A Political Roundup

I think my nightmare scenerio for the 2008 Presidential election would be John Kerry versus George Allen. Why does a Kerry candidacy scare me so much? Because of this. His first comment was just stupid. But his reaction was even worse. Instead of realizing how absurd his comment was and appologizing for it, he turns it around and asks Bush to appologize for "a Katrina foreign policy." It becomes more clear to me everyday that Kerry has nothing interesting to say except unsubstantive political talking points.

I have long hated politicians who favor popular rhetoric over substantive debate and genuine action. In a recent column, David Brooks shows ($) that a politician can both be guilty of over-the-top language while also being a productive and positive legislator. The best part is that Brooks demonstrates this using Rick Santorum. Apparently, Santorum is a tireless fighter for the poor and an effective legislator; qualities that never make it to light because of his choice to use divisive language. Brooks chooses to blame the press for only covering that one aspect of Santorum. And while I agree that the press often chooses to cover only what is controversial and exciting, I think the blame also rests on Santorum who could choose to soften him image and show this side of himself. Either way, it is an interesting read if you have Times Select. It actually made me hate Santorum a little less.

On Sudan

How are we not in Darfur yet? The actions of the Sudanese government are criminal and yet we have yet to do a thing about it. If Clinton were in office, something tells me he would have launched a strategic missle stirke or two already. Read the latest news and maybe you can tell me why we are turning a blind eye to this government.

More Good Fighting

Just so you don't think I am a complete mark for Peter Beinart, I will link to, and admit that I don't disagree with, an article by Frank Rich in the NY Review of Books that criticizes Beinart's book.

Rich has some really good things to say about The Good Fight. First of all, he doesn't want to let Beinart, and other Iraq War supporters in the Democratic party, off the hook so easily for supporting the invasion of Iraq. Even though Beinart actually admits that he was wrong without trying to suggest that Bush lied to him, his admission can seem a bit disingenuous in how he explains it. The fact is that there isn't a good reason why any Democrats should have supported the war, and any attempt to explain it away doesn't ring true. There was all the evidence at the time that containment would have worked, that Saddam wasn't stupid enough to use any WMDs that he might have had, and that this war would make us less safe in the war on terrorism.

Rich also takes issue with Beinart's focus on the far left, anti-war wing of the Democratic party. According to Rich, the Michael Moores and Cindy Sheehans are a small fraction of the party and therefore Beinart need not worry that they will dominate liberal foreign policy. The Good Fight does take aim at the far left, especially the bloggers, that spend more time thinking about how to attack Republicans than how to fix foreign policy. I see where Beinart is coming from; I would like to see more people in both parties focus on the war on terrorism and other international threats than battling each other. I share Beinart's fear that the partisan far left will dictate foreign policy, but I hope Rich is right that I need not worry.

Overall, Beinart's book doesn't really break much new ground. But its benefit is that it puts this intelligent liberal foreign policy proposal in the context of past popular Democratic platforms, and does it in a way to encourage Democrats to take this and run with it. His book is accessible, which means there is a hope that it will reach people who don't know this policy is out there. So even though it in't original, if it reaches more people, than it needed to be written.

Fright Night: Part 2

I don't think my expectations are too high here; I don't expect everyone in the US to know the difference between Shiite and Sunni. But I do expect FBI officials and members of Congressional intelligence committees to know this. When I say that I think they should know the difference, I am not even talking about their specific beliefs and how that came about. All I really think they should know is that Iraq and Iran are majority Shiite, Saddam and Al Qaeda are Sunni. The fact that some don't know this simple fact is just beyond words.

Love is Blind

I can't for the life of me figure out why Israel gets away with everything that it does. At some point, the fact that they too are dealing with terrorists has to stop being enough to defend all of their actions. I am a little late posting about this NY Times article ($) (maybe I can find it somewhere else for free) but it talks about how at the end of the recent war with Lebanon, Israel flooded southern Lebanon with cluster bombs. Cluster bombs are noteworthy for two reasons, one is their reputation for being difficult to aim (and illegal unless used specifically on military installations) and unpredictable; the bombs fail to explode 15 percent of the time. It is estimated that there are now one million unexploded bombs in the Lebanon countryside.

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz published an article on Sept. 12 anonymously quoting the head of a rocket unit in Lebanon who was critical of the decision to use cluster bombs. "What we did was insane and monstrous; we covered entire towns in cluster bombs," Haaretz quoted the commander as saying.

It certainly was monstrous, but maybe the Bush administration or Congressional Democrats should be willing to speak up too.

Debating NCLB

There is a really good article in the NY Times about NCLB and teacher certification. It shows a significant flaw in the NCLB legislation that requires all public school teachers to be certified as "highly qualified" through education classes and training. While I don't disagree with the push to require teachers, especially new teachers, to get training and certification, the way it is being implemented is a mistake.

One of the biggest problems facing public school systems in a lack of flexibility and ability to change. This restriction on teachers only adds to a lack of flexibility. We should be doing all that we can to encourage the best teachers to work in public schools. We also have to realize that sometimes, the best teachers are people with PhD's or real world experience who late in life want to go into education. I saw this first-hand in Montgomery County, Maryland where the schools had trouble finding "highly qualified" teachers for such focused classes like nursing, engineering, and business. They had no problem though finding professionals that didn't have the certification but wanted to teach. Requiring them to go through a long certification process, that can also be a humbling (or even humiliating) process will only discourage these teachers.

This doesn't mean that I am opposed to all training requirements. One of the people interviewed for the article said that she thinks it is important that all teachers know how to work with students whose primary language is not English, or students who are being mainstreamed from special ed classes. I agree with that. But maybe there can be exceptions granted to teachers who have a background in instruction (college or private school) to skip the very basic classes on teaching that are a part of this long certification process. Someone who has taught in college might not know everything necessary to teach in high school, but they certainly have enough experience that they don't need instruction in classroom management or drawing up a lesson plan.

Conservatives are often trying to replicate the private sector in public institutions. While I certainly support that goal, I often think what we choose to replicate is not what makes the private sector strong. Private schools work so well because they have good teachers. But they have good teachers not because they have a cumbersome certification process; it is because they are flexible. That is what we need to replicate in our public schools.

North Korea

I have to say, the situation in North Korea has me very scared, especially after reading last month's Atlantic Monthly article. The article laid out the premise that N. Korea will only attack if it feels it is losing its hold on power, or if Bush launches an attack (even a small one targeting weapons facilities). The fact is, N. Korea might be on a path to losing control as its people are starving and even the military is poor. Also, listening to some Republicans, a missile strike isn't out of the realm of possibility (although I do admit that I don't think Bush would actually do it).

The article talks about the very scary prospect of a hard landing if the country collapses. That scenario could involve an attack on Seoul using all types of conventional and WMDs (N. Korea has a significant amount of chemical and biological weapons - and now maybe nuclear as well) and a ground invasion of South Korea.

What I didn't realize was the role China plays in North Korea. Apparently, it provides the most aide to the N. Korean government, and probably also has plans for it if the government falls. The article actually seemed to suggest that China is slowly trying to push for a soft landing North Korea collapse, which would then allow China to take over key parts of the country. I am not sure how I feel about that. While it would be nice to see N. Korea's transition managed by someone other than us, and therefore not have American resources tied up there, China is growing at an incredible rate, and giving them strategic ports and resources of N. Korea would only allow them to get even stronger.

To bring this back to the current situation though, I am having trouble reconciling how I think the administration should handle this. N. Korea wants direct talks with us for many reasons, one of which is to make it feel like it is a world power and justify it's military policies. I don't think we should encourage their behavior by giving them what they want. At the same time though, the government has made some very scary threats recently, and direct talks might be our best option if it results in having control over their nuclear technology. While it is clear that China can have a huge impact on North Korean policy because of the aide they provide, what is not clear is whether they fear China and would therefore become more combative with pressure, or if they respect China and would in fact respond.

What is frustrating about all of this is that neither the Clinton / Jimmy Carter plan of direct talks and US aide, nor the Bush policy of multilateral talks, seemed to have worked. The fact is that this regime will do whatever it takes to stay in power, and the hard line to walk is to prevent a collapse with a hard landing, while also not letting them win minor victories that helps them consolidate power in their country. I don't envy the Bush administration in this task, and I have to admit that they haven't been doing a terrible job on this so far.

A Rose

Although recent anti-immigrant legislation had gotten me down, fearing that our country was reverting back to xenophobia, news like this is very reassuring. It is nice to know that people feel more comfortable going by their traditional names and feel less compelled to anglicize them.

What Contradiction?

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE - LOWER GAS PRICES
Free America from dependence on foreign oil and create a cleaner environment with initiatives for energy-efficient technologies and domestic alternatives such as biofuels. End tax giveaways to Big Oil companies and enact tough laws to stop price gouging.

I saw the above on the HouseDemocrats.gov site under their "Six for '06" plan. I have to say that the above paragraph is the stupidest thing I have ever read and it makes me want to slap someone. Seriously, if there are two things that don't go together at all, it is energy independence and lower gas prices. Basically, what the Democrats tried to do with this was say two very popular things without thinking through how those two interact.

The only thing that will force us to decrease our dependence on foreign oil is if prices stay high. I am sick and tired of political parties that are incapable of saying what voters don't want to hear. We need high prices because we need to change our habits. This is the same unfortunate mentality that Bush tried to use after September 11, 2001 when he told Americans to go about their business - only the military would have to sacrifice. Voters need to realize that they will have to sacrifice in some situations to make progress possible. But neither Democrats nor Republicans are capable of saying that.

I can't wait for the next Democratic talking points:

"Increase government spending - Cut Taxes"

"Smoke, drink, eat unhealthy foods - Live much longer"

Now Who?

So families have claimed one more potential Presidential candidate: Mark Warner. Before him, it was Colin Powell. Why can't families claim people who shouldn't be running in the first place - like John Kerry, George Allen, or George W. Bush? And where was Ralph Nader's family when he was scratching and clawing for 2% of the vote that probably belonged to Gore?

I don't know a whole lot about Warner, but what I do know suggests I would have liked hearing him make his case for 2008. Now it looks like we are left with Hillary and maybe a Gore and / or Kerry retread. Perfect. Granted, there are bound to be others; like Harry Reid who might grace us with his vague but poll-tested policies, or Joe Biden who would be a great candidate as long as he writes his own speeches. Is it too much to hope that Bill Nelson will rise above the crowded field?

By the way - with all the talk about Hillary, I think it says something about our political system and how big name recognition is when there is every possibility that four presidents in a row could be from only two families.

Last Action Hero

I keep finding more reasons to support the Governator. And this recent law might even make a fan out of my animal-loving friend in DC. It is clear that California is the state to look to for progressive policies on a very large scale. From solar panels and emissions standards, to laws protecting animals, Arnold has shown that he is willing to work with Democrats to make big changes for his state. I only wish there were more Republicans like him.

Thoughts on Containment

Peter Beinart's book obviously got me thinking. His main conclusions were solid, and I have found that I agree with them. Basically, we need to return to the liberal tradition of supporting containment while remaining strongly anti-terrorist. He backs this up by comparing it to the liberal tradition of anti-communism. What Beinart does acknowledge, but I don't know that he fully develops the thought, is that anti-communism didn't always make for clear policy decisions. His explanation for why Vietnam was such a failure was that the communist movement there was also a nationalist one. He also didn't spend enough time talking about the other communist or socialist movements that we surpressed during that time that also might have been nationalist in nature.

The reason I bring this up is that we are facing similar situations today when we look at Islamist (defined as groups desiring to spread extremist forms of Islam) governments, militias, or even political parties. In those situations, when do we decide to oppose them and when do we tolerate and possibly work with them. Free elections in Palestine, Iraq, and Egypt have shown that Islamist movements have some popular appeal. We have a history of interfering in free elections because we didn't like the outcome, and I wonder if that is truly wise.

But the spirit of Beinart's message is that containment works because in the long run, democracy will win out over repressive forms of government. This suggests that we need to tolerate these popular Islamist movements in some situations, although pressure to make them collpase or change (as we are trying to do Hamas) shouldn't be ruled out. But this also means that socialist governments like the ones springing forward in South America also should be tolerated because we are confident that in time, they will become more moderate and democracy will prevail. As an added benefit, toleration will take some of the wind from their sails, as people like Chavez from Venezuela get a lot of political points by attacking Bush.

So Touching

This story is very quaint and romantic. The small American farms in the mid-west are disappearing, and America's hard-working, traditional soul is going along with it. Or at least that is what we are meant to believe when we read about the loss of small agriculture in this country as a metaphor for the loss of American values. Unfortunately, this story tends to encourage the sort of protectionist policies that condradict the free trade spirit we force everyone else to get behind when it benefits us, at the expense of developing countires. The article comes to a perfect conclusion with the author suggesting that if Democrats could protect these dying farms, they might be able to steal these socially conservative voters from the Republicans.

This is something we cannot buy into. Compormising our principles to steal a few votes in unacceptable. Instead, we need to be willing to stand behind free trade even during the times when it doesn't benefit American workers. Our hypocricies are ruining the developing world, and articles like this one are putting phony sentiment ahead of sound policy.

Tax and Spend

This is why I hate Congress. You can imagine that this might get a budget analyst like myself really upset. When legislation is being passed not on its merits, but because it will bring money back to the district - and when that money going back to the district is not likely to be the most efficient use of the money but will help with reelection, it makes me furious. And this guy is thinking of running for Speaker of the House if the Democrats take over? John Murtha and his cronies need to go. Too bad our electoral system makes it impossible to behave in any other way.

I realize there are a few people who want to remind me of my comments mocking Ned Lamont for saying that he wants to get the pork out of politics. It isn't because I disagreed with his stance, but I am very pessimistic about the chances of him (or anyone) sticking to that promise and actually staying in office.

Rumsfeld Needed to Go

Apparently, everyone thought Rumsfeld needed to go except Bush - and Cheney (but that shouldn't surprise anyone). My only question is how Bob Woodward keeps getting sources inside the White House. However he does it, his articles are always interesting as they give a picture of what is (allegedly) going on behind the scenes. Trust me when I say you need to read this.

In the Arena

For anyone that is reading this, I want to point you to another blog, In the Arena. It is another smart, political blog started be some friends of mine. I am excited about it and hope everyone checks it out.

Really? Jay Gibbons?

This shouldn't surprise anyone, but there are more steroids accusations flying around baseball. Some of the names are not new to the accusation game, like Roger Clemens and Miguel Tejada, but others are, like Andy Pettitte, Brian Roberts and Jay Gibbons. The funniest name on the list has to be Jay Gibbons, but I guess it just goes to show you that steroids can in fact make a mediocre player into, um, still just a mediocre player. I was suspicious of Brian Roberts though. His breakout performance in 2005 was great but a little hard to believe.

Unfortunately, their denials are unconvincing. Read the article and you will see that each of them point to the fact that they haven't ever failed a drug test. Now while that works for someone like Lance Armstrong (although I think we still have our doubts about him), it doesn't ring true for MLB players where testing has only been around for a year and doesn't go so far as to test for human growth hormone.

Mahdi Army for Hire

It is probably a bad sign that Moktada al-Sadr is losing control over parts of his militia. Although I guess it shouldn't be too surprising. But at least it makes it sound like Sadr wants a stable Iraq, which gives me some confidence that the country may remain relatively stable in the long run.

Islamic Militants in Somalia

We need to keep an eye on this situation. If we are serious about fighting the war on terrorism, we cannot let Islamist militants take over governments. Of course, if we weren't in Iraq, we might actually be able to do something about this. Instead, we can only watch another Taliban form.

Child Labor

It is stories like this one that make me support manufacturing jobs in developing countries. The article in the NY Times describes how child labor is decreasing all over the world with one exception, sub-Saharan Africa. In situations like the one described, families have to find any way they can to make enough money to eat. In this case a nine-year-old boy breaks rocks down to be sold for cement. My opinion is that if more manufacturing jobs, even those with questionable safety practices came in, scenerios like the one described would decrease. Granted, there are a lot of issues at play here. Deaths from HIV / AIDS play a huge part in breaking up families and leaving children orphaned. Also, conflicts in the region lead to displacement, famine, disease and restrict foreign investment and domestic growth.

As I see it, a number of things have to happen to improve this situation. One, which is probably the most important but that I find a little unlikely given the slow progress on Darfur, is to decide that peace and security in sub-Saharan Africa is a priority. The number of people killed or displaced in the region due to conflict is in the millions. No progress will be made until the conflicts end. Secondly, we need to take bigger strides in prenting the spread of HIV / AIDS as well as treating those that have it. Investment in this area has been going up, but much more needs to be done.

Lastly, and still very important, we need to encourage economic growth, which includes not being strict when it comes to labor practices. We have to realize that the working conditions in the jobs that are available in these countries (not just in Africa, but other developing countries) are similar if not worse than the conditions at the manufacturing jobs that come in. I would never advocate for boycotting agriculture products from developing countries if I found out that the workers are underpaid and overworked, and so I don't advocate similar actions when it comes to manufacturing. This is especially true because the boycotts often have the effect of closing down the factory or at least discouraging new ones from opening. Wages will never go up, and conditions will not improve, until these economies grow. So what we need to do is enourage the building of more factories, not less, and the consumption of more of their agriculture products, and less of ours if need be.