Practical Politics

In Defense of Lieberman

2007-01-06T19:32:00.001-08:00

Lieberman's Motives

Lieberman is to be trusted more than his opponents. He supports the war in Iraq, and, furthermore, he publicly supports more troops. Both of these are extremely unpopular positions. The only reason he would support them is because he genuinely believes them the best course of action for America. As to his opponents, they are merely following polls, moving with the herd, so to speak, not to mention settling grudges, as many Democrats are very upset over Lamont's defeat.

More American Soldiers is just part of Lieberman's solution

Lieberman- "To turn around the crisis we need to send more American troops while we also train more Iraqi troops and strengthen the moderate political forces in the national government."
Lieberman- "The addition of more troops must be linked to a comprehensive new military, political and economic strategy that provides security for the population so that training of Iraqi troops and the development of a democratic government can move forward."

However, more troops remains an integral part nonetheless

What Losing Iraq Means

Lieberman - "On this point, let there be no doubt: If Iraq descends into full-scale civil war, it will be a tremendous battlefield victory for al-Qaeda and Iran. Iraq is the central front in the global and regional war against Islamic extremism."
The people waiting for us to leave in Iraq are not citizens fighting for their liberties, as were we were in our own revolutionary war, nor members of a movement fighting for Iraq's nationalist right of self determination, as were the Vietnamese. They are kidnappers and criminals, they are terrorists, they are militias, and they are foreign proxies. If we leave Iraq, they, and their supporters (such as Iran) will be the ones to fill the power vacuum. Not only will the situation indubitably germinate larger problems down the road, such as terrorism, regional instability, and threats to Middle Eastern oil flows (and consequently our economy), but all those who have supported us in Iraq, all those who dared to dream of a better, more democratic, and more just tomorrow, will flee or perish.
Kurdistan is the notable exception- they are run by a movement fighting for their right of self-determination and citizens fighting for their liberties. We've also left Kurdistan. They also love the Americans.

A secure Iraq is necessary for the construction of democracy in Iraq.

Lieberman - "More U.S. forces might not be a guarantee of success in this fight, but they are certainly its prerequisite. Just as the continuing carnage in Baghdad empowers extremists on all sides, establishing security there will open possibilities for compromise and cooperation on the Iraqi political front -- possibilities that simply do not exist today because of the fear gripping all sides."
Try running a democracy when people will shoot you because of who you are. Not who you chose to be. Who you are. Your ethnicity. Your race. These people were born Sunni-Shi'ite, and they're getting killed for it because we cannot deliver basic security.
Try making improving a society when people shoot you for that to. Teachers. Policemen. Soldiers. Politicians. Judges. People who rose when we asked them to make a democracy are now getting mowed down (or are fleeing Iraq altogether) because we never bothered to provide adequate security.
According to Iraqi tallies, 13,896 Iraqis died in 2006, 1,539 of which were from the security forces. According to the UN and a John Hopkins study, the number is much higher. Furthermore, it is estimated that as of Nov. 2006, 1.6 million Iraqis have fled their neighborhoods and 1.8 million Iraqis have quit the country altogether. An additional 100,000 are fleeing monthly.
Lieberman- "The most pressing problem we face in Iraq is not an absence of Iraqi political will or American diplomatic initiative, both of which are increasing and improving; it is a lack of basic security. As long as insurgents and death squads terrorize Baghdad, Iraq's nascent democratic institutions cannot be expected to function, much less win the trust of the people. The fear created by gang murders and mass abductions ensures that power will continue to flow to the very thugs and extremists who have the least interest in peace and reconciliation."
There can be no doubt that what is impeding the progress of Iraqi society, what is impeding the progress of their economy and institutions, is the security situation. Without security, we, and the Iraqis, cannot nation-build in Iraq.

We cannot trust Iraqi forces to bring about that security without us.

"Those [Iraqi] forces, already struggling with corruption and infiltration, have shown little willingness to stand up to political pressure, especially when the Americans are not there to support them. That suggests, the commanders say, that if the Americans leave soon, violence will redouble." Link.
"Among Sunnis, there is absolutely no faith in the ability, or desire, of the Iraqi Army or police to provide protection." Link.
"American officials, who are overseeing the training of the Iraqi Army and the police, acknowledge that police officers and Iraqi soldiers, and the militias with which they are associated, may indeed be carrying out killings and abductions in Sunni communities, without direct American knowledge." Link.
According to the Human Rights Watch: "Iraqi security forces are committing systematic torture and other abuses against people in detention"
Without the strong political and societal institutions that cannot be built (democratically) without security, the Iraqis cannot build a competent police force and army. How are you to build a non-sectarian, competent police force when any Iraqi runs the risk of having his family gunned down for doing his job right? That leaves the task with us. There is nobody we can pass the buck to. It is up to America, as the principle agent in bringing Iraq to its present situation, to provide Iraq with basic security. A necessary component of delivering that security is more American troops.

More Manpower works

Ramadi - An escalation of US troops, coupled with cooperation of the Sheiks, has almost pacified a one-time insurgent stronghold and led to the successful creation of a 2000+ man police force in a city.
Fallujah - Another one-time insurgent stronghold has been turned into a "safe-haven" for Sunnis fleeing Baghdad due to a strong and effective American security presence.
At the beginning of the war, we did not know what we were doing. Now, as evident in Ramadi and Fallujah, the American military has developed extremely effective pacification tactics. With the appointment of Gen. Petraeus, the same man that just oversaw the recent drafting of the military’s counterinsurgency manual and who promises a shift of tactics from Casey's strategy (consolidate and prepare to leave) to the same strategies that have worked inRamadi & Fallujah- small outposts with many patrols, we can finally trust our manpower will be effective.

Commanders' Opinions

It is a tradition- and a good tradition- that military commanders refrain from commenting on policy. That keeps the military controlled by the civilians, not the other way around. It is then to be expected that military commanders do not voice their opinion on the number of troops in Iraq, and when they do it is either muted or private.
Nonetheless, a poll of the actual military reveal that as of 2006, almost half of respondents think the U.S. needs more troops in Iraq and only 13 percent said the U.S. should have no troops there.
Additionally, historically the most consistent opinion of those involved in the Iraq war is that we did not have enough troops:

Bremer : "Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, administrator for the U.S.-led occupation government until the handover of political power on June 28, said he still supports the decision to intervene in Iraq but said a lack of adequate forces hampered the occupation and efforts to end the looting early on."
General Shinseki (2003): "I would say that what's been mobilized to this point -- something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We're talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant, with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so it takes a significant ground- force presence to maintain a safe and secure environment, to ensure that people are fed, that water is distributed, all the normal responsibilities that go along with administering a situation like this."

Furthermore, commanders will often be appointed according to the opinions of the civilian leadership. Thus it was to be expected that the top man in Iraq underRumsfeld , Gen. George W. Casey Jr, who was appointed to oversee reductions in the troops in Iraq, "initially expressed public wariness about any short-term increase in troops in Iraq" (Link). Troop increases would be a rubber stamp on his failure to implement his own plan. Much more than a rubber stamp is the fact that he is now being replaced by Gen. David H. Petraeus, a man whose personal pride will not stand to be hurt by changing tactics in Iraq and who actually supports more troops.

Iraqi Opinions

It is to be expected that the most Iraqis (excepting the Kurds) do not like us- we broke their China bowl, so to speak, and now we will not clean it up. Those that do not want us there are either those that believe the conspiracy theories that we are there to set up a Christian empire, or are those resisting us, who, asafore mentioned, are miscreants whose opinions are not to be respected when it comes to making decisions about the course of a society.

On Campaign Promises

The core reason the liberal left does not like Lieberman is because of his unflagging support of the war in Iraq. They may say otherwise, but that is definitely where he has received the most flak. Thus, to call him alier for supporting more troops after he supposedly promised otherwise during the campaign is to be hypocritical. The left opposed him during his campaign because he supported the war in Iraq, the left still opposes him now for supporting in Iraq, and neither side has shifted its position dramatically. Find me a citizen of Connecticut who voted for Lieberman and is outraged that he now supports more troops in Iraq and I will take him seriously. As to those claiming moral outrage who have always hated him, they have no grounds for additional anger.

The Case.

The Bush administration has done a terrible job with the occupation of Iraq. Such a terrible job that, were we to go back to the beginning, knowing what I know now, I would have actively opposed the undertaking from the onset. But the fact of the matter is that we are there, and our inability to deliver basic security is to blame for Iraq's desperate plight.
Furthermore, our army has gotten much more competent at being an occupation force in the last (almost) four years. With increased manpower, there is a valid possibility we can succeed.
There can be no doubt right now that Bush, and the Republican congress that did not hold him responsible, is to blame for the incompetency that got us here. I also think there can be little doubt that the Democratic congressional victory can be credited for making Bush fire those responsible (Rumsfeld) and change his strategy in Iraq.

After having caused such a reversal, for the Democratic majority to throw away even the chance for victory by pushing for a full withdrawal is a cowardly, partisan, and politically easy solution to a very difficult problem on par with the Republican decisions that got us here.
Furthermore, while a withdrawal will certainly spare America much sacrifice in the short run, it will be little less than a betrayal of Iraq to leave them with the mess we made.

The Democrats, and all of America, should stand for competency and accountability, not partisanry and defeat. Lieberman seems to understand that. The Democratic leadership, I'm afraid, does not.

The Practical Carbon Tax

2006-12-04T15:58:00.000-08:00

The price of oil is looking to plunge again, and with it, most of the progress made thus far in the 'War on Carbon Fuel Consumption.'

Alright, the name's a lot less sexy, but seeing as our success on this front will decide our future foreign policy, trade deficit, and most importantly our ability to achieve energy independence and transition off of oil without resorting to coal or dirty oil (ie shale oil) and the environmental havoc that would wreak, I think it a much more important war to win.

We need to adopt an effective, comprehensive strategy for tackling our unhealthy oil habit if we are to win. That strategy is a carbon tax:

'Climate change is a real problem and the only way to tackle it is to reduce the gap between the price of fossil-fuel energy and alternative energy. But subsidies are not the best way to achieve that goal... A global carbon tax would be a more efficient way to close the gap between fossil and alternative fuels' -Economist, Nov. 18-24 2006.

It needs to achieve all the aims of a fuel tax (punishing consumption) while softening spikes, making gasoline prices predictable, and not giving the government ridiculous amounts of money.
Here's my proposal:

It has five points.

First, you decide (or more likely some skilled economist decides) the maximum rate at which the price of carbon fuels can rise to curb consumption without significantly impacting the economy.

Second, you define carbon-based fuels as all transportation fuels deriving more than 5% (can be a little more or less) of their energy from carbon fuels such as natural gas, coal, and oil. This ensures the taxation of second hand carbon fuels, such as coal-hydrogen, while allowing fuels like ethanol, which requires natural gas based fertilizers, some wiggle room.

Third, you take that rate of price increase, you pick a base price, and then you get target prices that will change every quarter, half year, or year (again depends on what the economist says). So, for example, you would say the price of carbon-fuels will be 3$ in 2008 and increase 10 cents every quarter thereafter.

Fourth, you achieve this target rate by, each month, taking the lowest retail price of carbon fuel and adding however much tax is necessary to raise it to the target price. Thus, with slight variations to ensure the market continues to take its course, the price of carbon-fuels will remain at the target price. This allows consumers in the market to plan fuel expenses years into the future, assisting them with decisions such as the purchase of a hybrid, and producers to do the same, allowing, for instance, ethanol producers to invest big without the fear of a sudden plunge in carbon fuel prices.

Fifth, you take all the revenue from the tax, which, because of it changes monthly, will be incredibly unpredictable, and you give it back. You simply take all the money, divide the revenue by the number of taxpayers, and mail each one a check. Because everyone gets the same check regardless of their fuel consumption, big consumers will be losing, and people who do not consume carbon fuels will be getting free money. Regardless, the American government will get nothing, the desired punitory effect of a gas tax will be achieved, and the money will remain in the private sector.

Fighting oil consumption is a subject of great interest of me, and this plan has come from many modifications. Please do tell me if you approve and/or have any more to make.

Incompetence

2006-08-30T17:34:00.000-07:00

Its time to face up to the facts: not only has the war in Iraq been executed terribly, but we can hardly hope to have a decent outcome unless we chin up and put down the requisite resources:

More troops.

Perhaps, at the beginning of the occupation phase of the war, 150-200,000 might have cut it. There was still an army leftover from Hussein, and most of the institutions were intact. Then we fired all the Ba'athists, let those looters run free, slipped up a few more times... and now we're dealing with full-blown militias, a very effective insurgency, highly-developed terror organizations, sectarian strife and huge amounts of criminal activity.

Fortunately, we can cope. Using the right tactics and sufficient force one can bring about security. Unfortunately, you need to maintain that force while expanding the secure area until the insurgency, militia, criminals, terrorists, have nowhere left to run. That's not being done. The situation was recently aptly summarized in a NYT article:

"...counterinsurgency operations have taken on the quality of a whack-a-mole arcade game. Every time the Americans have massed force to put out one fire, they have created a vacuum elsewhere that the insurgents have rushed to fill. When the Marines gathered forces to clear Falluja in 2004, they drew troops from the Haditha area, where the insurgents promptly moved in and executed the defenseless local police near the town's soccer field. The Marines returned in strength to Haditha and established several forward bases, including the one at Barwana, but then many of the troops were sent to the far west when commanders decided to clear Al Qaim, near the Syrian border. And the insurgents filtered back to Haditha."

Once we've established security, economic activity and free-discourse can escalate to the point where Iraq can become a viable democracy, but we simply cannot establish security given our current manpower.

Currently, the American army is trying to substitute for the shortage by beefing up the Iraqi military and police forces, but unless we pull off a miracle (if we do, I won't complain), that just is not going to work.

Why?

In chaotic situations, it is very difficult to impossible for a decentralized-democratic government to impose order.

Take, for instance, the Russian Civil War. In that war dozens of democratic rights-abiding governments rose from the chaos of Tsarist Russia, only to be crushed by terror-driven, highly disciplined conscripts from a centralized dictatorship. Ultimately this dictatorship was the Bolsheviks but Wrangel, Denikin, and Kolchak all also had their time in the sun as dictatorial White autocrats (of course all promising democracy as soon as the Reds were defeated, to be fair to their legacy).

So, if left to fight for itself, there is almost no way Iraq's government can establish order without resorting to dictatorial measures.

Which is why they need us. They need us to provide the security normally only a dictatorship can attain while their nascent democratic institutions find their feet. To provide that security, we need more soldiers.

The failure to do as much has been the Bush administration's ultimate fault in Iraq. And it's not like we cannot either. In the first Gulf War, we put forth 500,000 soldiers- and that was just to liberate Kuwait. In this war, yes, the sacrifice of our soldiers has been great, probably too great in light of the harvest we are reaping, but the sacrifice of our nation on the whole has been negligible if not laughable. No extra taxes have been imposed- in fact I believe we've enjoyed several tax cuts, nobody has been asked to put forth a little more, American society on the whole is operating on a peace-time basis- fighting this war with one hand behind the back, so to speak. I'm not saying that we should go into World-War total-war mode, but only that the resources we can bring to the table in Iraq are much more immense than what we have brought to bear.

So, Mr. President, get a spine and put in the troops. You won't get popular support- Americans don't trust you with military operations (I wonder why...?), but what does it matter? Your poll ratings are low anyway and you don't have to get re-elected. Chin up, belly in, and face the electorates wrath. If we upped the number to 500,000 and our military commanders don't suddenly lose their minds, we will see results. In fact, we might even get a viable democracy in Iraq.

Perhaps you're just waiting for December...?

Israel Is Losing

2006-08-16T11:48:00.000-07:00

The incredible stupidity on display in the allied and Israeli handling of Hezbollah and southern Lebanon astounds me. I hope for the welfare of the Middle East and America that mine is a skewed perspective on the region.

From the beginning it should have been clear to Israel that the key to undermining Hezbollah lay not in bombs and missions.

Hezbollah is invincible so far as military action is concerned: they are an incredibly popular grass roots organization, they have a morally just cause (the defense of ones country) and they will have personnel so long as Lebanon has Shi'ites, thus Israel cannot shoot them all. They are militarily and financially supported by Iran, meaning they will have resources so long as the regime in Iran persists, thus Israel cannot bomb them all.

So military action is not where the struggle for Hezbollah's survival is and will be fought. Nay, rather it is the occupation: wresting control of southern Lebanon's society from the grips of Hezbollah.

This task is simply achieved first by occupying the place (check) then, more importantly, filling those civilian niches in which Hezbollah has always resided with institutions that promote a free and open society.

Not too difficult. Merely give the Lebanese government the overwhelming technical and financial aid to rebuild all roads, hospitals, schools, homes, infrastructure in general and then staff them all. Voila, the government is in, Hezbollah is no more than another political organization. This should not be too difficult an undertaking were it given the support of all those nations that are already sending their soldiers there.

Unfortunately, it would seem Hezbollah is already winning this second, much more important battle. With Iran's unlimited support, they have promised to rebuild the south, and seem to be moving quickly to it.

How could Israel fail to see that it is about to lose any shot it ever had at gaining popular support and strengthening the Lebanese government? How is it that our own government, whose interests lie very much so in neutering Hezbollah, is being outspent by Iran?

I dearly hope I am not seeing the whole picture, that as we speak Western bureaucrats are organizing a massive aid program, but I fear the contrary.

On The Sources of Terrorists

2006-08-15T17:37:00.000-07:00

Meet Khalid. He drives taxis in Italy. He is Morroccan by birth, and a practicing Muslim. He speaks three languages fluently: Italian, French, and Arabic, and speaks well enough English (he's learning it) that I could carry on a conversation with him on our brief taxi ride encounter. He thinks his town in Italy is the most beautiful place in the world, was anxious about the upcoming world cup match, and has finally earned enough money to pay for his parents to join him.

Is Khalid a soldier, the first wave of what is a coordinated Islamic attempt to subvert and takeover Europe? Or is he just another man making his way in the world?

I'm going to take the latter. Unfortunately, there are people and forces who would have him, and the millions of other Muslim immigrants in Europe who have not reached his level of integration, be the former.

As explained in the previous essay, there is a very powerful and influential structure devoted to the reinforcement of radical Islam and the idea that the impoverished and politically disenfranchised masses of the Middle East have not their oppressive and downright greedy governments to blame but rather America and the West.

There are three groups, "armies" within Islam that this very propaganda combines with to create anti-Americanism at the least and terrorists at the worst.

First, the masses of the Middle East. They are the principle target, for they are the most capable of toppling the elites and governments who create the propaganda.

Second, the immigrant masses. They are a more indirect target but a target nonetheless. Most fall back on Islam and at worst radical Islam after having been economically denied and discriminated against in their new societies. Iran actually actively targets these immigrants through its financial support of radical mosques and schools towards the end of increasing its influence abroad.

Albeit it is difficult, almost impossible to bring the first group out of its propaganda bubble without solving the root problem by reforming their societies, the societies in which this group resides are already in an optimum state and need only end discrimination and deliver economic aid to battle discrimination in their ranks.

Finally, there are the well-to-do Muslims. Not the elites, those that run the propoganda institutions (Mosques, schools, media) and profit enormously from the Middle East status quo. No, these come from the "bourgeouis", the middle class. These are the most indirectly affected targets and yet also the most dangerous.

As explained in the previous essay, the radical Islamic movement is really operating on the same forces of a revolution: a large segment of society (the Arab Muslim societies of the Middle Eastern oil states, principally) has no economic or political stake in the system, and is thus inclined towards the destruction of the "nemesis" that is denying them said stakes. Thanks to the propaganda efforts of the elites, that nemesis is the United States. The problem? Our very way of life runs contrary to radical Islam, and thus "spoils" their society. The solution? Impose radical Islam on the world. Thus as the Russians once fought for communism, as the French once fought for "liberte, fraternite, et egalite", now these educated Muslims fight for the sharia.

That being re-established, if one examines most revolutions in the past, their most dangerous members, their leaders, are not from the masses themselves, but rather the middle class. Lenin, Trotsky, Marx, Robespierre, and many other revolutionary leaders (and philosophers) all enjoyed a fair degree of both comfort and education and were not affected by those maladies which they sought to cure, yet all the same were emotionally moved by the perceived plight of the masses and decided to take up arms in their name.

Thus it is easy to see that many middle class Muslims, well educated and well off, have, as in all revolutions, taken up (in their minds) the cause of their brethren to fight their nemesis (the West & the United States). Into this last category fits Osama Bin Laden, most of the 9/11 terrorists, and, most recently, most of the would-be plane bombers.

This last category is the most dangerous and almost impossible to stop without going after the root problem. So long as the forces of this global "revolution" remain in play, it will find "heros" in the middle classes. We can do our best to counter the propaganda and beef up airport security, but these misdirected "heros" will continue to fight us so long as we have not addressed the plight of their masses.

Thus albeit it may seem at first bizzarre to blame the plight of a poor Arab in Saudi Arabia for the actions undertaken by Bin Laden and the homegrown English terrorists, such is entirely the case. The root of the problem remains the same: despotic societies in the Middle East whose states beg revolution and yet redirect those deadly forces, through radical Islam, towards the West so as to tender their own salvation.

A Treatise On Radical Islam

2006-08-02T22:08:00.000-07:00

Know your enemy before you go out to fight him.

Our enemy is certainly not Islam as a whole. Yet neither is is it the radical Islam that most our enemies espouse. Were it, it would be invincible. There is no way you can defeat a person a people imbued with radical Islam. As Kevino said, no conventional police force may defend against the suicidal.

Then it is fortunate radical Islam is not the enemy. Nay, rather it is those factors that bring about the circumstances under which radical Islam thrives. Namely, the desperate conditions enjoyed by most in the Middle East: their economies are going nowhere, almost all the power, political and financial, is held by an elite few, and the populace, the majority of which are youth under 25 years of age, are going crazy at their inability to improve their lives and take control of their future. Normally, when a large segment of society loses faith in its institutions' abilities to accomadate them, they lash out at those in charge of the institutions, attempting, in an often violent and disorganized manner, to fix the system by transforming it: they revolt.

The elites in the Middle East are atleast partially if not fully aware of the situation, but they have devised a devious system of avoiding said disorder (and the fate it would bring them): they've passed the buck. Through direct support of Islam and indirect support of radical Islam, they have successfully redefined the situation in the eyes of their desperate society.

The people in charge are no longer the elites who are hogging the oil while repressing reform and political dissent. Nay, it is the United States. The case that we are in charge is understandably easy to make. In many ways we are. We intervene continuously militarily, support Israel, and are always telling them what to do. The case that we are thus responsible for the woes of their society is made easy once religion is mixed in: our culture is "wrong" and thus by merely having power over them taint their society, causing social problems, which in turn is why you, Joe Muslim, are dirt poor, don't have a future, and feel hopeless & desperate. In such a way the oil elites of the Middle East have successfully deflected that malcontent that has in the past been at the root of revolts from France to Russia to Iran. Most Joe Muslims subsequently fume at the United States and cheer when the footage of Hezbollah comes up. A crazy few find the resources or provide the resources to "revolt" against the United States through acts of terror and many many delusional diatribes about how Islam will rule us all.

Thus the enemy is not radical Islam. No, that is just a weapon, a particularly dangerous idea that has been manipulated as deftly as we may manipulate planes and armor in our wars. The enemy is those that have decided the satisfaction of their greed is more important than the welfare of the societies they control. An example: Those Iranian Mullahs who fund Hezbollah, rail against the United States, and advocate their nuclear program are also some of the biggest Iranian propertyholders.

Thus now that we understand the root of radical Islam and the terrorism, anti-Americanism, and, occasionally, sharia it in turn spawns, we understand also the extent and capabilities of the threat.

First, in most open societies, radical Islam cannot endure. If a populace is to support it, they must not have an economic or political stake in society (thus be poor & without a vote) and be surrounded by an institutional & media presence that supports radical Islam. Impressively, through their negligence and the hard work of Iran, such a state has nearly been achieved in many European countries, yet were they to organize politically (begin voting) they would then have a stake (but take note: not control) in society and thus no longer interested in its destruction.

Second, the elites whose greed gives radical Islam its power, being motivated by greed, are also limited by it. Thus we can be assured that Iran, upon nuclear acquisition, will not use the nukes against us, as outlined by JEM. They know that were they to do such a thing, they would lose all power at the hands of an enraged America. Indeed (granted we would never want such a thing to happen for our love of life) the use of a nuke would ultimately be the most positive possible development for the US. We would instantly gain full unwavering support from all other Western nations and would use our military capabilities in such a callous fashion that we would soon effectively rule the Middle East. That is not what the elites want. Like smart drug-dealers, they never buy their own product. They are not suicidal. No, the Iranian elites (they are the best example) use radical Islam and war-mongering only as a tool to control their populace (and use it effectively, as noted by Kevino, Iranian malcontent with the government has dropped dramatically since 2003, the same year they announced the nuclear program), not to actually fight the United States. They will only push it as far as they think it safe and no further. Of course, should they gain the bomb, that "safe" limit may be extended enormously, which is why we need to work against such a thing happening.

Obviously we will continue to fight terror and call radical Islam wrong wherever it crops up. But that's just playing defense. To solve the problem we need to attack the root.

So how do we fight those elites that are spawning terror & anti-Americanism so that they might safeguard their own greed?

The most obvious method is to kill off the elites and institute a free society. We're trying that in Iraq. Unfortunately, that requires enormous resources and, if improperly executed (as has happened in Iraq) might have more negative than positive consequences, atleast in the short term (I still hope for success).

A more practical approach would be to use economic & limited military pressure to force the elites to reform their society so as to redress the desperation of their citizens. In this endeavor we are limited by our dependence on oil, which makes us more dependent on them than they are on us (and prevents us from, for instance, air-striking Saudi Arabia to make a point), and that economic sanctions can be ineffective if unilateral (the case with Iran).

We can also wage a propaganda war. Again, though, we are severely limited as their elites control all mainstream means of propaganda, and they have more experience. Iraq could become a platform for a much more effective propaganda campaign, but again, that hinges on establishing a stable free society there, by no means a certainty.

Finally, we can give them the hug of death. Were we to broker a permanent peace in Israel and affected areas and tone down all other policies that may be twisted to justify radical Islam while stepping up aid programs, encouraging trade (like we have with China), condemning all Islamic rulers that do wrong, and taking advantage of opportune moments to prove our goodness (the tsunami aid is an excellent example), then we might make it impossible for them to denounce us as evil (for we do nothing but good, bring nothing but prosperity) and free the Muslim societies against their rulers will (as is happening in China).

Certainly there is no straight arrow solution, but the fourth mixed in with the other three according to the situation will probably get the trick done. To summate: radical Islam is not the enemy, rather is only the shield of greed. The elites (the rulers, politicians, bureaucrats, clerics, royal families) of the Middle East are the true enemy, for their placement of their own welfare before their societies' is what has created such perfect breeding grounds for radical Islam. As such we need not fear a global war but the anti-Americanism, terrorism, and threat to our oil supplies radical Islam produces merits our effort towards a solution. Any such solution must concentrate on the elites and reforming their societies, and although I'll hear suggestions, it promises to be complicated.

If anyone has made the journey, yes, this is the same as a comment I left on vodkapundit.

The Worst of All Possible Worlds

2006-04-25T19:48:00.000-07:00

May 15, 2006- Presidential Address On Iran

Over the last seventeen days, negotiations stalled at the Security Council as China stonewalled. In the meantime, Iran stepped up its nuclear program, coupling the re-opening of the Natanz enrichment facility with a nuclear technology export deal with Sudan. Enraged at the Iranian's refusal to talk, their increasingly radical rhetoric toward Israel, and the inability to bring about cohesive international action, yesterday afternoon the American delegation walked out of the UN. This morning Americans were jolted awake by news from Iran of massive bombings, and civlian casualties. Speculation and rumors swirl while reporters eagerly awaits information from the government. The room hushes as the President enters, a solemn _expression fixed on his face.

Ladies and Gentlemen, People of America and Iran. Yesterday, after the breakdown of negotiations and failure to persuade the security council to take action, I was forced to order the initiation of our last resort: a military strike. Faced with the eminent development of an Iranian nuclear capability and their refusal to back down, much less negotiate, we were given no other alternative. After having consulted NATO and our allies in the Middle East, the United States Air Force and Navy commenced operations at sundown last night. The strikes were surgical yet overwhelming. All twelve known nuclear sites were struck, along with approximately two dozen suspected sites and the residences and laboratories of prominent scientists involved in the program. Additionally, various airfields, radar installations, and other air-defense facilities were bombed toward the end of neutralizing Iranian defenses. Finally, submarine facilities and missile pads were destroyed so as to eliminate Iran's ability to lash out at American forces stationed in the Middle East. American casualties were minimal. Iranian casualties are unknown, but in all likelihood substantial.

People of Iran, we are sincerely sorry. We know you mean us no harm, and the needless waste of human life that comes with military action pains us deeply. Furthermore, I apologize and take full responsibility for the grievous wrongs the United States has committed against the people of Iran in the past. In 1954, we took political power away from you, replacing a democratically elected government with a repressive, corrupt, and despotic one. Today, I am committing our full resources to doing just the opposite. Today, I am committing America to giving Iranian political power back to the Iranian people.

Towards that end, leaders of Iran, you are given two roads:

One allows you to join the modern world if you will abide by the rules. The first condition is that you must renounce terror and the organizations that support it. The second is that you must renounce attaining a nuclear bomb and open yourselves up to full inspections. Finally, and most important, you must hold free, internationally monitored, open, elections for both your Majiles (the Iranian Parliament) and Presidency, while giving the newly elected Majiles the authority to amend the Iranian constitution as they see fit. If you take these steps, we will embrace the proud nation of Iran's return to the modern world. The United States will drop all sanctions, pay for the damages you suffered last night, and allow you to proceed with your nuclear energy program, on the condition that the weapons geared parts of the process occur in some outside nation under international supervision, such as Russia. Furthermore, we will provide you with substantial economic aid and work toward your inclusion in various world organizations, such as the World Trade Organization

Yet if, leaders of Iran, if you refuse such an option, instead insisting upon wreaking havoc on both the outside world and your own people, we will have little option left but that of coercion. If you take this second road, starting in 48 hours a new, sustained, bombing campaign will be launched. It will be aimed first at those leaders that repress the Iranian people, second at those institutions they utilize to repress the Iranian people, and finally at those institutions, such as your military, that you might utilize against non-Iranian and Iranians alike. If, leaders of Iran, you continue to put your own wants and needs above those of the nation, then, in two weeks, we will broaden the campaign from the political to the economic spectrum. At that time, we will impose a complete blockade. Every plane will be intercepted, every outward leading road, railroad, and pipeline bombed, and every ship sunk. The actions and behaviour of your regime have rendered its continued existence in its present form intolerable to the United States and the world community.

Leaders of Iran, I beseech you, do not push us down the second road. Let us put our differences behind us, so that we all may enjoy the fruits and freedoms of life, and the prosperity the world has to offer.

Iran Solution #1, Regime Change

2006-03-19T22:41:00.000-08:00

If regime change were to happen in Iran, effectively solving the second problem by bringing the reformist faction to power in Iran, the first problem would be solved because reformists would likely see reason and abandon the nuclear program in exchange for better international relations. Unfortunately, that isn't going to happen.

We certainly cannot force regime change through military action. After our performance in Iraq, the Iranians probably wouldn't trust us, regardless of the fact that we don't have the resources to do so anyway.

We cannot do it through covert action. We were responsible for an Iranian coup d'etat in the 50's, and ever since Iranians have have held to a paranoid fear of American covert action that has kept the CIA out of Iran.

That leaves reform within the system, but that's already failed as well. The hardliner system that keeps hardliners winning the President and Majile elections was overwhelmed once, in the 1996 election of reformist Khatami, when the popular vote so favored this obscure candidate that the harldiners let him win fearing a revolution. He proceeded to make some cautious reforms and reach out to America, but the hardliners fought back, using thuggery to intimidate reformists, the still harldiner Majiles to censor them, and even going so far as to assassinate prominent reformists. In 1999 the conflict peaked, when students took the streets in protest to a new law that would ban most reformist newspapers. The hizbollah and other hardliner thug groups showed up to beat the students into submission, but the students fought back. The riots escalated, and students went so far as to make statements denouncing not just the law, but the entire government. They were ready for a revolution. Unfortunately, Khatami was not. Faced with preparations for a violent hardliner reprisal (military units were being moved into position near rioting cities), he caved, denouncing the riots. The hardliners had regained control, and by his 2000 re-eleciton, Khatami was nothing more than a puppet President without any real power. Since their brush with revolution, the hardliners have consolidated their position, liberalizing the economy like China and social restrictions to vent the rage of Iran's youthful population. Additionally, with oil prices at record highs, there's no reason to believe the Iranian government cannot deliver economically most everything their populace wants, effectively bribing their populace into submission.

Thus military action will not work, covert action won't do the trick, and a spontaneous revolution is not going to happen until the price of oil goes down, and probably a while after that. We can improve conditions for regime change keeping pressure on the current regime through embargoes and harsh diplomatic statements, perhaps also work to increase our covert action capabilities in Iran, but not much more. Regime change is something to hope for, and we should support such a goal, but its nothing we can count on toward solving more short-term problems with Iran.

On Iran...

2006-03-19T20:59:00.000-08:00

With Iran achieving the status of US threat #1 , it's time to make some discussion on the problem.

To give credit where credit's due, I've just read the Persian Puzzle, a book discussing the history of US-Iranian relations as well as the author's (former Clinton ME advisor) recommendations for the future, so his thoughts are bringing some influencing this discussion.

First, the problem, or problems, Iran presents to the United States:

First, the short term threat. Iran is obviously developping nuclear weapons, a bad thing in view of its stated intentions to wipe Israel off the map, its aggressive foreign policy in the past, and the possible nuclear arms race it could spark in the Middle East.

Second, the long term, and ongoing, problem. Iran is (surprise), something of an anti-American dictatorship. Its hodgepodge government consists of an all powerful religious leader who rules for life, currently Khameini, a parliament, called the Majiles, and the President. The latter two are democratically elected, but the pool of candidates is vetted by the Council of Guardians, a hardliner stronghold. Additionally, votes are slanted through hardline use of thug groups (more advanced versions of Iraq's nascent militias), state controlled media, and outright fraud to insure that hardline candidates win. Although it still calls itself a theocracy, recent moves to liberalize the religious guidelines (what you wear, what music you listen to, couples can now hold hands in public) so as to address social unrest demonstrate that above all power, not religious zeal, is what matters most to Iran's leades. This dictatorship is a problem because they are self-pronounced anti-American, they pump enough oil to render themselves essential to the world economy, they have supported and instigated terrorism in the past, they are the largest supporters of extremist Islam, and they work counter to American goals in the Middle East, such as the Israeli peace process through, among other actions, their support of Hamas and the Lebanese Hizbollah.

The second problem is an ongoing one that, although a solution would be wise, we can afford to ignore. The first requires urgent attention. I'll run through some solutions in coming posts.

Another Practical Solution for Iraq

2006-02-24T23:30:00.000-08:00

Sorry, could not help myself, but there's one more good idea I've had banging about.

A 1% profits tax on American corporations to pay for military expenses in Iraq, with a loophole. The loophole is that if you instead invest the money in Iraq's economy, you don't need to pay the tax. The tax would be in effect for 10 years.

Thus, either our government finallys starts paying for this war, or Iraq starts getting rebuilt by America's private sector. It boggles the imagination to think what it would be like. Trusts would be set up to invest in Iraq, allowing small businesses to simply put their money there to avoid the tax, and perhaps even make a profit. Iraq would be flooded with thousands of American business men from these trusts. Any time an Iraqi company gets launched, or an oil field needs building, or an infrastructure project needs financiering, there would be an American waiting, willing to assess the contract, efficiently execute it, and try and turn a profit. Maybe even Ford would set up a plant, or Wal-Mart would make some stores, but that's unrealistic.

The Iraqi government would be bombarded with lobbyists offering advice on how to best regulate the economy to fit their needs. More stable regions, like Kurdistan, would at first enjoy a flood of investment, provoking a competition that would lead other regional governments to enact measures so as to lure investments. Iraq's overall economy would boom with the investment, providing the ultimate deterrent to terrorists. Long term relationships would be formed between Iraqi and American business men, laying the basis for the ultimate long term alliance: an economic one.

Really I can think of few better ways to insure a successful outcome in Iraq.

A Practical Idea For America

2006-02-24T23:07:00.000-08:00

Two energy problems we have right now: our cars our consuming too much oil (everybody knows that), and our power plants are incredibly inefficient (that one ain't so well known). I won't explain the former, but the problem with the power plants is that you cannot store electricity. You use it or lose it. Because powering up and down most powerplants (NG is the exception) often takes hours if not days, powerplants thus have to produce enough electricity to sate demand when it is at its highest, its "peak", leading to enormous wastsed over-production.

The solution? Plug in hybrids. This new technology combines hybrids with electric batteries. By plugging in the car every night, fuel economy is increased enormously, often times upwards of 100 mpg (and the technology is still in its opening stages). The key proposal here is to create a device, should be fairly straightforward, that can both put energy into our cars and take it back out again, according to market conditions. The device can then "buy" energy, filling up your battery, when demand is low, sopping up all that wasted energy. Then, when demand is high, it can sell it, probably at a marginal profit, giving the grid extra capacity and allowing powerplants to produce less electricity. The device could even allow for turning on the car's engine to create electricity, were the demand high enough. Basically our cars, which already have atleast twice (I've heard up to five times) the power capacity of our nation's power plants and lay idle for most of the day anyway, can act like a huge national battery, even power plant, mediating supply and demand.

Of course, plug-in hybrids are still in an embryonic state, but the technology's there, the methods are there, and it's not ridiculously expensive. Already, without any sizable research commitment or economies of scale to back it up, there are companies that will upgrade hybrids to plug in hybrids for approx. 3,000$. Were the government to require that all new garages include the plug in devices and heavily subsidize plug-in hybrids (the best method is always through gas taxes), this solution could become the reality for the United States within ten years. Were a majority of cars to become plug-ins, we could realistically cut our oil consumption by 5 mbd. Furthermore, by reducing the strain on power plants, we could cut our consumption of natural gas (a fuel that shares many of oils problems) by shutting down NG powe plants, although the main point is the system would be more efficient.

Oil demand reduction and electricity production reduction. Sounds like a plan to me. If only there were some politicians with enough spine to make such a thing come true. Perhaps California...

A Practical Idea For Iraq

2006-02-24T22:48:00.000-08:00

Iraq is currently suffering from both terrorism and sectarianism. Often enough, the former is provoking the latter, as has been demonstrated by the escalating mosque bombings. The worst aspect of terrorism: well, all of it, but the mosques are where they're inflicting most of the casualties, and inciting most of the strife. The worst aspect of sectarianism: those illegal militias that impose religious law and threaten to sweep the nation into civil war.

The solution? Legalize the militias as "Holy Protection Forces", or something like that. They would be allowed to act as an-almost police within a certain distance, say 200 yards, of religious buildings, principally mosques. Naturally, there would be a few stipulations. First, each one would have to be associated with and approved by its particular religious site and the residents of the surrounding area, and obtain a license from their local and national government. Second, they would be regulated. They would have to publish salaries, number of "guards", and other information that comes in handy when trying to keep small armies in line. They would only have the power to make arrests, and would have to prove to a court that they killed in self defense, should the occasion arise (which it will). Finally, these HPF's would have to immediately forward any and all cases to the real police as fast as possible.

Thus you have the ultimate solution. The militias become regulated (or atleast the groundwork would be laid for regulation, Iraq is in no shape to enforce many laws right now), and they would serve a purpose, legally defending the most vulnerable and most strife-inducing targets.

Then perhaps the situation experienced last week would have been different. Instead of twelve commando type terrorists walking into an abandoned mosque with four asleep guards in a back room, subsequently provoking the blind rage of thousands of militia men against Sunnis everywhere, some of those thousands could have instead been defending that mosque, stemming the problem at its source rather than exacerbating it.

Just a thought.

“I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it”

2006-02-11T16:02:00.000-08:00

As many readers are no doubt aware, a series of cartoons depicting Mohammed published in the Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, has brought about a great deal of outrage in the Muslim world. It’s easy to understand why the Muslims might be upset: the cartoons were offensive and in poor taste. Simply said, they allegedly broke a religious tenet of Islam by depicting Mohammed. But although I criticize the newspaper and stand firmly opposed to its views, the virulent reaction in the Muslim world has brought to issue an ideal in more dire need of defense and a problem far more in need of critique.

The ideal is free speech. Yes, we do not agree with what the Danish xenophobes who published the article are trying to say, but we should still defend their right to say it. The notion that they might be censored because they offend someone is a notion running directly contrary to the successful ideals upon which much of the Western world has been built, and a notion that leads to situations such as the one in Iran, where their leader calls the holocaust a sham, advocates the extermination of the Jews, blames all their problems on the Americans and eliminates those who disagree by calling them heretics. In fact, were I in the business of publishing materials offensive to society, I would re-publish the cartoon to display our free speech solidarity with the Danish newspaper, but I am not, and that is no longer the primary issue anyhow.

The primary issue, the problem in dire need of critique, is the extent to which the Muslim world, and popular opinion, is manipulated by various dictators and elites. Indeed, the current “outrage” is not at all indicative of popular Arab sentiment. To the contrary, it is a carefully manipulated, manufactured response born from the highest corridors of power in the Muslim world. The articles themselves were published in October. Since then, Western Muslims have calmly expressed their outrage by not buying the newspaper, circulating a petition, and telling people that they find it offensive. Arab Muslims hardly responded at all until after the 56 members of the Organization of Islamic Conferences, which consists almost entirely of dictatorial Islamic states, met and decided to create an outrage. This might sound ridiculous, but they’ve done it. They created and circulated new, doubly offensive cartoons. Utilizing a vast network of media outlets such as Al-Jazeera and a religious system dominated and funded by various Islamic oil-states, they further fanned the flames. In Dubai, the leaders even bussed in protesters to strengthen their Muslim credentials. In Iran and Syria the governments allowed for otherwise illegal mobs to gather. Now all across the Muslim world, the Islamic dictators have brought about violence which has led to the burning of embassies, the creation of embargoes, the murder of a Catholic priest in Turkey, and the death of dozens in rioting.

Why? Denmark is about to become the head of the UN security council, the same body that is to consider sanctions on Iran next month. These riots effectively delegitimatize it while rallying Muslims around their leaders when they most need public support.

Therein lies the real offense in this whole affair, the extent to which Islam and the Muslim world is being manipulated by those who are using religion to further their own agendas. The scarier thing is that the cartoon incident, in which many have already died, is the least of their crimes. They use the same system that has turned this non-issue into an outrage to incite terrorism, to pilfer their countries’ oil wealth, and to oppress their people. Thus, although we condemn the cartoon, the Danish violation of Islam pales in comparison to the crimes committed against the religion every day by the Muslim elites.

Iraq & Blame

2005-11-15T19:29:00.000-08:00

I think all the discussion about revisionism and WMD's circumvents and neglects the more important point: How did we screw up so badly in Iraq?

Yes, there are and were legitimate reasons for going in (I don't consider WMD's to be in the top 2, see On Iraq), but how did the US allow such a weak military plan to carried out? We had no postwar planning, not enough soldiers, very little international support, and thus set the stage for the situation we are in, where we have, despite being on the right path, thusfar done more, judging by numbers, not liberties, harm than good.

To make it worse, this is all in stark contrast to Gulf War I, where everything went smoothly in accordance with the Powell Doctrine, which was entirely neglected in GWII.

Now the very concepts of nation building, regime change, and aggressive warfare stands the chance of being maligned and shunned in the American political atmosphere for decades to come. And not because they are bad concepts, but because they were badly implemented.

Whose fault is this? Personally, I say primarily the executive branch for being hugely incompetent, secondarily congress for trusting the executive branch, and finally the American people for their unwillingness to sacrifice (thus put more effort into this war).

More importantly, how do we fix it? We funnel all the dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq towards productive ends, ensuring the competence of our warmakers in the future, instead of trying to hinder them in their mission today. The senate's recent action may be a step towards ensuring that competence. Or it may be a step toward authenticating withdrawal. Seeing our nation's and congress's (in)ability to sacrifice, the latter is looking more likely than the former.

Riots?

2005-11-07T16:07:00.000-08:00

I have a relation in France, and I asked her for the French viewpoint on the current riots, seeing as the American Media does not have a great track record with interpreting foreign events. It's an interesting email, and I thought it may interest somebody, donc, voila:

Riots? We were in Paris day before yesterday and things were as usual, beautiful and elegant, but indeed it is true that in the suburbs things are "chaud"!
The US embassy has even sent out a notice to US residents in France and US vistitors to avoid taking the subway in from the CDG airport because it passes by those suburbs.
M. de Villepin was on the television this morning talking about the problem but as I told your grandfather yesterday it is rather like the race riots of '68 in the states..;there is no racism about color in France but certainly about culture. Young Magrehbins or "arabes" have a hard time getting work, live in those dismal towers in the suburbs of Paris and have no hope but to embrace their own culture since the French population seems to reject them. Young women who choose to were normal "French" clothes in those "cités" risk harassment or worse so they often choose the traditional way just to get on with their lives. Often the parents have tried to become "French" and the children have seen that they haven't really had much success.

The traditional French in many ways have a hard time accepting them. You can say but aren't they Frenchtoo but it's more than that. Many even change their names from Mohamed Habedi to Marc Dupont just to have a chance at a job interview. And the amazing thing is it works...just until the employer sees their face and their address (the famous 93 postal code). Pure prejudice but I can understand both sides. There is a surplus of young people looking for jobs and why take a chance on a possible delinquent when you have a Marc Dupont from the nice side of town. In France there is a separation of State and church...but the french revolution asked that the population embrace the State essentially as their religion and that feeling continues today in the legislation and educational system etc. There is an interesting "arrangement" with the Catholic schools where most are under contract to the State...but I am not sure that is the case with Muslim schools. Many of the Catholic schools now welcome the better muslim students because the schools are more "accepting". All goes back to the foundations of Catholic education which is based on a philosophy of acceptance of ones differences but an acknowledgement of a higher authority (non specific,but other than the state) in terms of moral judgement.

So where do we go from here. I think one just has to change the very opiniated typical Frenchman who is more than willing to accept a Black Catholic Antillaise as an in-law but give them someone who is Jewish or Muslim and they close ranks. But then so do those two groups also. To be fully integrated one needs to accept the social reality...France even though they are mostly non-practicing is an old Catholic Society and is a meritocracy where despite what anyone says the Old Boy network is alive and well. All the top politicians and business leaders for the most part have gone to ENA (the school of Administration where the State pays the students to attend) where they prepare to go on as prefets, ambassadors etc. and they all know each other. That is one of the joys of Sarkozy in that he is not "part of the club" although he was mayor of the chic suburb of Neuilly in Paris and knows all the right people (but his parents were imigrants and he doesn't recite poetry like de Villepin!). The French revolution was two hundred years ago and supposedly was the downfall of the aristocracy but another "elite" took their place. Napoleon created an empire which still has great repercussions on everyday life here. But that is a whole book...if you have more questions I will try to answer them but I think this is just an indication of a real problem in French culture that needs to be dealt with. Your uncle, for example, is very against a sort of French "affirmative action" which has been put in place for the "grands ecoles" (the top schools) but I think that is precisely what is needed. The "meritocracy" is not bad in itself as long as all the players have an even playing field. I read "A Hope in the Unseen" which is a look at one specific example of the top student at the worse high school in Wash DC and his struggles and success with school. He was accepted at Brown essentially under an affirmative action program and when you read the book you certainly understand why he is perhaps not as well-prepared for an ivy league eduation but certainly why he should be given the chance. I would be interested to know what happens to those kids later. I am sure a fair number of them go on to become politicians lobbying for better chances for he under priveledged that they were.

It would seem the conclusion is that it's "culturalist" based violence, showing how essential it is that everyone is given equal opportunities in life.

Pork Woes...

2005-10-20T19:16:00.000-07:00

In light of the recent hurricanes, Senator Coburn has been pushing several amendments aimed at reducing pork, certainly some progress, but woefully depressing in light of the small number of votes the first has gotten. Democrat, Republican, across party lines the senate has stood in defense of its incompetence, preserving the pork. There are less than ten in the body who deserve to hold their posts. If only there were some other choice, some party pushing fiscal responsibility...

On Syria...

2005-10-20T19:04:00.000-07:00

Syria has just been proclaimed the culprit in the Lebanese assassination. This could have huge implications. This means Syria has not just the ability but the will to carry out terrorism, making it extremely likely that they are actively supporting the insurgency in Iraq. Of course, any action should await confirmation of such intervention, but in the interim they are already paying a heavy price for their sins in Lebanon. Chances are the UN can get them to capitulate and straighten up through various resolutions.

The sad part here is the invasion in Iraq has failed to have much, if any, intimidation effect on its neighbors. Iran continues to push nuclear weapons, and now Syria could be fuelling the destruction in Iraq. Truly this has been a horribly executed war.

Our Money At Work

2005-08-29T16:26:00.000-07:00

Just in case anybody thought that the Oil States are using every one of our petro-dollars to its greatest extent, take a look at former president of the United Arab Emirates and ruler of Abu-Dhabi Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan's new house:

It's hard to find grander in the US, and yet the entire Arab league's GDP is still smaller than Spain's. Class disparities this large cause piss the poor people off.

Competitive Government

2005-08-27T19:37:00.000-07:00

There is a popular notion that the government is inheritently inefficient and corrupt because it is a monopolistic organization, as opposed to the private sector, where constant competition keeps businesses efficient and fast. This simply is not true. Public service is one of the most competitive sectors out there. Governments are constantly competing with one another. Cities compete for citizens, states compete for businesses, and countries compete for everything. If a government is corrupt, inefficient, or lazy, the nation will be overtaken by any number of problems ranging from economic collapse to invasion to revolution.

This outlook brings about many good points:

Fortunately, democracy allows the citizens to change the leadership without changing the institution, should the nation be heading in the wrong direction. Unfortunately, more often than not citizens are putting their votes behind the politicians who bring home the pork than the ones who are doing their best to improve the nation's welfare. How do we change that?

Smaller (geography wise) governments are often better at solving problems than larger ones, not only because they've got their ear closer to the ground, but because they're much more numerous. For instance: healthcare. Instead of having just the federal government attempting to draft a solution, we can have fifty smaller governments take a stab at it. When a clear and proven solution emerges, either the other states will adopt it, or the federal government will. Not only does the small government approach increase the chance of success by fifty, but it also makes for mistakes on a much smaller scale when, inevitably, there are some screw-ups. Unfortunately, politicians in DC want to solve the most cutting edge problems, and citizens more often than not forget that they have potential stateside solutions (who's your state congress rep?), and instead demand action from the federal government, bringing about disastrous solution attempts on a huge scale. Stepping aside and letting the states (or counties, or cities) tackle the problems with no clear cut solution seems like a sound and practical policy.

Finally, our government has been lazy, corrupt, and inefficient for quite some time now, and yet we have not been invaded, or outdone economically, or had a revolution. Is this just the status quo? Should we then let it be because it's always been, or are we setting up for some huge crises? I say the facts show some big predicaments heading our way, and just because we've gotten by thus-far doesn't mean we're going to continue to get by. Historically, most civilizations peak right before they collapse. I don't think we're dumb enough to collapse, but on our current path there are going to be losses, because our government simply is not up to par with other nations, and that's not acceptable.

Flat Tax Pros & Cons

2005-08-18T21:58:00.000-07:00

Back to the subject, some percieved pros and cons of the flat tax.

Pros: simple, encourages investment, less bureaucracy, more money for the people, no more loopholes.

Cons: rich people keep getting richer, more burden on middle class, less money for charities & nonprofits, less tax revenue, where does social security fit in?, H&R Block goes out of business.

I don't know enough about the subject yet to deliver a policy, and if you have any evidence/opinions, please contribute.

Flat Tax Argument

2005-08-18T21:33:00.000-07:00

I recently ran into a Wall Street Journal editorial advocating a flat income tax. It seemed like a pretty solid argument, even addressing my biggest issue by giving a tax exemption for the first 11,000$, thus not taxing the super-poor. And then it invoked Russia:

"Russia put in a flat tax four years ago, and revenues have more than doubled in real terms"

Before President Putin took office, Russia was in a tax crisis. Nobody payed income taxes, because it was much cheaper to bribe somebody and nobody wanted to tell anybody how much they make (and alot of the economy was, and still is, underground). This made the government, facing a shrinking tax base, raise taxes, leading to less people paying, leading to higher taxes, etc. Putin came along, said enough of this, cut the taxes to a flat rate below 20%, and the Russians decided that a fee that small wasn't worth the evasion trouble, thus started paying taxes again. A brilliant solution for a chronic problem, but entirely non-applicable to our situation (because people do pay taxes and our economy isn't underground, mafia-dominated, and incredibly corrupt).

Thus this one piece of evidence, this one phrase, throws the entire argument into doubt, because if the author (Steve Forbes, he should know his stuff) was willing to throw in an argument like that, who can tell what other pieces, with which I am not so familiar, are entirely invalid? If making a policy about something as major as this, use valid evidence.

The Balance

2005-08-15T20:35:00.000-07:00

A little practical philosophy. Many often ask, why do we have welfare? Why does the government take my (hard-earned) money and give it to someone (less deserving) else? Isn't that socialism? Doesn't socialism lead straight to economic stagnation, and in turn big evil tyrannies, like Russia, or China? These are good questions, and since the practical party is going to continue to support these socialist policies, it's neccessary to give a good answer.

It is my belief that there needs to exist a finely tuned balance between capitalism and socialism. Capitalism produces losers. This is because it includes risks, many risks, and some people get unlucky. Those losers need a second, maybe third chance to get back on their legs. They and their children need to be provided with the same opportunities that are alotted to the winners (education, survival, good line of credit). Why? For starters, it's humane, but more sensibly, it's in our best interests. The winners can become too powerful, monopolizing items such as education or specific businesses, bringing about short term gains for them at the cost of long-term losses for all. Some of these long term losses: obviously, monopolies breed incompetence, also, if most of the economic wealth is concentrated in the hands of few, they'll try and take the political power as well (take note of where most the politicians come from...). More subtly, and importantly, it's not worth the cost of letting those losers sit out in the rain. When someone loses faith and hope in a system, they try and force change upon that system, often producing extreme movements of some sort. Most infamous of these extreme movements is communism, as in Russia, China, and North Korea, but there are countless other grassroots movements that started amongst the disenfranchised "losers" of the current system and ended up dominated by power-hungry dictators.

This balance concept is a conclusion that Europe came to post-WWII, after having suffered through both extremes and various socialist revolutions for the last 150 years. They created capitalist states with socialist programs, bringing about a stable & prosperous balance that have lasted them 50 years. With economic stagnation setting in, that balance needs some tweaking, but I have confidence that their political institutions can deliver.

This is also a problem that many oil-states have been facing for the last 25-30 years. They have too much socialism, essentially using oil-money to create millions of ornamental, yet paying, government jobs. This coupled with their political situation creates millions of young, frustrated, idle, disenfranchised men and women. These same ingredients ledto the communist revolutions and fascism, and I hope that they can reform before the oil starts running out.

Socialist policies are humane. Socialist policies have also sedated & delivered hope & faith to generations of capitalistic losers. The checks the winners have to pay merely maintain a system that benefits them most. They really benefit everyone, fitting the axiom "what goes around, comes around". Thus practical policy should seek to find a balance between capitalism and socialism.

Food For Thought...

2005-08-12T10:42:00.000-07:00

At current population growth rates:
In 775 years there will be 10 people per square yard
In 2000 years the mass of humanity will equal the mass of earth
In 6000 years the mass of humanity will equal the mass of the universe

Family planning, anyone?

Over 60...

2005-08-07T16:30:00.000-07:00

It's a little belated, but oil's ppb is now past another landmark, and it's now trading at 62.31$. Keep in mind this is up from the 10-20$ range 6-7 years ago (and 40$ one year ago). I thought and I still think that this is a short-term price lurch with speculation and politics more to blame than the fundamental problem (there's only so much oil left), but it's a good time for an update.

The oil companies themselves are intent on informing the public of the root problem, as Chevron and others launch huge commercial campaigns imploring governments and populaces to provide them with the help and leadership to move onto the next energy source.

The estimate is now 5 years before non-OPEC production peaks. The US production peaked back in the 70's.

Whilst the US consumes 20 million barrels a day (1/4 the world total), the next largest consumer is China at 8, and France, a nation comparable to us in development and economic status, consumes a mere 2.

One of the biggest alternatives right now is tar-oil, a seemingly endless source embedded in sands which is much more expensive to extract and causes much more environmental damage (primarily through emmissions). This is what will happen if the free market runs it course.

67% of our consumption is in the transportation sector. Small things, like building a few less highways, a few more trains, more mass transit, zoning land in such a way that work, home, and shopping can all be walked to, mileage standards, and gas taxes can make a huge a difference, and it is the practical policy to implement them.

WASTE

2005-08-02T20:53:00.000-07:00

Couldn't let this go, as it violates basic practical ideology.

Both the recently passed energy & transportation bill are laden with pork and don't really solve anything. That's 300 billion dollars down the drain, and the setting in of a trend for whose indulgence both parties deserve to be voted out of congress. 300 billion going to things like a 500 million dollars for two bridges in Alaska, one to an island of less than 50. Corn museums, bike trails, this amounts to nothing less than congress bribing the people with their own money and solves nothing! This on top of the fact that congress has no right to be indulging in such local projects with federal money. Not to mention the 13$ billion energy bill which consists of a bunch of subsidies to industries we should be curbing, like big oil, but atleast that takes a few steps forward by putting a pittance towards renewables and changing daylight savings.

I say this now and I will say it again, NO PORK. Thus stands the practical policy.

Globalization & Free Trade

2005-07-31T20:41:00.000-07:00

I'm back!

With the recent passage of CAFTA, I thought this an appropriate time to lay down some ideas about free trade and globalization.

What goes around comes around, and when in relation to trade, comes around and then some. With increasing globalization, countries can specialize, basic resources become cheaper and more abundant, and competition brings about increased efficiency. Free trade/globalization also brings interdependency and constant contact between all cultures. This breeds peace and understanding between the peoples of the world. Thus, globalization brings about increased wealth and peace for all the world. The microcosm for this model is Europe, which after thousands of years of constant war has now found prosperity, peace, and understanding due to the EU, an organization whose primary function is insuring free and fair trade. For these, positive, reasons free (and fair) trade is considered a fundamentally good objective and one that should be encouraged through American policy.

This said, there is a flip side that entails that our country act with some common sense (practicality) whilst globalizing. With specialization comes whole segments of the economy dying off while others expand, with abundant resources waste and faster consumption of the planet, with competition and efficiency comes lost jobs, despite the net gain. The very act of going out and making free trade agreements with other countries requires caution lest you end up on an unfair playing field.

Thus it is essential that our government insures a smooth transition through sound practical policies. The government needs to provide re-education to those who find themselves in an obsolete or uncompetitive job market. They need to make sure that the market's appetite in the short term is satiable in the long term by making sure that we have long-term resources available (this principally applies to energy). We also need to insure that the United States remains the most competitive player out there. This is best achieved through a superior education regime, an excellent infrastructure, and minimal regulations. Finally, we need to make sure everybody's playing by the rules. This is accomplished by using tariffs to punish countries (China) that are, for instance, subsidizing their companies, pegging their currency, and stealing one of our most valuable commodities by not respecting patent laws. If we do all of this on the economic side, there is no reason why globalization cannot be a win-win proposition for all the participants.

The non-economic side also has its flip side. Interdependency can bring about crucial political weaknesses if say, someone else is building your tanks, or in our case, we no longer build big ships, forcing prices through the roof when the navy wants one and there's only one American shipyard left with which to "negotiate". Constant contact between cultures can also breed resentment and misunderstandings, this is occuring in the Middle East when, for instance, they travel to Europe and see the opulent, free, and wealthy culture contrasted against... twenty-something countries who cannot equal Spain's GDP (the Arab League). Fixing the political weaknesses should be rather straightforward: insure that we have strategically essential resources for the short term (the oil reserve) and alternatives in the long term (working on that...), and bolster industries considered essential to our national security, like shipbuilding. The cultural aspect is a little more complicated. When those (case in point) Muslims go and see how rich the rest of the world is and wonder why their, (from their point of view) "enlightened", world is suffering, there's a very small chance that the government controlled media/religion is going to name the true problem: government incompetency due to lack of reform & democracy. No, they'll say it's the Europeans, or even better, the American's fault. "They're abusing you! Obviously they're cheating because they're winning!" I'm sure they aren't the only ones; no doubt the same ideas are pushed by all insecure governments, ranging from North Korea to Belorussia. To counter this will require an extensive system for insuring that where there's contact, there's understanding. To accomplish that it is integral that the practical policy on Islamic Extremism is implemented, as well a general (tactful) push for free speech across the board, for when all ideas are lined up on next to eachother in the global marketplace, the people almost always buy ours.

America should push free trade, but make sure that it is fair. We should also insure that we have a smooth transition to a globalized economy, and protect industries/resources key to our national security. Finally, we need to implement policies which bring about cultural understanding through free speech for all, for therein lies true world peace. Thus stands the practical policy on globalization & free trade as of 7/31/05.

Racial Profiling

2005-07-24T14:35:00.000-07:00

I keep seeing articles and hearing interviews where officials, usually in various Transit Authorities, promise that the random searches carried out by their agents will truly be random, and that the searchers will not utilize any sort of racial profiling. Does this really bother anyone else? Their stated goal is to protect the people from acts of terrorism, and yet, their actions clearly expose their true goal, creating a semblance of protection for the people from terror, while really avoiding the "Civil Libertarians," usually vocal members of the ACLU and other such bothersome organizations. These "Civil Libertarians" care more about their perceived "Civil Liberties" then actual protection of US citizens. They ignore the fact that the Islamic Terror Attacks are being carried out by, surprisingly, Muslims! God help us if they ever gain a legitimate hold on our government, there they will protect the feelings of a highly sensitive few, rather the lives of the rest.

Islamic Extremism

2005-07-08T09:57:00.000-07:00

From the last post & its ensuing conversation, I have drafted a practical policy on dealing with Islamic terrorism. Here it is in the clean crisp form.

Islamic terrorism is caused primarily by organizations such as AQ and is impossible to deal with on that level unless we were to sacrifice the freedom that we are trying to defend. It is caused ultimately by the situation in the Muslim world, where oil-states maintain the media and cultural backbone neccessary to supply AQ and others with human and financial support.

What we need to do is create an environment where the radical Islamic ideas are on an even playing field with moderate, modern Islamic ideas. In this environment the moderate Muslims will win because their ideas are better. To use an antecdote, the Soviet Union collapsed when free media allowed Russians to compare ideologies, and our ideology won. To create this fair playing field, we need to bring about major economic and political reforms in the Muslim world. This can be accomplished ultimately by forcing the governments to create real economies, which is best done by denying them oil revenues, and secondarily through constant political pressure on regimes to bring about political reforms. In extreme cases this presure can include war, ie Iraq. Finally, while these ultimate goals are pursued, it is important to put many resources in combatting terrorism through hunting down the individuals and protecting our society as much as is possible without curtailing our rights.

Once again, some real examples of economic and political reform following lack of oil revenues. Jordan passed most of its economic reforms when Saudi Arabia could no longer afford to subsidize it (late 80's). Dubai, one of the most dynamic economies (and tolearant societies) in the Middle East, got that way because their leaders had very little oil revenue to live on. Even Iran brought in a parliament (albeit symbolic) after the oil plunge in the late eighties.

Although bringing the Muslim world into the modern era is and will be an extremely expensive process for our nation, it is a neccessity both because this spawns terrorists, threatening our political security, and it creates huge instability on top of the worlds primary energy source, threatening our economic security.

More thoughts on the even playing field by Friedman, and on the media/cultural oil-state backbone by strategy page.

Thus stands the practical policy on Islamic Extremism.

Anger

2005-07-07T12:48:00.000-07:00

To begin with, we have the deepest of sympathies for the people of England. I have a friend who has lived in London most of his life and I'm hoping he's alright.

Understandably, many are very upset with the recent events, and this particulary rant by Jason Coleman prompted me to make a point about stereotyping.

This is really a point by point response to the rant, sorry if it sounds a bit bizarre in places.

Point 1, if you will:

"Angry with the cowardly, ignorant, evil fuckers who did this.

Angry at Bush for insisting on poking away at a hornets' nest.

Angry at Blair for going along with Bush's fucking crusade.

But mostly angry with the morally corrupt and utterly hypocritical pieces of shit that consider that indiscriminate bombing of civilians is an appropriate way of furthering their aims and their bastardised version of religion."

This is from one of those "moonbat" threads. They're angry with Bush but that doesn't mean they're the enemy. Heck, I'm angry with Bush, the liberals, & the terrorists, there ain't no white and black here.

Point 2:
Yes, there are some idiots on the left, but there are also idiots on the right (that's why you go to the Practcal Party!). To figure out what's best to do, one has to respectfully diagree with the idiots & alienate them, not lump them together with the rest of the party and put them down as terrorists (what Jason has just done).

Point 3:
Not only have you bounded a few cowardly liberals to the whole party, you've also bounded a few terrorists to the whole religion. Wake up, read some news about Iraq, there are alot more Iraqi, MUSLIM, people dying than any other affiliated group. These guys aren't out to inflict Islam on the world (This is not to say there aren't people out there trying to spread Islam, it's trying just as hard as any other religion to sell its message). Nay, they're out to better themselves through the only means they have. A bunch of oil dicatorships are trying to maintain their power & deflect criticism from their state (See On Iraq). Thus they amplify the idiots (every group has its idiots) of Islam to manipulate them to strengthen their governments. Sometimes intentionally, more often as a sideproduct, these hard-to control, yet well funded extremist organizations spawn terrorists and "jihads". Thus refrain from pinning the other 99.9% of Muslims to these dictatorships & their pools of money which are really the root cause of Islamic extremism.

We're all angry, let's just make sure we get angry at the right people. What we need is a double attack on the dictators. We need to use political pressure, on the extreme end regime change in Iraq. Here we're doing kind of well. We also need to deny them their money. This means consuming less oil and ultimately less natural gas. Here our performance is abysmal. On Iraq and my most recent post, the energy one, gives a pretty good picture of the practical way to hit both points.

UPDATE: Half Sigma makes the same mistake.

Energy

2005-07-06T10:30:00.000-07:00

With oil prices hitting 60$ a barrel, I thought it might be an appropriate time to lay out some practical points on energy.

To begin with, obtaining a reliable source of energy is one of the biggest, if not the the biggest, challenges to America's economic and political security. It is because:

Our largest source, oil, is not only located in other countries, but in very unstable countries.
The natural economic successor of oil, natural gas, is located is the same places.
Whereas new sources of oil have shrivelled up, world demand continues to expand.
There will be natural conflicts of interest when demand for oil surpasses supply, which could become full fledged wars if not prepared for.
Importing all this energy is bad for the trade balance.
Our largest (and expanding) source of electrical power, coal, is extremely bad for the environment, although this can be remedied.
Fossil fuels, especially oil, have far more valuable uses, in plastics tar, fertilizer, and other products, whose alternatives are more scarce than those for energy.
All fossil fuels are limited in supply and as we're forced to use more crude fuels, like tar oil, the damage to the environment increases exponentially, threatening not only America's, but the worlds welfare.

Thus stand the main columns of the problem, now some solutions:

Enact policies that bring about stability in oil producing regions.
Heavily tax oil to curb its growth and reverse the consumption trend.
Encourage heavy investments in alternatives.
Tax pollution.
Encourage more sustainable development patterns (less highways, more trains).
Stop the construction of convential coal plants through regulations aimed at bringing in a new generation of nuclear, clean coal, and various other alternatives.

Pretty straightforward. Unfortunately, politicians are enacting policies that are at best half-way solutions and at worst exacerbate the problem. The United States, at current rates of production, will be out of oil in fifteen years. The world has, on the rosy side, at most fifty years before oil can no longer be our primary fuel, and sixty before natural gas is out as well. We need solutions and we need them fast. Things will not be pretty if the nation, and the world, waits until the crisis strikes to begin offering solutions. This is the broad overview, it will be followed up with many supplementary details.

"Free" Trade

2005-07-04T15:18:00.000-07:00

A recent post, Larry "Smith" Kudlow, would be more accurate if China were practicing free trade. He, along with others, portrays the threats against China (from congress) as threats against free trade. Common sense, and practical policy, speaks to the contrary. China is not practicing free trade. It does not respect patent laws, it has an unfair currency peg, it "forces" people to give their money to gigantic public works projects, by making them put money in banks which then loan out all the money (an unsound economic practice anyway), and they're driving their people into poverty & their country into an environmental disaster for short term gains. Now, perhaps if they had a democratically elected government, where society had voted in leaders to go down this path, we might not have a problem. But they obviously do not, and, China is a threat in the short term. For all these reasons, it is the practical policy that our government should go ahead and pass measures, in a rational manner, that will coerce/persuade China into playing by the rules. We're not talking about regime change. China is a sovereign nation and that we respect. Yet when their practices affect us and our economy, we have to take steps to insure that they respect patent laws, unpeg their currency, and treat their workers & environment as humanely as we treat ours. Otherwise, the field is tilted against us, and the average Chinese worker, to the point where the only winners are a bunch elite Chinese.
The ideal piece of legislation, perhaps previously mentioned, would be a Fair Trade act. It would require that any company/country importing goods into the US must abide by US regulations. This includes a minimum wage (relative equivalent to the country), safety regulations, and environmental regulations. The company would obtain a license, after an inspection of their facilities, and would be subject to occasional surprise inspections, the punishment of failure being a complete revocation of the license (which would be understandably hard to obtain).
The reasoning behind this is why should we have these great things here, only to export them abroad? This is rather like maintaining freedom by exporting the tyranny. It also just makes sense, because how can we possibly hope to win economically (or even stay equal) against other countries, in the longterm, if the playing field is tilted in the first place? It also eliminates many of the advantages of going overseas. This legislation would be enacted four or five years after being passed because companies would have to radically alter their practices (and we don't want global trade to grind to a halt). Thus stands the practical policy: the fair trade act.

NASA

2005-06-30T20:02:00.000-07:00

I was visiting another blog, half sigma which, despite its lack of good ideas, is so good as to act independently of political parties and brings up good points now and again, like this one about the shuttle program. It got me thinking, and I decided to lay out the practical policy on NASA.

NASA is currently stuck in a rut. It does not have the same kind of aspirations, nor funding, of its heyday back when it was breaking in new frontiers and winning the space race. It is also stuck spending much of its precious little money maintaining a relic of twenty years (the shuttle) that does little for moving forward the United States' interests in space. That said, the only trails it is trodding are that of the International Space Station and exploration in the form of telescopes and the occasional (very occasional) unmanned mission to another planet. The ISS is a disaster, with costs out of control, undependable partners, an unclear goal, no dependable time table, and a design that looks remarkably similar to the same stations the Soviets & Americans were putting up back in the 70's. The explorations are at best tepid, once again, nothing daring as America sends missions to Mars that are more remarkable for their accomplishments relative to their small budgets than any real exploration. Thus stands the problem, now the solution.

In view of the practical ideology, NASA should act much like a specialized government research program. The research is important because it maintains both our economic and political security. Political due to the boundless military applications, and economic due to its endless potential in any number of fields, among them resources, energy, and services. It is NASA's economic duty to open up a frontier so that American companies can exploit it and make it useful. The military applications are already being pursued through the pentagon, thus leaving NASA with the economic. It also has the potential to act as a national ego booster, but any program can do that, if properly executed & publicized. The way for NASA to live by these goals is stay on the cutting edge, always out on a limb and pursuing the most far-fetched, least feasible ideas. It can accomplish this through both grants and aggressive, space race type, programs, like a space elevator, or moon colony. This said, NASA's two main inhibitors are the shuttle and funding. As the budget stands today, NASA ain't getting more funding until other problems are fixed, but the shuttle can be dumped rapidly. After the work on the ISS is completed (we've put too much into it to give up now), the program should be scaled back considerably and NASA should look to a much cheaper replacement so it can use its funds towards the afore-mentioned goals. So stands practical policy on NASA.

Under God

2005-06-22T13:23:00.000-07:00

A practical take on a bit of American ideology. All the blather about how unneccessary it is to have "under God" in our various documents and currency is ridiculous, but so is most of its defense. It's ridiculous to give in to a few families that find it "offending", but not because we need to preserve the top spot Christianity had back in 1776. The "under God" is no longer a religious reference. Rather, it refers to perfection (yes, God is a commonly known synonym for perfection, no matter your religion). Putting it in our documents is a sign of our continued humility and quest to be the best we can be. Not only do we recognize that we, and our government, is not perfect, but we also trust that perfection can be accomplished, thus in God we trust. Thus, whereas it is important to recognize that America is not perfect, it is also important to always strive for perfection. This has huge implications, including reaffirmation of our forefathers' genius.

NYC 2012! / Camp

2005-06-12T20:38:00.000-07:00

I doubt anyone tracks this, but Mr. Bloomberg is out do something truly glorious with New York, that is, capture the 2012 Olympic games. Unfortunately, his bid fell apart at the last moment as the planned stadium, over some railroad tracks on the West Side, was vetoed by some state funding committee (what the heck is the state doing controlling NYC's money?!). Fortunately, they got past that and have at the last moment put together a new stadium site over at Queens. It's a long shot, but atleast NYC still has a chance.

On another note, both Benton and I will be gone for atleast the next 10 days. If any members have a brilliant policy idea, feel free to put it down in a comment, but otherwise we are effectively hibernating.

Be Honest

2005-06-09T19:46:00.000-07:00

Basic Practical Policy: Unless absolutely neccessary, always be honest about what you're doing. Example: the new stoplights on Ward Parkway that are getting funded by a federal program. If anyone in congress had simply proposed buying all their cities new stoplights, it would have looked like a waste, maybe (you can never tell with them) gotten shot down. But it never got a chance, instead the money was provided under an environmental bill to reduce emissions. Naturally, the best way to reduce emissions is to smooth the flow of traffic by buying everyone new stoplights....

Another example: controversial amendments that get pinned onto non-controversial bills, like opening up ANWR through a budget amendment.

If the policy is what's best, it will be approved, or reflect poorly upon those who torpedoed it.

Worlds Best

2005-06-06T15:38:00.000-07:00

Its good to know that the politicians are doing one thing right. The US has and is maintaining the world's best military, reaffirmed by this financial times article stating that Europe's defense industry is lagging far behind (20-30% of) the US in new tech. investments. The paper had another article on the same page about Rumsfeld's admonishment of China's rising military spending, apparently now the world's third (what's the second?) highest. Thus although we're safe today, look out for tommorrow, especially since a nation can't just have a good military and be set. In order to keep us secure, we've got to have political and economic security. Right now both are imperilled, the first by our foreign diplomacy and terrorism, the second by deficits, energy, and internal problems, and both by China. China's boost in military spending is in direct correlation to its rising economy. If its economy surpasses us, as many say it will, we're in big trouble. Yet another reason to push ahead the practical agenda.

On a similar note, our military won't be of much use if it always costs so much to execute a war. Iraq is costing somewhere in the neighborhood of 80 billion dollars a year, and that's just an occupation. Honestly, that equates to roughly .5 million a soldier a year. I know we can't short-change our soldiers, but I also know that we can't afford to cough up this much for every war we go to. I think we've got some inefficiencies along the line, and I suspect we're getting ripped off. There is no way we're paying the lowest price plausible when truck drivers are getting 100,000 a year, but then again, the entire idea of contracting out military work is a bad one.

Deficits

2005-06-05T10:18:00.000-07:00

Apparently the United States is sucking up billions of dollars from developping countries to fund our trade and national deficits. This is neither healthy nor sustainable, and if we are to maintain the world's most competitive economy, we have to do several things.

First, we need a new energy policy to reduce our trade deficit. The best current alternatives to oil (nuclear, clean coal, natural gas, solar, eventually hydrogen) include nearly no foreign imports, redirecting billions of dollars that currently go overseas into the domestic economy.

Second, we need to level the playing field. As it stands right now, we cannot compete with China because it's not playing by the rules. Despite the fact that Americans are up to ten times more efficient then the Chinese, they, and nations like them, hold a large part of our huge trade deficit. It doesn't recognize patents, unfairly pins its currency, and cares nothing for the various workers' rights, health, and environmental regulations. As long as they continue these practices we simply cannot compete. To fix this, we need to enact sweeping trade reform, giving the president the right to impose tariffs on nations that do not abide by the regulations we force our own companies to abide by. Not only is this practical, it is also humane. Why should we protect the environment and provide minimum wages to our own workers just to ship the injustices overseas? Yet even this will not entirely fix the trade deficit.

Finally, we need to do some fixing back here. We need to simplify regulations and taxes, provide our economy with the world's best infrastructure, and heighten our education standards so that our students can outperform those of other nations.

Thus, as it stands, it is the practical policy that through energy reform, trade reform, and internal tweaking our currently dangerous trade deficits might be brought back to our favor.

Random Fact

2005-06-02T22:41:00.000-07:00

Which has a larger population, Canada or California?

California= 33,871,648
Canada= 32,805,041 (July 2005 est.)

Why? How? Russia has good excuses, Canada has nothing.

On Afghanistan...

2005-06-02T22:24:00.000-07:00

Please correct me if my facts are wrong, this region has been neglected by the press & my knowledge is not great. My take on the situation is that there is a well secured capital, where a bastion of NATO troops keeps stability, and then there is the country-side, where they make raids & there is no doubt a growing Afghan military presence, but still strong Taliban elements as well. Most worrisome, a large part (30%?), of their economy is now opium. I just made an important revelation. Checking the facts, it turns out Afghanistan has a larger population than Iraq (and, despite no oil, a larger economy). Why then, are we putting so little effort into the reconstruction? Why is there so little resistance? Is this then the way things could have been if we had taken a different approach to Iraq? Or is this just a really bad situation that's being overshadowed by Iraq? I will seek to answer these questions at a more sane hour.

On Iran...

2005-06-02T22:02:00.000-07:00

I must say that the partial successes of Iraq are overshadowed by several miserable failures in the wider Middle East. To begin with, the WMD fiasco allowed, perhaps encouraged Iran to steam ahead with its own nukes. It's always a bad thing to have more nations with nukes, especially hostile ones. This was brought about by the foreign diplomacy that crushed one nation (Iraq) for thinking about nukes while letting another one (North Korea) forge ahead with a full fledged program. This sent the message, "get nukes or get crushed", which compromised one of the only deterrants to going nuclear. To be quite honest, if we were to maintain that policy line, which is acceptable, we should have played real tough with Iran, & when they refused, given Israel the go-ahead. That would have maintained a consistent and strong policy line in the Middle East. Of course if we had never made the WMD argument, we wouldn't have to maintain the policy, but what's done is done. Would the Iranians hate us? perhaps, but does it matter anyway when the people who run their country aren't elected (and hate us anyway)? As it stands, the Iranians have supposedly frozen their arms program, but that is a temporary solution. We should try and work it out peacefully, most effectively if we were to go to Russia (the Nuclear "contractors) and work something out, but if that fails we need to be able to show that we can be serious.

Non! Nee!

2005-06-02T21:42:00.000-07:00

Recently the French have voted down the European constitution. This is a good thing. As it stands the current "European" politicians they have are so caught up in their own bureaucracy that they really don't get anything useful done. An anecdotal example of what they have done: they outlawed selling live animals inside, destroying a generations old tradition at my cousin's home town weekly market. Why approve a hugely bureaucratic constitution so that they can do even more harm?

But that is a problem with the excecution, the real problem lays at the root concept. I believe that a key part of Europe's effectiveness is its diversity and fragmentation. A free trade agreement (EU)? fine. A military alliance (NATO)? good. These keep things stable and prosperous, much like ensuring that companies compete on a fair playing field, but anything beyond this would probably only dull Europe's sharp edge. Seeing the current Italian & German predicaments, perhaps even a monetary union was going too far.

This has an important lesson for the US. Much like Europe attains its overall power from its fragmentation, or atleast used to attain it, the state system within the US also grants us a measure of dynamism within government policy. To pose an analogy: businesses compete through capitalism to attain the best economy, states compete through legislation to attain the best policy. Thus I would propose that some of those problems that we all know are problems, for instance healthcare, we leave to the states to solve. After one has come up with a suitable solution, the federal government can then adapt it, or perhaps just leave it to the states, depending on the solution. If a state screws up, no big deal, someone else can save them. If the Federal government screws up, we're screwed.

On Iraq...

2005-05-31T17:43:00.000-07:00

What issue better to first apply reason to than one that costs American lives everyday. When looking at an issue as momentous as this military engagement, it is important to keep in mind that what has been done is done. With that said, let’s draw a few lessons for conflicts in the future.
To begin with, it is the practical position that it was wise to have America install a democratic regime, if necessary by force, in one of the Middle Eastern oil states. This was necessary first as a show of force, a psychological assertion on the world stage of the United States standing as the world power and our intolerance of the regimes that gave birth to tragic events of 9/11. The more important reason is that there is a system that has taken root in the Middle East that fosters terrorism and it has to be disabled, for otherwise that instability would continue to spawn terrorism abroad and threaten the stability of the world’s largest oil producing region, thus making a potent security and economic threat to the United States security. The system is the potent combination of oil wealth, large youth populations, stagnate economies, repressive dictators, revolutionary rage, and extremist Islam. The oil wealth has created large youth populations, who can find no part in oil economies, whose education has been hampered by Islamic doctrines, whose desire to reform has been suppressed, and whose consequential rage has been directed, with the use of Islam, away from the regimes who have created this vicious cycle, and towards the United States. This process created both the terrorists who have attacked and continue to attack the United States, and the possibility for revolutions on such a scale that could create an oil crisis. Thus to achieve political and economic security, the United States was obliged to not only attack the terrorist structures, which has been achieved through attacks on Afghanistan and the continuing Al Qaeda hunt, but also the root of terrorism, this afore described system. This could be done only by creating a stable and successful democratic regime in one of the oil states. With the regime in place, Muslims would have a goal to aspire to, America would have a good friend and better reputation, and neighboring regimes would be cowed into reform, afraid of being overwhelmed by the crowds that would no longer be appeased with more anti-Americanism. Of the Arab oil states, Iraq was the natural choice, for not only was it already at political odds with America and the world, it also had limited oil exports and thus a limited effect on the world oil market lest it be swept into war. Needless to say, it also had an abusive dictator, but, sadly, that is by no means a unique virtue when it comes to the Middle East. For these reasons, it is the practical position that a regime change in Iraq was necessary.
This is not say that support of the concept and support of the execution equate. There were, unfortunately, numerous lapses in practicality during the execution of Iraq’s regime change. To begin with, the government did not go to war for the afore described reason, rather it insisted on making the embarrassing WMD case. If one is to go to war, it is the practical policy that one tells exactly why: public trust is a dangerous thing to risk, especially in wartime. Even if one still insists on believing the case, the value of stabilizing the Middle East greatly surpasses that of squashing a potential nuclear arms owner. Second, partially because of the first lapse, the government failed to achieve overwhelming diplomatic support for the regime change. Although the support was sufficient support for the regime change, much more could have been achieved if the government had dropped the WMD case and put forth a much stronger diplomatic effort. For example, France did not want to support a war in Iraq because they import near all their oil from Middle Eastern nations. There were ways we could have addressed this fear, yet as long as we stuck to the WMD case, France just said it disagreed with that and never had to state its true fear. The failure to accumulate the diplomatic support meant that the war consequently harmed our reputation and most of the burden was placed on the US. Third, the government left many of the lessons from the first Gulf War behind, making the second unnecessarily difficult. We failed to use the overwhelming force necessary to pacify the country. We failed to plan beyond toppling the regime, creating a disastrous anarchic period nearly a year long in which the insurgency assembled. Finally, due to or perhaps the primary cause of all the others, we rushed into the war. Although it was important to take action in a timely matter, the rush meant fewer troops, less time to drum up support, and forsaking less costly alternatives, such as strategic support for an internal coup. These mistakes and more could have been prevented if we had merely followed the guidelines laid down by Colin Powell for the first Gulf War, when we knew exactly what we were doing, told everybody why we were doing it, and did it with sufficient force and planning for a spectacular success. After that war, there was good reason to believe that we would never forget those principles. Apparently, though, common sense is not so insurmountable. It will always be the practical policy in the future to remember these lessons and make sure that when the US next engages, we keep them in mind.
Yet what is done is done; fortunately the current administration did have the spirit to stick with it, despite the tragic resultants from these mistakes, and we have gotten back on the right path. At this point, the practical position on Iraq is that it is essential that the US military continue the occupation and its fight against the insurgency until it is destroyed, that we build up the Iraqi government to the point where it can maintain order and democracy in its own country, and that we build up their infrastructure and economy to the point where they might be a prosperous democracy.

The Treatise

2005-05-19T14:21:00.000-07:00

A TREATISE
There is a lack of common sense amongst the people running this nation. Under the double yoke of conservatism and liberalism, the United States has risen to the top, conquering such scourges as Nazism and communism, and emerged as the sole superpower. Few threats can overcome this bastion of prosperity, this fortress of liberty, and yet, unfortunately, they still exist. Already a whole slew of scourges with the potential impact of a world war confront the United States’ position at the helm of the world, ranging from terrorism to China and deficits to a fast approaching energy crisis. Thus, at this pivotal point, what captures the attention of our congress? Terri Schiavo, judge appointees, and, take note, major-league steroid use. Indeed, the double yoke that kept this proud nation always treading upwards is now dragging us down, as politicians pick fights over war and refuse to offer solutions to the real issues facing this country, shielding their utter incompetence with their shared stupidity and established power-base. Do I condemn the followers of these juggernauts, these wheezing weights on the neck of lady liberty? By all means no, to the contrary, the majority of Americans want what is best for the country, but have grown accustomed to politicians who have set incompetence as the standard, and thus repeatedly settle for halfway solutions. Americans deserve better. It is time that the voice of reason, the voice of practicality reenter the arena, but not under the scorched and scorned banners of the preeminent parties. It is important that a new party, one whose candidates and endorsements the public might support and trust, come into the political fray, providing once again the choice of good policy to the citizens of America. Here will be wrought a new line of thought, a new, practical, way of going about politics, for the future does not look bright if our nation continues to be trapped between the two current ones.
First and foremost of the differences between practical politics and mainstream politics is the fundamental reasoning. In mainstream politics, the question is, “what is best for the party?” in practical politics, the question will always be, “what is best for the country?” Whereas contemporary politicians aspire to reelection, practical politicians will make policies that bring about a government which provides its citizens liberties, economic and political security, and an environment in which they might pursue prosperity and happiness. This entails minimal compromise, no catering to special interests, and absolutely no pork-barreling, the practice handing out bribes to constituents in exchange for votes, like unnecessary tax cuts and bridges to nowhere. This also means that the practical party will be very flexible. Whereas in mainstream politics there is a popular belief that if one change’s his position he is indecisive and weak, we shall make policies that fit the facts, not facts to fit the policies. When we are wrong, we will admit to it and move on. Character assassinations, religious intonations, value attacks, lies in general, attempts to win elections on non-policy issues, practical politics will do without all this mainstream tripe.
How does one go about enacting policies that are best for the country? Here is a set of priorities to act as a core to an ideology whose aim is to guide politicians in making practical policies. Obvious as it may seem, the first priority is preservation of the nation. The second is the preservation of and adherence to the constitution; the document which has facilitated our rise to power cannot be abused. Third, we must maintain the world’s best military, for what is the purpose of our government if it cannot defend us? Fourth, a good government must foresee and solve large scale problems or threats to our society. A prime example of this would be the impending energy and deficit crises. It is also necessary that the government provides an economic security net to its citizens, providing them with a baseline of survival and putting them on the path to prosperity. Next, it is important that the government maximize efficiency, another obvious sounding priority until one realizes that the very word bureaucracy has become homogenous with inefficiency. Just one example of the costly efficiency lapses that hamper or government is the billions of tax dollars that go uncollected, or are even lost, due to bureaucratic problems within the IRS. After this comes maintaining a competitive and fair economic environment in which American companies thrive and the trade imbalance remains in our favor. This is a broad priority which includes such essentials as a superior infrastructure and education system. Finally, it is important that the government itself is solvent, maintaining a balanced budget and avoiding debt. Although they may sound obvious, and, well, practical, almost none of these goals are being accomplished under our current political parties.
With these established as the broad parameters of practical policy, let me apply them to a few more specific fields. First, there is foreign policy. Preservation of the nation means a foreign policy which emphasizes the United States’ military and economic security. Humanitarian policies need to be encouraged, but only if they do not compromise either of the afore mentioned securities. The war in Iraq is an excellent case in point, for not only is it humanitarian, but it also enhances the United States economic security situation by stabilizing the Middle East, the source for a sizable amount of the worlds oil. This is not to say this war has lived up to other practical standards, failing most notably in regard to the tragic lack of efficiency and planning. On domestic issues, an application of adherence to the constitution, maximizing efficiency, and foreseeing and solving problems is keeping the federal government on federal issues. This allows the state system to be used to its full potential, with local governments experimenting with new policies without endangering the nation on the whole if the policy is unsuccessful, for instance high gas taxes and stem cell research in California, or the various gay marriage bans. This also fits into the increasing efficiency issue, as the practical federal government on federal issues policy would entail no more wasteful pet projects, like the billion dollar bridge in Alaska and the purposeless, yet federally funded, subsidies on items ranging from sugar to traffic signals. An issue which is both domestic and foreign, falling primarily under foreseeing and solving problems, is energy independence. Our near total dependence on foreign energy poses both environmental and economic threats, and a potent security threat in event of a crisis. The practical thing to do is obvious: put major money into developing alternatives and tax the fossil fuels. Unfortunately mainstream politicians do not see that, exemplified by congress’s current energy bill which is laden with pork and subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. Even the opposition party cannot get their mouths around the words “gas taxes” and “nuclear”. Their failure to present a feasible solution to a problem this large is exemplary of their incompetence in running our government. A more minor problem, emblematic of the hundreds which regularly overwhelm our politicians, is our fleet. As it stands, the only large ships built in the United States are navy ships. Thus, when it comes to building a new class of destroyers, congress will not approve it unless every remaining shipyard in the United States gets to build a destroyer, inflating the costs to the point where they cannot build the destroyer anymore. A practical solution is to build up the domestic ship building industry and have competitive contracts for the destroyers. Representatives are in congress to run the nation, not get jobs for their local constituents. These are but a few of the many policy areas in which practical politics could make a major difference, if applied.
As exemplified by the remarkably low turnover rate in congress, the majority of politicians no longer view politics not as a public service, but as a game, a career, with bills and policies as mere tools for advancement. A French thinker once said that American democracy will only succeed until congress realizes that it can bribe the citizens with their own money. Viewing recent developments, representatives have made that realization, forsaking practical policies in favor of those that will perpetuate their tenures. This country is not in decline, citizens are in fact stronger and more politically involved then ever, unfortunately they are being increasingly abused and disenfranchised by a greedy few. It is time that we renounce these institutions, free our nation from these parties of bondage, and bring back politicians who make policies for the good of the nation, not the good of the party.