My Diet

I realized recently that I have not blogged yet about my diet. Since my diet choices are based on my politics, it seems appropriate that I do.

A year ago or so (maybe more, I do not remember), I decided officially that I was going to cut back on meat. For a while I had been see-sawing between effective vegetarianism and serious meat-eating with nothing guiding me. That worked at the time because I had no moral or ethical reasons for going either way.

As I learned more about food production in the US, I saw the effects of our dietary choices. First, I started consuming "free-range" eggs as often as I could. This change stemmed from my new understanding of the conditions of battery cage chickens, including the large amounts of antibiotics and hormones that are injected into them to keep them from getting sick (which is far more likely due to the unsanitary conditions in the battery cage operation).

More than that though, I learned about the industry behind our beef consumption. In fact, the meat industry is an enormous contributor to green house gasses and becoming a vegetarian is an easy way to decrease your carbon footprint. I also learned about the scale of pollution produced at the feed lots in the middle of our country and the conditions animals are kept in to feed our enormous appetite for beef.

The conclusion I came to is that our meat consumption is far higher than needs to be and far higher than is sustainable. This is possible because the prices we pay do not take into account the impact we are having. Introductory level economics courses will tell you that markets are ineffective at including environmental costs into the prices of goods (without regulation). Therefore, we are often underpaying, and therefore over-consuming, things that have serious negative environmental impacts. Meat is a perfect example of this.

I firmly believe that if we included the true cost of meat production, including the costs of pollution and greenhouse gasses, prices would be higher and consumption would be lower. People would realize they do not need to eat meat twice or three-times a day.

In the face of all this, I realized that I needed to decrease my meat consumption even before the market found a way to accurately price meat. I first cut back to eating meat no more than once a day. That was not as challenging for me since I was not eating meat for dinner. My next step was to cut back to eating meat no more than three times in one week. My final step has been to cut back to meat no more than once a week, and when I do I try to get it from somewhere that is raising the meat in a way that is sustainable and treats the animals more humanely.

So far, I have found it pretty easy to cut back to this level. (It helps that I have someone who can cook - and teach me how to cook - great vegetarian dishes.) Once you start trying, you find lots of things to substitute for meat. And when you do eat meat, it feels like a treat.

As you can tell, I do not believe that we all need to become vegetarian. I do believe however that we should think about how often we eat meat and the effects that has. It seems in our country that we feel we should eat meat at every meal as a right. There is no legitimate reason for this. We could all cut back and still lead healthy (maybe more healthy) lives and allow for our meat to be raised sustainably and humanely. As my experience has proved, cutting back on meat is not a major sacrifice. You still eat meat, but less frequently.

Now, in truth the same logic could apply to my egg consumption. I feel that free-range is marginally better than battery-cage. However, the bigger problem is overall consumption of eggs. I almost always eat at least one egg per day, which means I am definitely contributing to a level of overall consumption that is likely just as unsustainable as for meat. I will probably need to deal with this sometime if I want to really tell myself that I am being consistent.

How about this, I'll cut back on eggs if you cut back on meat? We'll do this together.

More Services AND Lower Taxes

I think I am learning something important about Democratic and Republican behavior in response to the public’s desire for more services AND lower taxes.

Democrats, when running for office, tell the country they are going to increase services while pretending that they are also going to be able to cut taxes.

Republicans, when running for office, tell the country they are going to cut taxes while pretending that they are also going to be able to provide services.

The point is that as a voter you should know which things a candidate says are real priorities. Despite giving lip service to both things constituents demand, they will only really be able to provide one. A president that tries to do both will end up running large deficits, as Bush did and as Obama right now is planning to do for at least the next few years.


Speaking of Obama's budget, it seems that he is moving away from some of the absurd gimmicks of the Bush years (ie not including war spending in the budget but asking for supplemental appropriations, which should only be used for unplanned expenses and after a year or two, the wars were no longer unplanned). Transparency is a beautiful thing, and it makes this budget analyst almost tear up to see our president moving in that direction.

Oil Facts

I meant to link to this Times graphic a long time ago. Although the numbers may have changed a bit since then, I am guessing the overall picture is the same or similar. Here are the main ideas I take away from this:

- America is the largest oil consumer. (20.6 million barrels per day)
- America is the third largest oil producer. (8.4 million barrels per day)
- The biggest suppliers to the US are:
1. US (domestic production) (40%)
2. Canada (12%)
3. Mexico (8%)
4. Saudi Arabia (7%)
5. Venezuela (7%)
6. Nigeria (5%)

It is striking that Saudi Arabia makes up a relatively small percent of our consumption. Despite its small share though, it is still extremely important as small changes in production (or expected changes in production) have big impacts on prices.

Here is Our Chance

For those of you who have read Samantha Power's book A Problem From Hell, you'll remember her argument that throughout all of the genocides of the 20th Century, the US did nothing. It did not take action and it did not even condemn the genocides. The arguments used were the same - that to even condemn the genocide could cause the leaders of the guilty countries to choose not to cooperate with peace processes. Power argues convincingly that in the end, those leaders did not cooperate even though we avoided condemning them.

Despite countless examples in history to learn from, the same arguments continue to be made and sometimes carry the day. Those arguments have been voiced in regards to Sudan - although the US has condemned the genocide, many voices said that the International Criminal Court should not seek charges or an arrest warrant against Bashir, the President of Sudan. Those people said it could cause Bashir to stop participating in peace negotiations. I am glad those people were not listened to this time and that an arrest warrant for Bashir has been issued.

Those that argued against this in the specific case of Sudan claimed that if Bashir is arrested or otherwise loses power, those that might take over are far worse and that Bashir's role right now is somewhat productive. That may be true (although where are the results?). But for once we need to actually stand up to genocide. We need to show that we won't back down for fear that an uncooperative leader will not cooperate - that a murderous leader will murder more people.

But as with all experiments or new courses, we will be judged by the outcomes. So here is our chance - our opportunity - to show that the one time we condemned genocide and sought action in the ICC while the situation was ongoing, it made a difference. We can show that the best way to stop a killer is not to avoid making his life hard, but to do everything we can to make his life hard.

Here is our chance. Let's follow through. Let's actively seek Bashir's arrest, then continue by seeking charges against anyone else involved. Let's finally put an end to this genocide and set a serious example (unlike all the others before) to those who might perpetuate the second genocide of the 21st Century.

I Beg Your Pardon

As Bush was leaving office, I was waiting for him to issue a whole stream of absurd pardons. But as Obama was inaugurated, I heard / read nothing. So I wondered if maybe he had issued lots of pardons but it just wasn't covered. I went back and looked, and instead, what wasn't covered was the fact that he issued very few pardons at the end (wasn't covered means I didn't see anything in the NY Times - it very well could have been splashed over the Journal but I don't read that as often as I should).

So two things on this. First, I applaud Bush for not issuing a slew of pardons as seems to be the practice. Granted, I am not a lawyer and I don't know how many of the last-minute presidential pardons are legit. But it seems to me that if they are reasonable, then they should issue them at the time they come up. If you have to issue them on the way out, then you are worried about the appearance, which likely means they are probably bad pardons. I am especially glad that he didn't pardon Scooter Libby. (Dick Cheney thinks he was the victim of a miscarriage of justice - I agree. Cheney should have been the one punished.)

Secondly, I am disappointed that this wasn't covered more in the NY Times. If Bush did something prudent, it should be recognized. This is why the paper gets the rep for being very liberal and not objective.

Not Better

In case you were still holding on to the belief that Democrats are more ethical than Republicans, Spitzer's solicitation of prostitutes, Blagojevich's attempts to sell the Senate seat, Daschle's and Geithner's decision to avoid paying some of their taxes, and now stories about Roland Burris should have disabused you of any such notions. It is all simply disgusting.

About Roland Burris, he needs to resign. Either he lied or he is not as sharp as a Senator should be. I think it is both. We need to get the bad Democrats out of office now, so they are not around to make us look bad in 2010.

Disagree but not Disagreeable

Of course the papers / political programs are abuzz with the stimulus bill and what it means for Obama's plan for bipartisanship. Mostly, this is a function of the 24 hour news cycle and journalism's inability to see long-term. Obama will not change Washington in a matter of weeks. What we need to do is look back after two years, or four years, or eight years.

But we also need to be careful about what we are measuring when we evaluate his presidency. While I think the administration should be willing to compromise when that is possible, I don't expect Republicans to vote all the time with Obama (especially considering the fact that most of the Republicans now in Congress are more conservative as the moderates were voted out). After all, they have a different view of government's role in our lives. I do however expect that the tone will change. And I will judge Obama on this in time.

The Bush administration (as many before have done) came into office pledging bipartisanship. At times, they delivered or actually tried: No Child Left Behind received some Democratic support including that of Senator Ted Kennedy, and their attempt at immigration reform was also moderate, although it was scuttled by the far-right of the Republican party.

But when they failed to get Democratic support for other policies - especially the War in Iraq - their tone changed. Instead of respecting the Democrats for their positions, the Bush administration attacked Democrats' patriotism.

The Obama administration cannot do this. The tone in Washington has changed - at least if you believe insiders - over the last ten or twenty years. Democrats and Republicans do not interact as socially and instead the political battles seem to carry over into personal interactions. Obama can slowly change this if he changes his tone and the tone of the party. His campaign showed his potential to do this; he famously said, "We can disagree without being disagreeable." Now his presidency needs to show that he can actually accomplish it. And we need to give him some time to try.

No Anecdotes Please

The election this fall made it clear that our health-care system needed reform. Costs are escalating much faster than inflation and many people are uninsured. The changes we make will need to be carried out thoughtfully. Unfortunately, I think a lot of the debate will be in the form of articles like this one in the Atlantic, where anecdotes take the place of data that explains bigger picture issues.

In places the article mentions the big issues we'll have to deal with: Do we want everyone to have the same coverage or are we okay if the rich can buy better care? Do we want government making decisions about treatments (or insurance companies - an alternative the author doesn't consider)? How does government control affect innovation in health-care? How much are we willing to pay for care?

Although it mentions these questions, the article doesn't really answer them, and doesn't supplement the anecdote with any data to at least get us closer to the answers. So instead, we get a very superficial article about health-care masquerading as something relevant. In reality though, many people will read it - and many articles like it - and decide how they feel about more / less centralized medicine based on the one anecdote. (I haven't seen Micheal Moore's movie, but I have heard it is similar, although from the other side.)

If you have ever heard Senate debate on policy / legislation issues, you know that they also focus on anecdotes. And so I fear that we will end up with bad policy unless the debate begins to include actual information on the real ways different approaches will affect health-care in general. Will centralized medicine prevent drugs like the one in the story from being made? Will everyone be denied more expensive treatments or just the poor? We need to answer these questions through real data, not emotional stories.

Sabermetrics for Basketball

I really liked the book Moneyball. The idea that some baseball skills are undervalued because we do not know what actually correlates with winning, and that using statistics to figure that out and get an advantage, is fascinating. It's like poker, some of it is random and based on luck, but in the long run, you increase your chances of winning significantly if you make bets only where the odds are in your favor.

This week in the Sunday Times there is an article relating this concept to basketball. It is a great article. I am now a Shane Battier fan.

He Would've Made a Good President

Last year, we saw two sad examples of countries where contested election results lead to violence and instability - in Kenya and Zimbabwe. Both cases fortunately garnered public attention and concern for the vulnerable populations.

What is not as often reported is when the transitions go smoothly. Well, in December, Ghana elected a new President, and the winner was not from the same party as the outgoing president. The election was close, but in the end resulted in no reported violence and a smooth transition.

Last year, I actually had the privilege of meeting Ghana's presidential candidate, Nana Akufo-Addo. Mr. Akufo-Addo was from the same party as the outgoing president and was considered the front-runner. The event was a fundraiser in New York. Mr. Akufo-Addo came off as brilliant and deeply committed to improving Ghana. Although my first impression was that he would have made a great president, it is reassuring to see that though he lost, he stepped aside gracefully.

On the other hand, I know nothing about the winner, John Atta Mills, besides what is in the article. Hopefully he is as competent and trustworthy as Nana Akufo-Addo seemed.

There are some serious problems and crises in Africa that need to be addressed. But examples like this should help inform the world that there are many examples of good government to show that the problem is not with the African people, but certain people on the continent and certain conditions that lead to the crises we see.

Just Say We're Sorry

The leadership in Iran has, among other things, requested that the US apologize for its past crimes in Iran. While I do not think we should ever apologize because of pressure / force, I do think we should apologize when history shows that our behavior was deplorable.

Our decision to overthrow a democratic (possibly socialist but unlikely to be communist) government lead by Mohammed Mossadegh and install the Shah in 1953 is one of a series of similar and disgusting acts we committed during the Cold War. In too many cases, we chose to support undemocratic, repressive governments instead of allowing democratic socialist or communist governments. I have been meaning to write about this for a while, but cannot quite get my ideas structured right. Basically though, we had a policy that supported economic liberty (at least in the form of unrestrained capitalism) over political liberty. In fact, in some cases, Iran being one of them, we supported repressive capitalist governments over potentially free socialist governments.

So how could Obama apologize without empowering Iran too much? One way would be to apologize for all examples where we did this at once - Iran, Cuba, Chile, Congo, etc. Obama could also ask that the Iranian government issue an apology for taking over the US embassy and holding hostages.

The bottom line is that our foreign policy was bankrupt, and an apology would signal that we are ready to move away from that hypocritical policy and actually promote our ideals of political and economic liberty.

Promoting Democracy

I will be honest, when President Bush said he wanted to expand democracy across the world, I was excited. After all, who could oppose the expansion of freedoms to more people across the world? And who can argue that democracies do not improve the lives of those that live under them? It was especially refreshing to hear it come from a Republican, since I often associate Republican foreign policy with realpolitik.

In the end, Bush's rhetoric fell far short. He supported president Musharraf in Pakistan despite Musharraf's anti-democratic practices, he called for votes in Palestine only to ignore the results when Hamas won, and he did precious little in pro-American countries like Saudi Arabia to achieve real democratic reforms. In total, it made Bush look like a hypocrite - someone who wanted to use principles of spreading democracy to justify his war in Iraq.

An article in the Times shows that Obama is using less democratic rhetoric while making bigger pushes for actual change. For now it is way too soon to see if he is more willing to require our "friends" to change or to recognize elections that do not go our way and whether he can actually achieve these goals even if he is willing to do more. It is something we definitely need to pay attention to.

Second Bill of Rights

In reading the intro to a book I am thinking about buying, I was made aware of President Franklin Roosevelt's 1944 State of the Union in which he lays out the foundation for Second Bill of Rights. In this case, he wasn't looking to change the Constitution, but to proclaim that free people have rights that extend beyond what are laid out in the original 10 amendments to the Constitution. Here is an excerpt from his speech.

We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth- is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our Nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. "Necessitous men are not free men." People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

This speech gets close to my (still developing) philosophy. There are a couple that I do not completely agree with: right to a remunerative job and the right of a farmer to raise and sell his products at a living return. First, although my understanding of economic concepts is a bit rusty, experience seems to show that eliminating unemployment is unlikely, especially without increases in inflation. Instead, I think people should have a right to a minimal standard of living and a commitment from the government that it will help them find a job if possible. Secondly, I do not know why farmers should have a special right to continue working in their field. If there is an oversupply or inefficiency, than we should not allow that condition to continue just out of nostalgic feelings for our more agricultural days.

As FDR lays them out, these are rights to be enjoyed by all Americans. I would take this one step further - that all humans have these rights. I think this is the point that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights tries to make (although notice how concise FDR was able to be). If we look around the world, we see people living lives that no human should have to endure. Just a basic sense of decency and compassion should make it easy to understand why all humans should have the right to security, food, shelter, education, and health care as much as they have a right to participate in their government, to practice a religion of their choice, to assemble, to speak, and to have equal protections under the law.

In the end, I wish this were the Democratic platform. I do not believe in socialism or communism. I do not believe in redistribution. But I do believe that every human has the right to basic living standards - that if a society is just, it exists to protect everyone and ensure equal participation in the freedoms that exit - including the markets that exchange goods as well as those that exchange ideas. Without adequate nutrition, education or health care, full participation in the society cannot be assured.

Obamanomics: Stimuli

As the new stimulus package is debated, you will hear each side talk with certainty about how tax cuts or government spending are better fiscal policies to stimulate the economy. In fact, each side will claim that the research shows that one is better than the other.

In introductory macroeconomics classes you are taught simple supply and demand equations, with tax cuts or government spending affecting overall economic activity. Depending on whether your teacher is conservative (like my high school econ teacher) or liberal (like my college econ professors), you will see multiplier affects that show tax cuts or government spending having a greater impact (respectively). In those classes, the multiplier effect is given to you by the teacher. This is why for a couple short years after high school, I believed that supply-side was the better policy.

The truth however is that what research there is shows wide variation in results. Some research does show a greater multiplier effect for tax cuts than government spending, while others show the reverse. (This Freakonomics article talks about one reason why the research is so unclear - that not as much fiscal policy research is done as monetary policy research.) In fact, a quote from an essay Christina Romer (Obama's selection to head his Council of Economic Advisors) wrote (taken from a David Brooks column) suggests that in surveys of past recessions, fiscal policy seemed to have little effect in ending the recessions.

So what are we to make of all this uncertainty? One, fiscal stimuli are more of a political tool than an economic one. They show that the government is working to make things better (even if it is somewhat cosmetic). Obama, by including tax cuts and government spending, is hoping to please people on both sides without proclaiming that one works better than the other. Two, the stimuli should at least go to things that we need. And this is the best part about Obama's stimulus package. If it is used to improve our electricity grid - a necessity if we are to actually try to change our energy supply - to improve our roads and public transportation, and to rehab our schools and public housing, it will be money spent that can both create some temporary jobs until the recession is over but also accomplish tasks that have for too long been put off.

It may not help end the recession, but it should make the transition easier while making us stronger for when it ends.

Peace in DRC?

It appears that the prospects for peace in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo have increased recently. The violence (and epidemic of sexual violence) stemmed from four armed groups in the area with shifting alliances; the Congolese government troops, Hutu militants (those responsible for the genocide in neighboring Rwanda), Laurent Nkunda's Tutsi militants (supposedly there to protect Tutsis from the Hutu militants but with aspirations to take down the democratically elected government in DRC), and UN Peacekeeping troops (yes, they were there to keep the peace, but there were accusations that they too were contributing to the sexual violence while not effectively protecting the civilians).

Recently, Laurent Nkunda has been arrested by the Rwandan government and his militia is apparently disbanding. Jeffrey Gettleman's story says that there was a deal between Rwanda and Congo, where Rwanda would stop Nkunda, and Congo would let Rwanda go into Congo to attack the Hutu militias.

The only chance for sustained peace will be if Nkunda's militia does in fact disarm and no one steps into the vacuum (there are other rebel groups in the area, including Nkunda's former chief of staff, who is wanted for war crimes) and if the Hutu militia can be neutralized. Both of these are real challenges, but I am particularly worried about the later. The genocide happened in 1994 and the Hutu militants have been hiding in Congo since then destabilizing the region. Hopefully now is the time they are finally stopped. Unfortunately, stopping them may result in more bloodshed among the people living in Eastern Congo.

At the very least though, this new development brings hopes of peace to one of the most troubled regions in the world.

I Don't Predict the Future

So my prediction was wrong. Although I was right that the governor didn't choose Kennedy or Cuomo. Well, if you believe the rumors it seems as though he was going to pick Kennedy. But I did mention Kirstin Gillibrand.

I still think he should have chosen Byron Brown. The Senate could use more African-American representation - one isn't really enough, especially when that one is Roland Burris (yes, he made a very bad first impression on me).

Even though I would probably have preferred Brown, I do like this choice. Gillibrand is moderate and will represent upstate New York well. And as much as I am a downstate snob, I think upstate needs good representation at statewide office.

Oh yeah, and former Senate Majority Leader Bruno was indicted. Yesterday was a crazy day for New York State. (The funny thing is that I am not sure which was the bigger news story: Bruno, Gillibrand, or Patterson's seeming lack of leadership.)

The Inauguration

I don't have a lot to say about the inauguration except that I am excited. There is so much hope and possibility now with a smart and liberal president. I can't wait to see the new direction (or sometimes lack thereof?) in so many areas. My mind reals just thinking of the possibilities.

Overall, his speech was good. It started off somewhat dull but competent and ended really inspiring. His call for responsibility, hard work and sacrifice, and rising to meet challenges was such a breath of fresh air compared to Bush's "go about your business." Now we wait and see how the words transform into reality.

Also, I thought Aretha Franklin was great. So was the quartet piece written by John Williams.

And I made sure to watch Bush leave on the helicopter. I am glad Obama was respectful. But it was good to see Bush leave.

Portraits of the Future

The New York Times Magazine has a feature this week with portraits of Obama's top campaign / administration staff and top Democrats. The portraits are really well done. Check them out if you haven't already. This is our future people!

Dynamic Duo: Bolton and Yoo

There was an opinion piece in the NY Times recently calling for treaties to be ratified by a 2/3rds vote of the Senate, as called for in the Constitution. Who wrote this opinion piece? John Bolton and John Yoo. John Bolton, you'll remember, was Bush's appointee as Ambassador to the United Nations. Coincidentally, he is the same person who does not think the US has much use for international bureaucracies. Apparently Bush wanted to appoint someone that would antagonize the UN, instead of work with it, but I digress. And John Yoo... who was he? Wait, wasn't he the guy who wrote those illegal torture memos that conservative lawyer Jack Goldsmith rescinded? Yes, that's him. So we are going to take legal advice from him?

The best part is that the two don't suggest that all treaties go through this process. They admit that trade treaties like NAFTA were passed with simple majorities by Congress, and they are fine with that. Basically, they argue that the Constitution requires only treaties they don't like (liberal treaties like ones that ban weapons that are the most dangerous to civilians, like land mines or cluster bombs, or treaties on human rights issues, or treaties that deal with global warming) to get 2/3rds support from the Senate while treaties which conservatives support do not need to.

I admit that I don't know all the constitutional and legal requirements about which treaties should have to go through Senate with 2/3rds support and which can be passed with simple majorities by Congress. But it disgusts me to see people profess to care about legal and constitutional arguments only when it serves them. If the Constitution requires that treaties need to get 2/3rds support in the Senate, than that includes trade agreements along with everything else.

Finally, can we please stop quoting the founding fathers as if everything they said still holds true? The international world was far different in the late 1700s than it is today. If we are going to venerate something Thomas Jefferson or George Washington said just because they said it, then we have to do that for everything. And that means eliminating political parties and more bloody revolutions.

Selfish Burris Helps Governor

I get no pleasure in writing a post like this, but I think it needs to be said. Rolland Burris seems to be more concerned with becoming a Senator and extending his political career than he is with doing what is best for Illinois. If he had anything other than his career in mind, he would see that the best thing for him to have done when Governor Blagojevich called would have been declining to accept the nomination and then politely advising the governor to step down.

Instead, Burris is empowering the governor and giving him back some legitimacy by helping the change the topic of discussion. His trip to DC today was a sham. While there is some debate about whether the Senate can in fact refuse to seat Burris, they cannot seat him until his appointment is certified by the Governor and the Secretary of State of Illinois. But he showed up to the Capital without the Secretary of State's signature and he did it as a political stunt. All of his speeches and circus antics help no one but the governor of Illinois (and maybe Burris himself).

Don't get me wrong, I also think that Obama's replacement should be a person of color. But to hear Burris and friends talk, you would think he is the only person of color in the state. I hope that Illinois and the US Senate are able to prevent Burris from joining the Senate, and then get a different appointment from a new governor. Burris should not be rewarded for his self-serving antics.

I Predict the Future

I predict that Governor Paterson will name Byron Brown, Buffalo mayor, to fill Hillary's senate seat. I have no inside information; it is just my educated guess. Granted, he might choose a woman instead, and select Representative Carolyn Maloney (Congresswoman from New York City) or Representative Kirsten Gillibrand (Congresswoman from Albany). But I don't think he will choose Caroline Kennedy or Andrew Cuomo.

First, I think Paterson will want to select a person of color for the senate, especially with Obama's seat in flux (granted, by the time Paterson has to name his selection, Obama's seat may be resolved), so that points to Byron Brown. And Brown is from upstate (Paterson will be sensitive to selecting someone from upstate to state-wide office to help with his re-election in 2010), while Carolyn Maloney is from the city (as are Kennedy and Cuomo). Kristen Gillibrand is from upstate, but I think she is too new, just having been elected to Congress in 2006.

The only downside to Brown is that he doesn't have the name recognition, and therefore the obvious fund-raising ability, that Cuomo or Kennedy has. But I now think that is less important considering the senior senator from New York is good old Chuck Schumer, someone pretty good at fund raising.

Not Immune

As is becoming clear, Democrats are no more ethical than Republicans. Stories about Governor Rod Blagojevich in Illinois, Congressman Charles Rangel, and now a story that raises questions about the Clintons (Destiny USA? Talk about a blast from the past) and allegations against Bill Richardson are all over the news. For now, it does not seem to be sticking to the Democratic Party. But the party better get a handle on these things soon and hope there are no more waiting to break. Otherwise, we could see another midterm election that takes away a Democratic congressional majority from a sitting Democratic president.

More on the Gaza Seige

Summary: Roughly 120 Palestinian civilians have died in 2008 as a result of Israeli raids, including the recent attacks. These attacks resulted from thousands of Hamas rockets, which have killed 5 Israeli civilians. Who is looking out for Palestinian civilians?

I want to spend some more time analyzing the current Israeli attacks in Gaza, which now include a ground invasion. Let's look first at what has caused the invasion: Hamas rockets fired from Gaza into Israel. Hamas has launched thousands of rockets into Israel in the last few years, including 300 between December 19th and December 27th of 2008. So as you might imagine, thousands of rockets will create an unacceptable level of fear among Israeli civilians.

However, during 2008 a total of five Israeli civilians have died as a result of Hamas rockets. Before the recent Israeli attack on Gaza, 420 Gazans had been killed, at least of fifth of them civilians, by Israeli raids. So even before the invasion, the numbers seem lopsided. If we include the recent attacks, where some 300 have been killed, including between 50 - 90 civilians, it looks even more lopsided.

If five Israeli civilian deaths are enough to cause Israel to kill an estimated 120 or more Palestinian civilians, than it gives the impression that Palestinian lives are worth less than Israeli lives. Israel, and the US in other conflicts, claim that they are trying to avoid killing civilians while their enemies are in fact trying to kill civilians. But trying not to kill civilians isn't the same as actually not killing civilians. Of course, Hamas seems to care as little about the civilians that die, except in using their deaths to rally support of their cause.

In the end, I suppose that is the biggest tragedy of this ongoing situation: nobody seems to care about the Palestinian civilians that die. Israel doesn't care enough to stop bombing or to let anything more than a trickle of humanitarian aid enter Gaza. Palestine doesn't care enough to stop their rocket attacks. And the international community doesn't care enough to get more involved and find a solution, consider that the solution is likely to be hard and costly.

The problem I face though in this analysis is that a major criteria for analyzing whether the attack is justified is whether Israel exercised all other options. I, and probably many others, do not know enough to come to a firm conclusion here. Maybe Israel could have opened the borders, but this would have allowed more rockets to come in. I cannot think of a different course for Israel - while I think five deaths is not enough to launch this war, at some point the rocket attacks have to stop. Unfortunately, there are only two ways to stop them - an Israeli invasion or some sort of internationally support peace or disarmament.

The Economist has some interesting articles on the war (much of my data and background info comes from these articles), and more discussion on whether the attack is justified and proportional.

Gaza Under Fire

There have got to be better options for the situation in Israel / Palestine; this can't be the best possible scenario. It seems that no one does anything to stop Hamas and Hezbollah from attacks against Israel, which inevitably causes Israel to overreact (in my opinion).

Maybe I am particularly sensitive right now - I am reading Samantha Power's book Chasing the Flame (don't worry, once I finish I'll have another Book Report for you). But it seems that the international community (especially the US) is unwilling to dedicate the resources necessary for better temporary solutions to problems, so we end up with a status-quo that is completely unacceptable.

I was very opposed to Israel's invasion of Lebanon - the one in 2006, I was too young to oppose the one in the early 1980s - and the recent attacks on Gaza seem little better. It makes it hard for the US to criticize Israel however, since we aren't willing to do anything significant that would actually both protect Israel and protect civilians in Gaza (i.e. international peacekeepers and an end to settlements).

Right now, Obama is deferring to Bush. While I understand the desire to have only one president, I think someone needs to get Israel to calm down (or back down). Plus, I am anxious to see if Obama really moves our foreign policy in a different direction or continues our policy of refusing to ever criticize Israel.

Book Report: Paris 1919

It feels like I have been reading this book forever. Overall, Paris 1919: Six Months that Changed the World was pretty good (although her writing and organization is a little confusing at times). I wish I had a map of Europe and the Middle East on hand as I was reading it as her descriptions of the boundary negotiations were quite detailed. And I also found I needed to brush up on my 19th Century European history as I was reading (good old Spark Notes).

It's amazing how much the World War I peace conference set up the world as we know it today - especially in the Middle East and Eastern Europe - and therefore is the cause of many of the problems that we face.

One of the failings of the treaty was how it had to reconcile two different time periods. It was in some ways wedded to the past peace treaties that focused on imperialism, distributing spoils of war and punishing the losers. At the same time, it tried to also look to the idealism of Wilson's Fourteen Points of self-determination and equality (in some cases). So what we got was an imperfect treaty that often diverged from the Fourteen Points.

All of the decisions on the Middle East ignored the idea of "self-determination." The borders of the new countries of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq were based on imperialist aims, not on how best to divide up Kurdish, Persian, Arab and Turkish nations or Sunni, Shiite, Marionite Christians, Orthodox Christians, Druse, and secular religions. And the homeland for Jewish people in Palestine ignored whether Palestinians wanted an influx of European and Russian Jews.

The decision to unite Iraq was based on the British recognizing the value of oil in Mosul and its desire to protect its interests in India. It added Kurish populations to the new country just to add more territory. Lebanon was expanded to give the Marionite Christian population more land, dividing Syria and ignoring the fact that the extra land would include Muslims. At the time this book was written (2002), Syria was still occupying Lebanon.

It is also amazing to see how important personality was in the treaty discussions. Greece was often given its way because its representative was popular and charismatic, while Italy was largely spurned because its reps were tactless and unpopular. The support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine came from effective lobbying.

The bottom line is that the final treaty is obviously imperfect. It was a massive undertaking, but comes out inconsistent and sloppy in many ways. After reading this book however, I am not sure that I blame it for World War II or the conflicts in the Balkans. I do though blame it for some of the problems in the Middle East (Iraq, Lebanon, and Israel/Palestine).

Jindal - Just Governor for Now

Bobby Jindal, governor of Louisiana and possible GOP presidential candidate in 2012 or 2016.

What I like: intelligent and competent (from what I have heard so far), not white (because it is good for the Republican party - the party where rumors of Obama as a Muslim spread too easily), and pragmatic (from what I have heard so far).

What I don't like: for all his intelligence, he believes in intelligent design and is against abortion in all circumstances.

As you can see, I don't know a ton about him. At least, he seems like a breath of fresh air after eight years of Bush and the possibility of Palin for our future. It will be interesting to see his career progress.

UDHR: 60 Years

So today marks the 60th anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. One year ago today the volunteer organization I was a part of joined a campaign to raise awareness of the declaration and the approaching anniversary. We were to be a small part of the campaign, but we were excited about it. Our effort fell apart, and the bigger effort doesn't seem to have done much better. Granted, I am writing this post at the beginning of the day, so maybe I'll be surprised by the end.

Fighting for human rights seems destined to break your heart. While there are some signs of progress, it is slow and incomplete. And more often than progress we see new and continuing tragedies. Oh I wish I could come to this fight always upbeat and optimistic, but realistically speaking, progress is way too slow. Around the world we see ongoing violence that is little noticed in places like Somalia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, and even violence that is more well noticed but still nothing is done in places like Darfur, Kenya and Zimbabwe. I myself often pay more attention to conflict, but throughout the third world people still die when more food and basic medical care would prevent their deaths.

Looking back over the last 60 years, it is hard to see positive examples of the world rallying to protect human rights.

I started volunteering for human rights issues over a year ago. After having expanded my reading and visiting Zambia, I decided I needed to do more. It wasn't right for me to go on living an easy life in the face of what I was seeing and learning about. I decided that my short term goal was to volunteer and my long term goal was to change careers to have a focus on more urgent international issues.

The volunteering didn't work out. I imagine those volunteering will disagree, but I found that we weren't having much of an effect. When the problems you cover are thousands of miles away and require money and political action to make an impact, spending a few hours a week just doesn't do much. This experience has lead me to continue volunteering at the local level, where the results are more tangible. I can spend two hours a week and help a student improve in math. I contrast this with spending two hours trying to take baby steps to raise awareness of issues that groups with more resources and reach are also working on to limited effect.

The volunteering has also changed how I feel about my long term goal. My career goal is to make the most impact I can on an urgent issue (or issues). For international issues, there seem to be few jobs but many people talented people who want those jobs. Domestically though, I sense that there are way more job opportunities than qualified candidates. I am leaving open the possibility of finding work impacting major human rights issues internationally. But I believe that one cam accomplish more when focused locally.

This doesn't mean that I think local issues are more important. Human rights need to be protected everywhere and I will take jobs where I feel I am needed. But mobilization and help is easier locally. So for now, that is where I will focus my time.

If I can't work / volunteer to help international problems, what can I do? This is what I am debating these days. I will continue to donate money to worthy causes. I know these donations help, but they don't ease my conscience; in no way do I feel that my paltry donations are all I need to do for these issues.

As for this blog, I am not naive enough to think that it is having an impact. It is more a place for me to express myself than to really raise awareness. I am looking to find ways to increase awareness, but I have no good ideas. When the group I was a part of hosted the Women and Youth Panel, I found that we were preaching to the choir. The people that showed up already cared about these issues. Probably the greatest obstacle to achieving human rights is reaching people who don't want to be reached.

For now though, it seems that I will have to live with disappointment, as the world ignores major human rights issues, and deal with my feeling of powerlessness. Happy 60th anniversary.

Feeling Moody about Moody's?

There is definitely a lot of blame to go around for the current financial crisis, where products were judged to be a good investment but have turned out to be seriously flawed. In lite of this, a large portion of the blame must rest with the rating agencies. They gave high ratings to securities that they later had to significantly downgrade. The question then is why were they so wrong?

There seem to be three possible reasons. One, maybe the loss of value was not something that could have been reasonably forecast. I don't believe that this was the reason. It just seems too obvious that many of these securities were more risky then their ratings showed.

Two, a conflict of interest may have influenced their ratings. That there was a conflict seems clear. Moody's for example, is a for-profit enterprise, and its revenue, since the 1970s, comes from the agencies issuing the securities. Therefore, it is in their interest to please the issuers by granting high ratings. The article suggests that as Moody's became more focused on profits, it lost its independence.

Finally, maybe they just didn't do their research, or didn't do it well. The Times article also gets at this, although only briefly:

Even though the standards at many lenders declined precipitously during the boom, rating agencies did not take that into account. The agencies maintained that it was not their responsibility to assess the quality of each and every mortgage loan tossed into a pool.

It seems to me that Moody's failures are a combination of second and third possibilities I mentioned. I imagine though the difference between the first reason and the third reason is whether you think the things they used for the ratings were reasonable. And I argue that it wasn't reasonable. If they weren't assessing the quality of every mortgage what were they using to generate their rating?

The key though is more than just passing blame. There needs to be serious reform. Non-profit rating agencies are one answer. Changing the source of the rating agency's revenue is another - although that doesn't seem like it would work. And definitely improving their methodology is a must. Let's see if the public / politicians have the attention span to do this right.

Future for Afghanistan

I remember in the VP debate there was a back and forth over whether the strategy to pacify Iraq would work in Afghanistan. Biden remarked that the Iraq strategy wouldn't work - citing comments from the military leader in Afghanistan. At the time though, I didn't really know what they meant - which part of the Iraq strategy wouldn't work? Now I know.

Okay, so turning Sunni leaders against foreign Al Qeada in Mesopotamia fighters was far easier than getting Sunni tribal leaders who support the home-grown Taliban to support the new Afghan government. Is it hopeless?

It seems that it will just be much harder. We'll have to show that siding with the Taliban means joining the losing side and that through the government is the means to delivering real improvements to the people in their region. In other words, it will take real commitment, real resources (not just military) and time. This should have been the plan from the beginning. Well, hopefully now we have a president with a normal attention span who will see this through. The people of Afghanistan need it.

Nat Geo: An Amazing Thing

I finally realized that National Geographic is the most amazing magazine ever. So I subscribed. Here is what I have been reading about:Rural health workers in India (The article describes an amazing program that is using women in the lowest caste to improve health in the poorest areas.), King Herod as architectural genius (and brutal although its unlikely that he killed all newborn children as the Gospel according to Matthew claims), historical artifacts being looted in the power vacuum of the West Bank, right whales, bee-eaters (some of the most beautiful birds in the world, we saw them in Zambia - check the pictures and see for yourself), Neanderthals (did they exist at the same time as humans?), beautiful ancient Persian archeology in Iran, bush meat trade threatening primates, a good article about giant asteroids and earth, mountain gorillas in Virunga National Park in the Democratic Republic of Congo and caught in the middle of the conflict as well as a profitable charcoal trade, two really good articles on the American West - one on fires the other on drying and droughts, coral reefs, black pharaohs (from Nubia) of Egypt, Hazaras the long-oppressed minority group in Afghanistan (I had never heard of them before reading Kite Runner, and so this article is great), and an article about the Sahel (border between the Sahara and the tropical areas of Africa) where the author was held prisoner by the Sudanese government and I think he will win a Pulitzer Prize for the article.

My favorites are probably the articles about the health workers in India, the Hazara people in Afghanistan, the story on the Sahel, and the gorillas in Virunga. And I am a sucker for clear pictures of whales.

You can see why I am so excited. And this list is from only seven of the year's issues. Amazing. Basically it is a perfect blend of articles on history, international affairs, and animal species and the environment. Oh yeah, there are pictures too.

Natural Resources: More Harm than Good

The NY Times is doing a three-part series on how natural resource wealth contributes to conflict and inhibits growth in developing countries. This topic was a major theme in Paul Collier's book The Bottom Billion (I wrote about this book on my other short-lived blog on human rights but I realize I need to read it again to brush up on its main points). The first article was in this Sunday's Times and I think this is the main point:

This is Africa's resource curse: The wealth is unearthed by the poor, controlled by the strong, then sold to a world largely oblivious of its origins.

In the story the Times tells, one unit of the army controls a tin mine - tin is a major component of computers and mobile phones - and extracts "taxes" from all involved in the trade. The army is unable to control this unit, in part because of ongoing battles between a Tutsi rebel group, the Congolese Army, and Hutu militias left over from the Rwandan genocide.

There are a number of lessons to learn from this article. First, and probably most important is that "conflict diamonds" get the attention, but the truth is that there are many more conflict resources that we use unaware. Many things that we buy finance violence and suffering in the places where the resource comes from. The solution isn't necessarily to stop buying products with resources from the Congo, but to at least be aware that it is happening and demand change.

The second point is the role of multinational corporations. In this example, there is a multinational company that has rights to the mine, but are being prevented from accessing the mine because of the army unit. The multinational company of course says they were going to build schools and power stations and in other ways give back to the region. The problem is that in the past, these corporations haven't given back to the country. Instead, they have taken the resources out, fought to pay as little in taxes as possible, made themselves rich off the resource as the country continues to suffer in extreme poverty. The US government has a long history of supporting corporations who see nothing wrong with pillaging resources from developing countries. In fact our history with the Congo in particular is a testament to this.

The third point that comes out of this article is how conflicts that are ignored can continue to breed violence for decades as long as we continue to do very little to actually stabilize these situations. So much of the violence in the Congo stems from the continued presence of the Hutu militias that carried out the genocide in Rwanda in 1994. Bill Clinton - and Hillary - talk about their regret for turning their back on that genocide. But their talk gives the impression that the event is over, when in fact we are still seeing its ongoing effects. If they really cared, they would have made sure this conflict was actually over before apologizing.

It is depressing beyond mention to see countries so rich in resources and beauty - the Virunga National Park is one of the most beautiful and diverse in the world but the region is too unstable for tourism - yet instead of getting rich and growing because of these resources, they remain in a state of poverty and conflict. Internal groups like the military unit in this story bear some of the blame. But so does a capitalist system that cares way more about profit than it does human rights and decency and an international governmental system that can do little to help those that suffer the most. Then again, you can't expect businesses to care, or international organizations to mobilize, about these things if the people that support them don't care either.

Auto Bailout? *Sigh*

I must say, I am surprised that one of Obama's first proposals is a bailout of the American auto industry. Not only did it seem to come out of nowhere, it also feels ill-advised. I guess I can see that the Democrats want to show that they can provide bailouts for blue collar workers - not just the white collar jobs in the financial sector. At the same time, it really seems like we have been bailing out the American auto industry for far too long. They have a history of building cars that don't last, they seem incapable of staying ahead of trends, and worse of all resist calls to improve fuel efficiency and move towards alternate fuel technologies and only do so after other firms (mostly Honda and Toyota) have beat them to the punch.

Instead, I really think we need to let these companies fail. In their place we could see American car manufacturers that put innovation - and greener technology - first. Now, if the Democrats want to allow for a soft landing of the car companies, and provide support for those who will be laid off, I can get behind that. In fact, maybe they could provide tax breaks for new American auto start-ups that will buy the old manufacturing plants and hire the former workers (this idea is definitely off the cuff - so it might prove unrealistic for new companies to start because of high fixed costs).

I really think this is where Democrats get a bad name. We want to help those of moderate or lower incomes, but we tend to choose policies that are more populist and less economic - policies that might help in the short run, but really hurt in the long run. This makes little sense from an efficiency standpoint and furthermore, it isn't the only option - or necessarily the best option - from a fairness standpoint. I know I won't agree with the Obama administration on everything, but I thought I would make it farther than this.

Note: Although I definitely have my favorite columnists, sometimes I feel like a hack by only printing their opinions instead of mine. It's hard though when they make the point so much better. Anyway, here is David Brooks' take on the auto bailout:

But the larger principle is over the nature of America’s political system. Is this country going to slide into progressive corporatism, a merger of corporate and federal power that will inevitably stifle competition, empower corporate and federal bureaucrats and protect entrenched interests? Or is the U.S. going to stick with its historic model: Helping workers weather the storms of a dynamic economy, but preserving the dynamism that is the core of the country’s success.

Navy I Wear to Work

A while ago I read The Woman at the Washington Zoo, which is a collection of columns by Marjorie Williams, a Washington Post columnist that died of cancer in 2005 three days after her 47th birthday. The title of the book refers to a poem by Randall Jarrell about women hiding part of their true selves to remain under the radar, and thereby achieve some success, in the professional world.

Williams wrote political columns as well as some excellent political profiles, including Jeb Bush, the Clinton and Gore White House, and Barbara Bush. Some of my favorite columns from the book are about politics and modern feminism. The columns are nuanced and very intelligent. Her writing was objective, and sometimes stood against the liberal opinions at the time. The strongest example of this is her writings during the Clinton sex scandal; she seemed to be one of the few who was criticizing Clinton by describing how this was a set back for feminism and sexual harassment in the workplace.

Williams' obvious talents are sorely missed, especially when comparing her to current columnists. Maureen Dowd for example also writes about feminism. But Dowd rarely seems as objective, thoughtful, or capable of nuance. Gail Collins and Judith Warner are both pretty good, but there is something missing in their columns as well.

By the end of the book you are heartbroken, not only because you wish she was still alive and writing, but because of what she went through. You feel for her family, husband and two children, who miss her far more than her readers ever can. And you feel for her because of how much of her rich life she will miss. So that politics is never ignored, she makes sure to show readers how medicine can do wonders, as well as where it falls short. Her treatment was so great because of her connections, and she reminds her readers that most people wouldn't get treatment half as good. So while we marvel at how much extra time she managed, we see that more needs to be done for those without her resources.

Read this book for her sharp writing and deep insights. Read it because you might not find a better columnist or political profile journalist for a long time. And read it because of how close you feel to her before it ends. I miss her and I didn't even know about her while she was alive.

Hillary is Back

Remember when Hillary was getting as much news as Obama? And there was all the talk about whether she would be Obama's VP and if not whether she would campaign for him? Then in a few weeks, it didn't seem to matter. The country easily made the transition from Obama v. Hillary to Obama v. McCain.

Well, now Hillary is back in the news and apparently she is the front-runner for Secretary of State. When I first heard this, I was torn. I felt she had exaggerated her foreign policy experience during the campaign and so I wondered what made her qualified to head the State Department. At the same time, even though I think she is incredibly smart, I think this would be a better position than Supreme Court Justice.

As for the other contenders - I am surprised no one is mentioning Bill Richardson anymore. Maybe Timothy Noah convinced everyone else that it would be a bad choice. And I agree with Gail Collins that John Kerry would not be a very good choice. Frankly, I'm not sure what Kerry would be good for, except to stay on in the Senate. And nobody seems to be mentioning Edwards anymore - all because of an affair.

I think though that Hillary would be a good choice. Her role as first lady did include much time traveling as a dignitary of the US, which would be a large part of her role as Secretary of State. Where I think she exaggerated her experience was her level of involvement in decision-making. Here she would get that chance. The only worry is whether Obama could control her. I would like to think that in this role, it would be easier than if she had been VP.

Congo: What Happened While We Were Watching the Election

The violence and tensions in the Congo, where tens of thousands of the most violent rapes have been happening, has escalated recently. The Tutsi rebels have advanced on major cities, sending as many as 250,000 civilians fleeing their homes. Right now, African leaders are working to diffuse the situation, while western leaders again don't give this the attention it deserves. And I too must confess my lack of attention recently.

While the lack of awareness about this issue is disheartening as always, the most depressing aspect is the peacekeepers. The largest UN peacekeeping mission is in the Congo, but they have been unable to keep any sort of peace or protect anyone. Protesters, fed up with the UN's inability to protect them, were throwing rocks at the UN.

I don't blame them for their frustration. In fact, their anger is my anger. That so many people's lives are continuously put in danger with only minor efforts to alleviate the situation, makes me want to throw rocks with them. Unfortunately, it isn't the fault of the UN, but of the strong member states in the UN that put such a paltry peacekeeping mission in a place with such extreme violence. It is the deficiency of justice in the real world that you can never really express your full anger to the people who are truly responsible for your situation.

Georgia; The Truth Comes Out

The whole situation between Georgia and Russia scares the hell out of me. Not because I am afraid of another cold war. That just seems ridiculous (despite how the cable news channels played that up during the hostilities). Instead, it is the slow access to good information.

This New York Times article provides some evidence that it was Georgia who launched an unprovoked, or at least disproportionate, shelling on villages in South Ossetia. It was that attack - after a cease fire - that provoked Russia's response. This isn't the first article to show Georgia as the aggressor, but it provides more evidence than others I have seen.

Even now though, there isn't complete evidence to say this conclusively. And that is what scares me. In this situation, with little evidence, where both sides have a history of deception and exaggeration, the only option seems to be to trust your ally. That is a significant problem when your ally is just as untrustworthy as your enemy (if you can really call Russia an enemy - our foreign policy still operates that way, but I am not so sure if we should).

What is even worse is that I don't get the impression that the American public is interested in considering the nuance in this situation nor is it patient enough to wait for good information to come out. This pushes our foreign policy in a distinct direction. The job of the president therefore is to be more calm than the people, wait for good information if possible, but always understand that your allies won't always tell you the truth or make good decisions.

Why Aren't They All Religious Left?

From the archives:

Somehow, the following post never actually got posted. But I couldn't let it rest, so here it is. The post is about Huckabee - remember him? He was a candidate for president in the Republican primaries. I know, it seems like such a long time ago. Anyway...

I don't talk about religion on here much, but when I see statements like the following (from this NY Times article), I have to say something.

Since Mr. Huckabee’s success in Iowa, however, his campaign has faced a barrage of attacks on his conservative credentials. Rush Limbaugh has accused him of "class warfare." The Wall Street Journal editorial page has called him "religious left." And his Republican rivals have escalated their criticism. In a debate on Thursday, Mr. Thompson called Mr. Huckabee a "Christian leader" who would support "liberal economic policies" and "liberal foreign policies."

Just to give a little context, the people quoted above are criticizing Huckabee's populist policies, i.e. policies to help the poor and lower middle class. This type of talk baffles me almost as much as it angers me. How can a religious person criticize another religious person for wanting to help the poor? Which Bible are these people reading that suggests free market principles are what God supports and the poor should be left to fend for themselves? Fortunately, Huckabee's supporters do a pretty good job at rising to the defense:

"Can you imagine Jesus ignoring the plight of the disenfranchised and downtrodden while going after the abortionist?" Mr. Scarborough wrote on the conservative Web site WorldNetDaily.com.

Christian Conservative policy, speaking from a religious doctrine point of view, has long strayed from what seems to me to be the message of the New Testament's teachings. By saying this, I mean to argue with Christians using what they say is the basis for their beliefs. I encourage anyone to read the Gospels and tell me why we shouldn't do more to help those in need.

My hope is that Huckabee can use his appeal to shake up Christian Conservatives. There is some evidence that this is already happening. Maybe sometime soon, the Religious Right can get back their soul and focus on helping the poor.

Better Not Forget Samantha Power

The New York Times has a feature that gives short bios of all the people in Obama's inner circle and candidates for high level positions in his administration. Well, let's hope it's not actually all the people. There is at least one important name missing from this list - Samantha Power!

I really don't want Obama to make an early signal that he doesn't really care much about human rights. I don't want to lose all the good feelings I have so quickly. During the campaign, Obama gave signals that he supports human rights; in the last debate (or was it the second debate?), he made it clear that he thought the US should intervene in genocides / ethnic cleansing. The talk was good, now he needs to show it by giving Samantha Power a high level position. Sure, there are others he could appoint. But Power was a close adviser to Senator Obama and continued on in his campaign. She resigned during the primaries because she called Hillary Clinton a monster. Enough time has passed. President-elect Obama needs to bring her back to the inner circle.

New Conservative Path?

As we continue to digest this election, one of the themes will be the next steps for the Republican Party. Commentators are asking what the party has to change if it wants to get back into power. Generally I wouldn't care about this question so much, because I believe that the most that would happen would be a rebranding of the message and a slight focus on different issues. But in the end, I don't expect much change in the overall philosophy.

David Brooks however gave me something to think about in a column he wrote back in May about the conservative movement in Britain. He describes how it changed after a long period of Tory power. Part of the column talks about the movement's focus on reforming a declining social fabric - which I don't really agree with. What I do appreciate, and hope filters here to the US is the following:

This has led to a lot of talk about community, relationships, civic engagement and social responsibility. Danny Kruger, a special adviser to Cameron, wrote a much-discussed pamphlet, “On Fraternity.” These conservatives are not trying to improve the souls of citizens. They’re trying to use government to foster dense social bonds.

They want voters to think of the Tories as the party of society while Labor is the party of the state. They want the country to see the Tories as the party of decentralized organic networks and the Laborites as the party of top-down mechanistic control.

As such, the Conservative Party has spent a lot of time thinking about how government should connect with citizens. Basically, everything should be smaller, decentralized and interactive. They want a greater variety of schools, with local and parental control. They want to reverse the trend toward big central hospitals. Health care, Cameron says, is as much about regular long-term care as major surgery, and patients should have the power to construct relationships with caretakers, pharmacists and local facilities.

What I like about this is that the debate moves from whether we are part of a social community and therefore need to help each other, to how best to accomplish this. My problem with the argument for much greater individual economic liberty is that underlying that belief is the assumption that we do not take care of those who cannot take care of themselves.

I don't have a lot of faith that the American conservative movement will buy into this. I think there is too much individualism spirit in conservatives here. But if it does, I would look forward to the new debates - debates over how best to help each other, instead of whether we should.

No More History Except to Make It

A few weeks ago I discovered American Experience - the PBS series - on Netflix. At risk of further exposing how much of a geek I am, I can say I was ridiculously excited. Right away I rented the episodes on LBJ and Jimmy Carter, with RFK, Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush and Martin Luther King not far behind. Since the election though, my interest has dropped off. I realize at this moment I am much less interested in spending my time in the past. I am less interested in learning about history. I want to live in this moment. I want to be a part of this history. These feelings are a direct result of the hope I feel with an Obama presidency on the way.

An Active Part of History

I didn't really expect to feel proud of volunteering on Obama's campaign. At the time, I felt I needed to do it because the country needed an Obama Presidency so badly. I did it because I had the time and because I knew I would feel guilty if Obama lost and I hadn't done all I could to help.

But I also did it because I was truly inspired by Barack Obama. I think the country needed a Gore presidency in 2000 and a Kerry presidency in 2004. But I didn't volunteer for any of them. And I find it unlikely that I would have volunteered for Hillary Clinton - I would have voted for her, but not campaigned for her.

My volunteer activities only spanned the last few weeks. But during that time I called Obama supporters in New York state asking them to volunteer on the weekend, I called voters in swing states asking who they were going to vote for and hoping to persuade undecided voters to support Obama, I entered data, and during the last four days of the campaign I ran a phone bank in Staten Island, helped with training in Harlem (on Tuesday), and when I had free time I called Obama supporters reminding them to vote.

So as I savor this victory, I know that I contributed, along with many thousands of others, to this victory. This historic moment, this time of real change and hope, came about because 65 million people (53 percent) voted for Barack Obama, but also because of the thousands of people like me who made phone calls, went door to door in swing states, and entered data.

In looking back at this time, I realize I met many great people who are committed to Democratic (liberal) principles and the democratic process in general. I also learned how to be flexible under pressure - to change and improvise when needed. And finally, I learned the pride you can feel by being an active part of history.

Joe the Independent

Now that the Democrats don't need Lieberman - with their strong majority in the Senate (not counting the three races still to be decided) - their is talk of punishing him for his support of John McCain. I find this ridiculous. Lieberman and McCain are good friends and kindred spirits in the Senate - both are moderates and have a history of taking stands against their party. Add on top of that the lack of support Lieberman received from his Senate colleagues when he lost the primary in his Senate race, and it is obvious why he supported McCain.

Don't get me wrong, I realize that Lieberman is definitely more to the right than the rest of the party and can be a thorn in the party's side. And he made some really stupid statements on the campaign trail for McCain - using fear tactics on foreign policy that seemed straight out of the Republican playbook. And he spoke at the Republican National Convention. Okay, I don't have much love for him right now either.

In the end though, I don't think a party should punish someone for a position or person they support. What matters more is votes. And if punishing Lieberman will make him more likely to vote with Republicans on key issues, then I think it is a bad idea. Democrats need to realize that despite large majorities, they will still need to build coalitions. Part of building coalitions is having a big tent party - one that accepts those who don't toe the party line on all issues (the other part is knowing how to court those from the other party - including those who are not treated well by their party).

It may not seem like it right now, but Democrats need Joe Lieberman. How they handle this will be a good indicator of how they plan to handle things for the next two years.

More on the Election

I am still trying to get out all that I feel about this election. Right now, the joy of the victory is giving way to an extreme optimism for the next four (hopefully eight) years. Although part of the excitement is the real change we are getting from Bush and Republican policies, I also know it goes beyond that. I wouldn't be this excited if it had been Hillary or Edwards (or even Richardson). I think Obama's election is transformative - or at least has the ability to be. Not just because it changes the way the world thinks about us, but because it changes the way we think about ourselves.

One of the best parts of Obama's campaign is that it empowered his supporters and asked us to have an active role. And so I hope that the volunteer energy that Obama created doesn't end with the election. We have real problems in this country that can't be fixed through higher taxes alone. On September 11, 2008, both Obama and McCain came to New York for the memorial event and spoke at Columbia University later that night. They both talked about creating a renewed interest in public service. President-Elect Obama's new website, change.gov, has a feature on it called America Serves that describes his plans for increasing volunteer work. I seriously hope that this is a major push of his administration.

The bigger challenge though will not be encouraging more volunteers, it will be forcing the country to sacrifice a bit more. Recently, we have been told to consume our way out of recessions and we have been given endless credit to do so. We are encouraged to live way beyond our means - in both financial and environmental terms. This has to stop. We need to borrow less or else risk another recession like the one we are in now. We need to use less oil if we truly hope to have some independence from the affairs of the Middle East. And we need to consume less, while we also change our sources of energy, if we hope to have an impact on global warming.

I do believe that we elected the right candidate for encouraging more volunteering. I don't know if there is any politician who will seriously ask people to sacrifice. Hopefully I am proved wrong.

Would Wallace Have Voted for Obama?

Peggy Wallace Kennedy, the daughter of George C. Wallace and Lurleen Wallace, who both were governors of Alabama, wrote a really good commentary on the CNN website. Basically, her piece says that her father - the most famous advocate for segregation - would have voted for Obama. For those of us who don't know the end of Wallace's story (how he renounced his former positions), the commentary is uplifting.

The Cabinet

I keep thinking that sometime soon I am going to take a break and read about politics less obsessively. It never happens though. Oh well. Now that the election is over, everyone is talking about who President-elect Obama will choose for his administration. I don't have too much to contribute to this - at least at the moment. Basically, I do think he should reach across the aisle - at least for symbolic reasons. And I don't want to see too many Clinton people, although that might be hard to avoid.

As for specifics, I would have thought Bill Richardson would be a great choice for Secretary of State, but Timothy Noah begs to differ. His one short paragraph about why Richardson is a bad choice makes me realize I didn't know as much about him as I should have and therefore slightly embarrassed for supporting him at the beginning of the primaries. Timothy Noah may be way off, but I don't know enough even to be able to defend Richardson. I agree that we don't want Summers as Treasury Secretary, mostly because of how bad of a job he did at Harvard. I think Arnold though would be a good choice for EPA.

On McCain

I want to write a longer post about McCain later, but for now, I want to add my thoughts about his campaign. The bottom line is that I lost respect for him as the campaign wore on. Partly, it is because of the level of his negativity along with the elements he chose to focus on. All of it seemed so disingenuous - so unlike him. Spending so much time on Ayers was absurd, and calling Obama a redistributionist (for a tax policy not so different from one McCain from four years ago would have supported) was something I wouldn't have expected from him. He also chose to focus on symbols and culture wars (Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin) instead of substance.

Worse though is what he allowed the campaign to do to his positions. So many of us hoped that McCain would change his party. For the past four years, McCain has moved to the right, probably with the intention of winning the Republican nomination. But even after winning the nomination, he continued to move to the right and appeal to the Republican base. So instead of changing his party, McCain let the party change him (Brooks covers this theme here, and of course he does a better job than I do). The Republican platform's immigration policy - so different from McCain's previous position, is far to the right. His tax policy is no different from Bush's - including tax cuts for the very wealthy. Even his global warming stance, which admits warming exists, shows disdain for anyone with even the slightest concern over nuclear power.

When I look back on the way the campaign moved through the final months, I see a candidate I don't recognize from the one I admired. Last night, at the concession speech, we saw part of the old candidate again (many people independently said that to me today). The old McCain was honest, gracious, and tough but fair. It's too bad we only saw that McCain after the race. I might say things would have been different if McCain had been able to be himself during the race, but I'm not so sure. At the very least though, I would have respected him far more.

Iran and Venezuela

Maybe it is early still, but I really think two things are going to change Iran's power in negotiations with us. First, Ahmadinejad will no longer have President Bush to take attention away from Iran's failed economy and as the reason he needs to pursue nuclear technology. Secondly, as gas prices decline, so will their revenue. This will of course make their economic situation worse as well as exacerbating the impact of the sanctions. I think we can look for a President Obama to have a much stronger position if / when he negotiates with Iran.

These same reasons might weaken Chavez in Venezuela.

President Barack Obama. Amazing

I am still trying to process the election results and come down from the excitement. Actually, I don't want to come down too much. To be honest, I was anxious for weeks, and it got worse the last few days. I didn't realize how bad I wanted Obama to win. It went way beyond how I felt in 2000 and 2004.

This is the reason I volunteered for the Obama campaign. I knew that if I didn't work the phone banks and enter data, I would blame myself if he lost. It's not that my ego is that big. I just knew that I couldn't actually be upset if he had lost and I hadn't done a thing to help. Volunteering also helped me keep my mind busy as I wondered if the candidate I wanted to be president so badly could actually win.

The fact is that from the beginning I believed this country could elect a black president. At first that belief was just based on faith in our country. But seeing him win the primary in Iowa confirmed this belief. Towards the end though, my fear of not getting what I thought we needed so badly blinded my faith.

The voters yesterday showed that my early faith was not mistaken. And the rest of the world got the message as well. For two elections, the world saw the US elect a president who seems unintelligent and needlessly aggressive and condescending. They assumed we were a country of fools who don't share the values of the rest of the world. After last night, they saw that we can make some bad decisions, but we can also make some truly amazing decisions.

Health Care

I went to an amazing policy breakfast the other day on health care. It was hosted by the Maxwell School and Public Agenda and featured Drew Altman. Because of the breakfast, I am now a huge fan of Public Agenda (a group I knew nothing of before this) and I expect I will be paying more attention to them in the future.

Basically, the breakfast did a great job of highlighting the real differences between McCain and Obama's health care philosophies (and by extension the difference between Republicans and Democrats) - which is different than talking about their plans. Neither are likely to have their actual plans passed, so understanding their philosophies is more important.

Before I get into that though, Drew Altman made three important points that I want to mention. First, he said surveys show that people are more concerned with making health care more affordable - with being able to pay their bills when they receive health coverage. Percent of people with health insurance isn't as big a concern (except how an inability to afford coverage would affect them).

Secondly, he said that what we have seen recently is that as costs are increasing, health plans are charging higher deductibles and providing skimpier coverage. This is likely to continue unless something major changes.

Finally, he talked about what he thought was mostly likely to happen. He thought it somewhat unlikely that there would be an immediate major shift in health care policy. Instead, he predicted small changes that would build on the Children's Health Insurance Program or maybe a bigger program that moved towards universal coverage but would be phased-in if the economy improved.

Now, the major differences between the parties on health care:

Republicans:
-Want to move away from the employer-based system
-Believe a market-based approach can make health care more affordable
-Want less regulation on coverage
-If people have control over their coverage and knowledge of the real costs of their care, they will make better decisions and waste less money (health savings accounts are a move in this direction)

Democrats:
-Want to build on the employer-based system
-Want to move towards universal coverage
-Believe we need to regulate levels of coverage
-Buying health care is extremely complicated and public cannot make decisions about coverage

After hearing this, I think I came down on the side of Democrats. First, I think health coverage is a right not a privilege. Also, while I think we definitely need to do what we can to make health care more affordable, I don't know that I trust the market for this - especially if there is less regulation. Choosing health care coverage is a really complicated decision that involves many factors, some of which the buyer doesn't even know to consider. People will have to make decisions about deductible amounts, choice of doctors, and detailed levels of coverage for treatments. It's not that I think the public is stupid, but that there is naturally information asymmetry that the insurance companies can and do exploit.

Here is where my mind splits though. Above I said I think we need to make health care more affordable. I don't really trust government to be able to do this. The problem is that markets are often more efficient (not always, but often) but definitely not fair. Since so much of health care is about fairness (ie ensuring everyone has adequate coverage), markets cannot be trusted. But without some market pressure, we won't be able to afford to provide coverage for everyone.

I obviously need to do some more thinking about this. I think there is a lot of bad information out there (one-sided pieces like Michael Moore's Sicko for example), and I have not found much good information aside from this breakfast panel. There are some serious questions out there that I haven't heard good answers to yet, like: What are the real strengths and weaknesses of some of Europe's single-payer universal coverage systems? How much do they cost? Why are there extreme variations in costs between states that don't match variations in outcomes?

This is going to be a huge issue no matter who is elected. Costs are rising rapidly and for such an advanced country we have too many people who lack coverage. I will definitely be coming back to this issue. (After all, I didn't even touch on the lack of access to preventative medicine for people without coverage or the overall health of our country.) This is all I've got for now though.

What You Need to Know About Oil

If you are curious about why oil prices have changed so much recently (or even if you think you know), read this article in the Times. If you don't have time, I have highlighted the main points below. If you don't even have time for that, then I would send you away with this main point: Current capacity for the production of oil is flattening while global demand is rapidly increasing. Because of oil futures speculators, prices will fluctuate, but in the long term, prices will rise. We need to decrease our consumption and find alternate sources of energy. The author believes (as does Thomas Friedman, and as do I) that we should create an artificial price floor (through taxes) to accomplish this because every time prices decrease, we forget and we stop conserving.

Those Damn Speculators

According to skeptics like George Soros and Michael Masters, a hedge-fund operator, the only thing wrong with the oil market is the market itself. Speculators, they say, drove the price away from its "fundamental" value; worse, a new breed of institutional investor has been buying oil futures, hoarding the supply.

On the other hand:

Of course, capitalism demands that people, or at least investors, make bets. That is how resources are allocated and money is invested where it is needed; high prices communicate scarcity. You could even say the oil market has performed a vital service to the country by telegraphing the need to conserve and to develop alternative supplies.

Recent History of Oil Prices:

The reason that the history of oil is basically one of attempted price fixing is that, as technology has improved, drilling costs have fallen, meaning that prices have been under near-continuous downward pressure. Like most commodities, oil should sell for whatever the cost of producing one additional unit is — in this case, one more barrel. Economists call this the "marginal" cost. If someone charges much more than that, a competitor can offer to sell it more cheaply.

It’s only when oil is scarce that things become interesting. If there isn’t enough to go around, then the marginal cost no longer matters because, at the margin, there is no more oil to produce. Under such conditions, oil will rise to the price at which people stop using it — either because they drive less or because they find another energy source. This is called the price of demand destruction. Think of that as the upper bound on the price. With the twin shocks of the ’70s — the Arab embargo and the Iranian revolution — oil did reach an upper bound, jumping tenfold to $40 a barrel in 1981. Demand quickly collapsed, and the price eventually sank all the way back to the marginal cost, $12.

Low prices were good news for consumers but a mixed blessing for society. Since it takes time for oil companies, as well as consumers, to react to price changes, markets tend to respond with a perilous lag. In the ’80s, oil companies were spending billions looking for oil, and Detroit was retooling its plants to make smaller cars, even as the price of oil was collapsing.

In the mid-1980s the oil industry suffered a terrible slump. Thousands of petroleum engineers were fired or left the business. Congress lost interest in energy conservation, and projects to develop shale oil and other alternatives were dropped. In Europe, high fuel taxes meant that people still had an incentive to conserve. In America, families became unwilling to ride in anything but trucks.

Even as oil prices rose in this decade, big oil companies — still responding to the price signal of an earlier period — plowed most of their cash flow into dividends and stock repurchases rather than risk it on exploration. State oil companies overseas, like Saudi Arabia’s, which control four-fifths of the world’s reserves, refused to make the investment to develop their fields to full potential for fear of flooding the market (another reaction to low prices). For similar reasons, there was a lull in building critically needed refineries.

By the time oil companies woke up to the consequences of low prices, it was in some sense too late. There was "a missing generation of engineers," according to Daniel Yergin, the chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates and the author of "The Prize," a history of the oil industry. There was also a lack of drilling rigs and men to work them. Drilling costs soared, and equipment was often unavailable. Also, countries where oil is abundant, like Russia and Venezuela, were increasingly chauvinistic and hostile to foreign operators. Civil unrest set back production in Nigeria.

By the middle of this decade, various big oil regions — Mexico, Nigeria, the North Sea, Colombia, Venezuela — were experiencing production declines.

The lesson here is that a high price of oil is the only thing that forces us to conserve and invest in alternate energy. Hence the need for an artificial price floor.

Also, if you think compressed natural gas (CNG) is the solution to our problems, read this article. Basically, if we really want to decrease our dependence on foreign oil and fight global warming, we need to decrease our consumption, not change the form of our consumption.