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.
Monday, February 16, 2009
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
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.
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.)
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.)
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
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!
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, January 04, 2009
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.
Saturday, January 03, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, December 29, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, December 19, 2008
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).
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).
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)