Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukah, Happy Kwanza, Happy Holidays and Merry/Happy/Safe/Fun holiday season to all.
Also, happy almost 2012.
Sunday, December 25, 2011
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
North Korea, Pakistan, and Iran, oh my!
The death of the illustrious leader, or whatever title he was going by, highlights the uncertainty and fragility of North Korea, creating a potentially turbulent political situation in a rogue country that has spent years developing crude nuclear weapons at the expense of food for the population.
North Korea is one of three (semi) nuclear countries in which the political situation is fragile and the potential for nuclear proliferation is rife, the others being Pakistan and (almost) Iran. Of there three countries, one is nominally our ally, and the other two we (rightfully) shun diplomatically. Though Pakistan doesn't really deserve much of the aid we give them, the country is - and I can't believe I'm quoting Michelle Bachmann (perhaps the only smart things she's ever said) - too nuclear to fail.
Nuclear weapons are a reality of the world we live in; they aren't going away. During the Cold War the idea of mutually assured destruction ensured that no one was going to push the button and end life on the planet. Nuclear war is not something that I fear no matter how many test missiles North Korea launches as a perverse 21-gun salute to Kim Jong-il.
What I do fear and what is much more likely is that someway, somehow, some terrorist organization gets their hands on a nuclear device whether from North Korea, Iran, or Pakistan, none of which are stable or trustworthy. Though there are still traditional security concerns that still require traditional military measures and planning (Iran being one of them), America's approach to security must be centered around the threat posed to American cities by rogue groups with access to nuclear material. Obviously this isn't news to anyone, but I fear a rogue group or a rogue nation (I'm looking at your Iran) with nukes way more than I fear a traditional war with whomever.
Nuclear weapons aren't going anywhere, which makes it especially important that our leaders are attuned to this threat that unsecured nuclear material poses. Unfortunately, unsecured nuclear material is often out of our grasp and sometimes - in the case of North Korea's program - even out of our vision. I hope that our leaders are making the appropriate plans for dealing with the threat of nuclear proliferation because recent turmoil in Pakistan, Iran, and most recently North Korea make it rogue nukes more of a concern than ever.
North Korea is one of three (semi) nuclear countries in which the political situation is fragile and the potential for nuclear proliferation is rife, the others being Pakistan and (almost) Iran. Of there three countries, one is nominally our ally, and the other two we (rightfully) shun diplomatically. Though Pakistan doesn't really deserve much of the aid we give them, the country is - and I can't believe I'm quoting Michelle Bachmann (perhaps the only smart things she's ever said) - too nuclear to fail.
Nuclear weapons are a reality of the world we live in; they aren't going away. During the Cold War the idea of mutually assured destruction ensured that no one was going to push the button and end life on the planet. Nuclear war is not something that I fear no matter how many test missiles North Korea launches as a perverse 21-gun salute to Kim Jong-il.
What I do fear and what is much more likely is that someway, somehow, some terrorist organization gets their hands on a nuclear device whether from North Korea, Iran, or Pakistan, none of which are stable or trustworthy. Though there are still traditional security concerns that still require traditional military measures and planning (Iran being one of them), America's approach to security must be centered around the threat posed to American cities by rogue groups with access to nuclear material. Obviously this isn't news to anyone, but I fear a rogue group or a rogue nation (I'm looking at your Iran) with nukes way more than I fear a traditional war with whomever.
Nuclear weapons aren't going anywhere, which makes it especially important that our leaders are attuned to this threat that unsecured nuclear material poses. Unfortunately, unsecured nuclear material is often out of our grasp and sometimes - in the case of North Korea's program - even out of our vision. I hope that our leaders are making the appropriate plans for dealing with the threat of nuclear proliferation because recent turmoil in Pakistan, Iran, and most recently North Korea make it rogue nukes more of a concern than ever.
Monday, December 19, 2011
Americans Elect
Much as I lambast the Republican party, I am neither numb to what is, perhaps, the biggest problem in American politics: big money and special interests; nor am I naive enough to think that only one party is culpable. Democrats and Republicans are both more beholden to special interests and the money they flaunt, than to the American people. While I am not yet jaded enough to think that this tacit corruption has destroyed our political system, I certainly believe that the whole country would benefit if we could rid ourselves of the money running the show.
A group with this goal already exists - Americans Elect. I signed up for Americans Elect a few months back after reading about the group in a Thomas Friedman article. As my involvement has deepened, I have become more of a believer in the group's goal - taking power away from the moneyed establishment and returning it to "we the people."
To be fair, there are legitimate criticisms of the group, primarily that it receives serious financial backing from unidentified sources, hardly the kind of transparency that American democracy needs. Nevertheless, I firmly believe that the open nominating process Americans Elect is trying to create will ultimately be a boon to American politics. The recent Supreme Court ruling that corporations have the same right to free speech as individuals was an embarrassment and a political travesty as it only makes corruption legal. Americans Elect is trying to reverse the trend, and in that endeavor, we should all support them. The American people deserve a political system that - even with divided over how to best serve us - is beholden to us.
Right now, government either cannot or will not serve us, and it isn't difficult to determine that many of the policy failures are the product of special interests lobbying. Take for example, the financial lobby's crusade against regulation of banking, regulation that - had it been in place - may have saved us from the current economic crisis. On the other side of the aisle, the health care law would have been stronger if it had included provisions making it more difficult to sue for malpractice - provisions opposed by trial lawyers.
I encourage readers to visit the Americans Elect website and get behind the movement to remove money and special interests from our political system. I won't pretend that this is a perfect method. Even as an active member, I am still trying to learn more about the group, but it is an enticing alternative to a political system in which candidates regularly host fundraising dinners at which many Americans could never afford to sit down for dinner even if we had been invited.
A group with this goal already exists - Americans Elect. I signed up for Americans Elect a few months back after reading about the group in a Thomas Friedman article. As my involvement has deepened, I have become more of a believer in the group's goal - taking power away from the moneyed establishment and returning it to "we the people."
To be fair, there are legitimate criticisms of the group, primarily that it receives serious financial backing from unidentified sources, hardly the kind of transparency that American democracy needs. Nevertheless, I firmly believe that the open nominating process Americans Elect is trying to create will ultimately be a boon to American politics. The recent Supreme Court ruling that corporations have the same right to free speech as individuals was an embarrassment and a political travesty as it only makes corruption legal. Americans Elect is trying to reverse the trend, and in that endeavor, we should all support them. The American people deserve a political system that - even with divided over how to best serve us - is beholden to us.
Right now, government either cannot or will not serve us, and it isn't difficult to determine that many of the policy failures are the product of special interests lobbying. Take for example, the financial lobby's crusade against regulation of banking, regulation that - had it been in place - may have saved us from the current economic crisis. On the other side of the aisle, the health care law would have been stronger if it had included provisions making it more difficult to sue for malpractice - provisions opposed by trial lawyers.
I encourage readers to visit the Americans Elect website and get behind the movement to remove money and special interests from our political system. I won't pretend that this is a perfect method. Even as an active member, I am still trying to learn more about the group, but it is an enticing alternative to a political system in which candidates regularly host fundraising dinners at which many Americans could never afford to sit down for dinner even if we had been invited.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Goodbye Iraq
America's near decade long war in Iraq formally, if not actually, came to a close today. There are a variety of subjects worth debating when discussing the Iraq War: WMD; terrorism; nation-building; the ongoing mission even after our departure; etc.
I have before and will again share my thoughts on some of those issues as they pertain to what I see as America's duty to our citizens, our troops, our allies, and our responsibility to the global community.
But today's post is not about any of those topics. Today, I want to acknowledge America's men and women in uniform and the hard work they have done over the past eight to ten years, both in Iraq and - currently - in Afghanistan, where one of my best friends is still serving.
Americans have different feelings about our foreign involvements, but regardless of those views, we should always support our brave countrymen who put their lives on the line. America would not be the great country it is without your willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice. Thank you.
I have before and will again share my thoughts on some of those issues as they pertain to what I see as America's duty to our citizens, our troops, our allies, and our responsibility to the global community.
But today's post is not about any of those topics. Today, I want to acknowledge America's men and women in uniform and the hard work they have done over the past eight to ten years, both in Iraq and - currently - in Afghanistan, where one of my best friends is still serving.
Americans have different feelings about our foreign involvements, but regardless of those views, we should always support our brave countrymen who put their lives on the line. America would not be the great country it is without your willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice. Thank you.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Amnesty or Arizona?
These, if you keep up with the politics of immigration, are the only roads before us. We must either pardon all illegal immigrants for their transgressions (real or imagined) and put them all on the path to citizenship, or we have to round up all 12 million or so of them and send them back to where they came from (which, if you believe conservative rhetoric, is Mexico).
Which would you choose: amnesty or Arizona? Surely there must be a middle ground lost somewhere in the debate over the economy and the fact that bipartisanship is a word of the past.
The Obama administration has been good about policing the border and challenging Arizona's draconian and bigoted excuse for a law, but immigration as a political issue has taken a back seat to the economy. Given the intrinsic link between the two, this failure to address immigration in more than a token "beef up the border, but don't give in to the bigots," manner is shortsighted.
Ironically it is a Republican candidate who is leading the way on actual immigration reform. Just as George W. Bush offered tough but moral policies to deal with immigration - only to be rebuffed by the baser elements of his party - Newt Gingrich is now doing the same (probably only to suffer Bush's fate).
America's approach to immigration should be tough but moral and practical. The ole "America is a nation of immigrants" line is tried and true, but it's not going to win any converts from the ranks of those who think we should slash government spending except to pay astronomical sums to round up and deport all 11-12 million people living in America illegally. The immigration approach that we should be playing up is about how immigrants bring new ideas to America and help increase innovation and competition, reinvigorating the economy rather than dragging it down. Are there people here mooching off the system? Sure there are. Are there illegal immigrants committing felonies? Absolutely. Is it practical to amnesty to everyone living here illegally and put them on the path to citizenship? Probably not. But the best approach is open avenues for legal immigration going forward while addressing the people already living here illegally in small subgroups. This is where Newt has some good ideas.
Sure, there is some bunk in there, but Newt makes a lot of good points; he recognizes that the majority of illegal immigrants are gang members pushing drugs on America's susceptible youth and committing wanton drive-by shootings, but he also emphasizes that there is a need to identify and rid America of illegal criminals. The plan is practical, based on sound economic principals and history, and even - surprise! - tilts in the right direction morally. Without thinking this is a perfect plan, I am impressed.
America should not be neglecting the immigration issue. It is important for economic recovery and growth, and quite frankly, it is deeply interwoven with our national identity. Many presidents have tried and failed to address immigration sensibly, and many others have ignored the issue. I support the measures taken by the Obama administration, but the President and Mr. Gingrich both need to be more vocal about the need for immigration reform. The entire country would benefit from some of the ideas they espouse.
Which would you choose: amnesty or Arizona? Surely there must be a middle ground lost somewhere in the debate over the economy and the fact that bipartisanship is a word of the past.
The Obama administration has been good about policing the border and challenging Arizona's draconian and bigoted excuse for a law, but immigration as a political issue has taken a back seat to the economy. Given the intrinsic link between the two, this failure to address immigration in more than a token "beef up the border, but don't give in to the bigots," manner is shortsighted.
Ironically it is a Republican candidate who is leading the way on actual immigration reform. Just as George W. Bush offered tough but moral policies to deal with immigration - only to be rebuffed by the baser elements of his party - Newt Gingrich is now doing the same (probably only to suffer Bush's fate).
America's approach to immigration should be tough but moral and practical. The ole "America is a nation of immigrants" line is tried and true, but it's not going to win any converts from the ranks of those who think we should slash government spending except to pay astronomical sums to round up and deport all 11-12 million people living in America illegally. The immigration approach that we should be playing up is about how immigrants bring new ideas to America and help increase innovation and competition, reinvigorating the economy rather than dragging it down. Are there people here mooching off the system? Sure there are. Are there illegal immigrants committing felonies? Absolutely. Is it practical to amnesty to everyone living here illegally and put them on the path to citizenship? Probably not. But the best approach is open avenues for legal immigration going forward while addressing the people already living here illegally in small subgroups. This is where Newt has some good ideas.
Sure, there is some bunk in there, but Newt makes a lot of good points; he recognizes that the majority of illegal immigrants are gang members pushing drugs on America's susceptible youth and committing wanton drive-by shootings, but he also emphasizes that there is a need to identify and rid America of illegal criminals. The plan is practical, based on sound economic principals and history, and even - surprise! - tilts in the right direction morally. Without thinking this is a perfect plan, I am impressed.
America should not be neglecting the immigration issue. It is important for economic recovery and growth, and quite frankly, it is deeply interwoven with our national identity. Many presidents have tried and failed to address immigration sensibly, and many others have ignored the issue. I support the measures taken by the Obama administration, but the President and Mr. Gingrich both need to be more vocal about the need for immigration reform. The entire country would benefit from some of the ideas they espouse.
Monday, December 5, 2011
Now What?
Every four years America elects a president, and while voting only happens on one day, the campaign begins in earnest the day the president-elect becomes the president. Then, a year a half before the election, things get really intense.
We're now only about a month away from the New Hampshire primary, schedule for January 10th, which is of course only 10 months before the general election...because, you know, the politicians don't have anything more important to do than campaign. On January 10th, the good voters on New Hampshire will give one of the goons vying to displace President Obama a boost by selecting him or her as the candidate who has said the most nonsensical things during the campaign. It will undoubtedly be a tough choice, even without Herman Cain.
This is politics in America, two years of governance - though I hesitate to use that term - and two years of politicking...is it any wonder that the government does nothing? What if I only showed up to work three days a week...sounds nice actually.
But if our politicians are going to spend the next 11 months trying to get elected or reelected then we should at least ask them why? What are we going to have to show for it if we pick candidate X in November? What's next?
Sadly, there doesn't seem to be an answer to this question from either side. Democrats want to keep us on the same unsustainable path we are on, and Republican are - almost literally, almost - living on another planet or in some kind of pseudo-dream world. America's officials are long-winded and obstinate, but they're short on ideas, and it's a scary prospect for our nation's future.
As I ponder the direction of our country, and think about what might be done to fix it, I am struck by how much work there is to do and how little of it is being done by those in office. I'm terrified by one group of people who don't have the foresight to make necessary changes now and another group who desperately wants America to be perpetually stuck in the 1980's.
America needs leaders who are willing to lead, who can confront reality, and who can make informed decisions about what needs to be done to make our nation better. We need individual with ideas other than the maintenance of a shaky status quo or the reversion to policies that have proven themselves wanting. I don't know where those people will come from - certainly the President has moments where he is among them - but we need to find them fast because America cannot afford to wait much longer.
We're now only about a month away from the New Hampshire primary, schedule for January 10th, which is of course only 10 months before the general election...because, you know, the politicians don't have anything more important to do than campaign. On January 10th, the good voters on New Hampshire will give one of the goons vying to displace President Obama a boost by selecting him or her as the candidate who has said the most nonsensical things during the campaign. It will undoubtedly be a tough choice, even without Herman Cain.
This is politics in America, two years of governance - though I hesitate to use that term - and two years of politicking...is it any wonder that the government does nothing? What if I only showed up to work three days a week...sounds nice actually.
But if our politicians are going to spend the next 11 months trying to get elected or reelected then we should at least ask them why? What are we going to have to show for it if we pick candidate X in November? What's next?
Sadly, there doesn't seem to be an answer to this question from either side. Democrats want to keep us on the same unsustainable path we are on, and Republican are - almost literally, almost - living on another planet or in some kind of pseudo-dream world. America's officials are long-winded and obstinate, but they're short on ideas, and it's a scary prospect for our nation's future.
As I ponder the direction of our country, and think about what might be done to fix it, I am struck by how much work there is to do and how little of it is being done by those in office. I'm terrified by one group of people who don't have the foresight to make necessary changes now and another group who desperately wants America to be perpetually stuck in the 1980's.
America needs leaders who are willing to lead, who can confront reality, and who can make informed decisions about what needs to be done to make our nation better. We need individual with ideas other than the maintenance of a shaky status quo or the reversion to policies that have proven themselves wanting. I don't know where those people will come from - certainly the President has moments where he is among them - but we need to find them fast because America cannot afford to wait much longer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)