian Authority, Israel's response will hardly be measured.

The Palestinian people are about to learn a very harsh lesson. With democracy comes responsibility. The Palestinian people have chosen to elect a terrorist legislature. That is certainly their right, but now they will have to live with the consequences of that ill-advised decision. By choosing to put in office a terrorist government, they have chosen to forfeit all funding from the US and allies. They have chosen a path that may well lead to war. They have chosen a path that will isolate them from the rest of the world.

Certainly, that is a risk we take when we promote Democracy in parts of the world that are not accustomed with governing themselves. The Palestinian people are free to choose whatever leaders they wish. That is the right granted by a Democratic government. Now they will learn the consequences of making such an irrational choice, however. Hopefully they will learn this lesson before it's too late.

Technorati: politics news Hamas Israel Palestine
IceRocket: politics news Hamas Israel Palestine