America is Cool Again

Not since the early sixties has America so epitomized the notion of cool in the world as we do today. What began as a fist bump on the primary trail has reached a national shout-out before both chambers of Congress. The Obamas in the White House has once again provided the world with the desire to be a part of America and part of the cool that they perceive America to be. Whether it’s the pop star reception of Hillary Clinton in Asia or the talk around European capitals the buzz is unmistakable. The thing about the Kennedy administration that many have forgotten was that they had style and exuded cool to not only Americans but to the world. They made other people in the world want to be American and if they couldn’t be American to immolate American style and coolness.

After decades of waiting America and the world can now usher in a new era of vitality and panache. We must not underestimate the value of chic and coolness in the global marketplace of ideas. America represented more than just democracy and capitalism to the world. America represented the freedom to express your coolness in ways that the old world could not. America represented new ideas and new ways of expression, innovation and a spirit of compassion for those who did not share our abundance. It is hard to recruit people to kill you if they see in you their hopes and their desires being realized. The reason we are despised in the world today is because we took those hopes and those desires of the worlds unwanted and we profited from them. Our concern wasn’t to liberate them or enrich them instead it was to exploit them. We offered them hope and instead gave them whiskey and a “Big Mac.” Instead of embracing and acknowledging the value of their cultures we judged and condemn them.

We no longer reached out to the world with a hand of friendship and mutual understanding; instead we hid behind barbed-wire and guns. Before the world got to know us through our people who were willing to suffer the indignities of those they came to help instead of through our military. Those brave young Americans did more for our standing in the world than all of our bombs and rockets. These volunteers allowed the world to see the American people as people just like they were not as conquerors or liberators. The world got to see that we were cool. We may have been too arrogant and overconfident, but we were still cool and were willing to try to help those we could. There were many casualties to our volunteer efforts but the mission continued and for generations we enjoyed the goodwill of most of the world despite our continued efforts to profit from their misery.

So here we are today with a new opportunity to once again reach out to the world with hope and a shared sense of purpose. While there are many who want to continue the gun-boat diplomacy bred by fear and hatred we must overcome those forces and realize that we once again have the chance to influence generations of the world’s people not through might of arms but through right of purpose. We Americans need to believe in the good in the world and the rest of the world is no different. They want to believe that we represent what we claim to represent freedom, compassion, and understanding. Let us begin today to not fall for the politics of greed and the philosophy of fear that has paralyzed us from taking our rightful place in the world as the purveyors of cool and the beacon of freedom.

President Obama and First Lady Michelle have a style and a flair that we have so desperately needed. They both exude a confidence that is not based in arrogant power but based in a quiet acceptance of their roles in this world and humility for the enormity of the tasks that await them. Let’s face it being cool won’t stop al Qaeda from wanting to destroy America but it will make recruiting a little bit harder because cool is a lot harder to rally support against than boisterous and bellicose. We had a similar example in the campaign and it is hard to be against hope. We must understand and accept that what is missing in these men’s and women’s lives is not consumerism or democracy, it is hope. It is hope in the future that it will be better than their yesterday and their today. If we can’t provide the world with hope then it won’t matter how many bombs and tanks we have it won’t be enough to protect us.

Yet, when the President and First Lady walk into a room there is a hope, a sense that our best days are ahead of us. As I watched them arrive at the address of the joint chambers of Congress I couldn’t help but think these folks are cool. It’s funny how sometimes in life you don’t know you have missed something until it arrives and then it is like the break of a new day and you realize this is what was missing. Somehow it gives you comfort that wasn’t there before. I don’t think for one minute that President Obama will solve all of our nation’s problems or that his policies are the only solutions to them, but I get a real sense of the measure of the man that gives me confidence. Tom Delay stated that the American public elects Presidents to be caretakers and not to change the country. While this may have been true for the past 30 years there have been times in our nation’s history when the people elected someone to shape this nation to lead us into a new world. I would ask Mr. Delay if the country elected Lincoln or the Roosevelt’s to be caretakers. I think not. The country does not have the luxury of a caretaker at this moment in history and that is why we rejected the Republicans and John McCain.

The country chose cool and the world will be better for it.

Read more!

Who Is In Charge?

Meanwhile, the effort to foist all blame for this mess on the private sector continues unabated when most of the blame for this current debacle can be laid at the feet of the Congress and a couple of former presidents. And there is a strategic reason for this[1]

It's too big a business for the left to keep all those things alive that divide the people of this country into groups that are against each other. Yes, I'm fired up about this.[2]

So Rush Limbaugh is now the leader of the Republican Party? I love this. You mean to tell me that when the majority of the country is trying to come together and solve some of the biggest crisis’ in our time you have this hot air, blow hard saying he hopes we fail just so Republicans can come back to power? And this is the guy you want to have out in front of your party? This is the reason why the Republican Party is headed for extinction they are either unwilling or unable to adapt to the future. They continue to want to cling to an America that is past. Rather than have the humility to do some self-examination they continue to press an agenda that was soundly defeated and one which many Americans are tired of.

For the past two years the American people vetted both the Democratic candidates and the Republican candidates and made their decision. The Republican’s offered the country more tax-cuts and Joe the plumber. President Barack Obama was very open about what he planned to do to stimulate the economy. The American people made their decision. For the Republicans to ignore the will of the people further illustrates their contempt for the people of America. The President has tried to reach out to Republicans to try to bring them on board and they respond by offering the same tired rhetoric and ideas that created this mess in the first place. No, Rush this economic crisis was not created by the Congress and a couple of former Presidents. To quote the dean from “Animal House”, “Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.”

What does this say about a political party when their leader is a radio talk show host? Are the Democrats now going to elect Keith Oberman head of the Democratic Party? What many don’t understand is that Rush Limbaugh has never run for any political office that I am aware of. He is an entertainer; and not a very good one. He will twist facts, outright lie, and say the most partisan things he can to get ratings. Are the Republicans so devoid of ideas and leaders that they have to rely on Rush Limbaugh to show them the way? I think this is great because the way he is leading is a dead end. The vaunted Republican base is shrinking not expanding. The last two elections showed that. Based on the current tactics being employed by Rush and his underlings it is going to shrink even smaller. What do they think there is some large majority of whites who believe in tax-cuts for the wealthy, bailing out the corporations, nation building, and working at Wal-Mart? Are you kidding me?

The problem with Rush Limbaugh and many like him is that they live in a bubble of privilege and echo chambers. They are surrounded by only those who share their opinions so they begin to believe that they have more power and influence than they do. In the hood we call it they believe their own hype. For Rush Limbaugh to say that the Democrats want to continue to keep the country divided would be laughable if it wasn’t so pathetic. Rush, were you at the Republican Convention? It was full of pasty old white guys. And you call this the Party that wants to unite America? I assume they plan to do this through promoting tax-cuts for the wealthy, bans on abortions, and reducing the government to the treasury and the defense departments?

I’m sorry but any Party that is willing to stake its political future on the opinions and pronouncements of Rush Limbaugh deserves to become the next “No Nothing” Party. Once again we see that in a culture that has no long-term values or belief system the “cult of personality” trumps the logic of reason. The very culture that he decries is the true vehicle of his power and success. If we really did live in the world that he claims to desire he would be just another fat middle-aged white dude at the family picnic with his shirt unbuttoned to the waist instead of a fat pampered and pompous entertainer. Long live the King!

[1] http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/01/24/rush-limbaugh-responds-president-obama
[2] http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011609/content/01125113.guest.html

Read more!

The Shell Game

I finally understand what President Bush has been up to. These guys are good. When everyone was calling for a reduction in troops, Mr. Bush chose to increase troops. Why? So that he can reduce the troop levels without reducing the troop levels. Let’s say that he agrees to reduce the levels by the 30,000 increase for the surge, he still maintains the same number of troops prior to the surge. He can appear to be following the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group and yet keep the same number of troops, brilliant. Let’s say that he reduces it by a more modest number than the 30,000, he will actually have a net gain and still appease the growing uneasiness of the American public. He gets the best of both worlds, he can seem to be heeding the advice of other experts and the American people and yet keep the same number of troops indefinitely. He can argue I reduced the force by X number of troops didn’t I?

WASHINGTON, Sept. 6 — Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, has told President Bush that he wants to maintain heightened troop levels in Iraq well into next year to reduce the risk of military setbacks, but could accept the pullback of roughly 4,000 troops beginning in January, in part to assuage critics in Congress, according to senior administration and military officials.

General Petraeus’s view is considered overly cautious by some other senior military officials and some members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, officials said. But they said it reflected his concern that the security gains made so far in Baghdad, Anbar Province and other areas were fragile and easily reversed.[1]

This is the same strategy used by marketers for years, increase your prices before a sale and then reduce them modestly. The customer thinks they are saving 50% when they are actually paying more than they would if it were not on sale.

General Petraeus is considering making some troop reductions to relieve Congressional pressure. How about making troop reductions because the surge is not working? Despite the coming dog and pony show the surge has not been the success being touted. I read an article in the McClatchy News discussing the figures being used to claim the success of the surge. There is talk that because there are fewer US casualties then the surge is working, even though they had predicted that there would be more casualties if the strategy was working. There are those that argue it isn’t the surge it is the normal summer reduction in casualties that has been there since the beginning, it appears the insurgents also need a summer vacation. Then of course there is the argument that the insurgents have just decided to wait us out, they have decided not to engage the US troops. To me this seems the more sensible argument and can be easily proven by the number of insurgent casualties, but also by the number of insurgents captured.

It would seem pretty obvious that if the number of insurgent encounters is lower, then either one of two scenarios is true, that we have in fact defeated the insurgency or they have gone underground. The thing about fighting a war of this type is that progress is next to impossible to gauge. The ordinary benchmarks of a conventional war do not apply, the objectives are completely different. Why we are spending time with these progress reports is a mystery to me.

Our goal in Iraq is complete; it was complete when Saddam Hussein was dethroned. To ask anymore of our military personnel is suicidal, because now it becomes an international mission. Rebuilding nations belongs to the international community and rightly so. You cannot expect to destroy a society, even for humanitarian reasons and then not expect the people to resent it. It will always change from liberation to an occupation in the minds of many of the people. Iraq has shown that there is a fine line between freedom and tyranny. So far in the mind of many Iraqis we have not been able to distinguish the two. We have replaced the tyranny of a dictator with the tyranny of occupation.

We of course may not believe that, but it doesn’t matter what we believe or what our motives were. What matters is what the Iraqis believe and right now they believe we are more of a hindrance than a help. The thing about the shell game is that it is rigged and so are these progress reports. The real progress can’t be measured until we leave and many years down the line from then. It is foolishness to set these arbitrary timelines that are not connected to reality.

Democracy and nation building is a process and it cannot be accomplished by outsiders. Look at America we have been at it a lot longer than the Iraqis and we still have a lot to learn. To expect the Iraqis to overcome their fears and prejudice is not realistic. All one has to do is look at the current climate in America; we still have black and white shade trees for God’s sake.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/07/washington/07policy.html?hp

Read more!

Shall We Dance?

It seems that after every financial fiasco, the heads of government departments dealing with the financial markets parade in front of Congress with the same ole song and dance. Yes, there needs to more oversight, but no we should not create any new legislation.

The current mortgage fiasco is the latest in a long list of financial malfeasance by corporate America that will be swept under the rug with little more than an asterisk. The average American will once again be made the scapegoat for the greed and excesses of capitalism gone wild. Why is it that only after the raiders have made their money we recognize there is a problem?

Robert Steel Treasury's undersecretary of domestic finance in written testimony stated the following:

"The regulatory structure that we have, through our view, could use a fresh re-look. And that's what we at Treasury plan to do," Steel said. "I can't tell you where that will go. Let's do the work before we have the conclusions."

Steel added that innovation has outpaced regulation, meaning current regulation "is just not attuned as it should be."

Regulation is at the heart of today's financial turmoil. Despite a wide array of federal bank regulators, the standards used by mortgage lenders weakened considerably after 2004. For example, New Century Financial Corp., which wasn't federally regulated and is now bankrupt, underwrote millions of dubious home loans, many with adjustable-rate mortgages to so-called subprime borrowers — those with the weakest credit histories.[1]

Is it just me or are these guys the masters of the obvious? Why do we believe that the greediest people will do the greediest of things to help the most people, it is illogical. We allow these corporations to go unchecked with the false belief that given the opportunity they will do the right thing and every time they prove that they will not. The pie must begin to be shared on a more equitable basis. The American worker must be allowed to organize to offset the growing influence of corporations on our economy and our politics.

The people entrusted to oversee the corporations are many times former members of the very companies they are regulating. There is a revolving door between government and corporations that must be closed. We can no longer afford to have our laws written by the people they are supposed to control. Thanks in large part to the Republicans, we barely have any regulatory powers as it is now and if we allow the few we have to be controlled by the corporations this is a recipe for the types of disasters we are seeing with China and other loosely regulated industries.

The old lie that the marketplace will be the final arbitrator rings hollow when there is not a level playing field. As long as we have the industries writing the regulations that govern the industries we will continue to have economic and political injustice. The economic fallout from the mortgage crisis will be small in comparison, as more and more corporations cut corners in an effort to maximize profits. There are those who argue since the industry insiders know the industries best they should be allowed to write the regulations. This is foolishness, just because the burglar knows how to break into my house doesn’t mean I am going to let him write the code for protecting my house. I believe that there are many conscientious federal employees who want to do a good job, but are not being allowed to do so by corporate interference and political cronyism.

It is time for the politicians to step up to the plate and begin to put some teeth in legislation and regulations that will protect not only our physical wellbeing, but our economic wellbeing as well. It is an abdication of their responsibility as fiduciary agents to continue to sign off on industry written regulations or industry assurances that they will perform better in the future. No longer can we afford to let the financial markets dance without paying the band.

[1] http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/19484.html

Read more!

The Imperial Presidency Vs. Democracy

Many people believe that the Imperial Presidency is a new phenomenon, initiated by George W. Bush. However, the foundation of the Imperial Presidency was laid prior to 9/11 in a series of steps and maneuvers by several different presidents. With each new officeholder not only reinforcing the previous officeholder’s position, but also expanding it as they saw fit. But, what is an imperial president and what if anything can be done to restrain that unchecked power? Many will say the separation of powers built into the Constitution is designed to keep the president in check, but that doesn’t seem to be working out to good.

Imperialism is the policy of extending a nation’s authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations, countries, or colonies. This is either through direct territorial conquest or settlement, or through indirect methods of influencing or controlling the politics and/or economy. The rule of authority of a country is based on territory, economic establishment and political influence. The term is used to describe the policy of a nation’s dominance over distant lands, regardless of whether the subjugated nation considers itself part of the empire. It is also considered the action by which one country controls another country or territory accomplished by military means to gain certain advantages. Imperialism helps one country gain power and domain over other areas.

-Wikipedia.com

When did the Imperial Presidency begin and why was it allowed to go unchecked? The beginning of this trend began with Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the implementation of the New Deal. FDR inherited the country in calamitous circumstances which required bold and extraordinary steps to remedy. There are many today who still decry those steps and the Congress that allowed him to execute them. Many conservative Republicans have made it their life’s work to rescind the policies and laws that define the New Deal. Prior to FDR, the president had been for the most part a caretaker who implemented the policies of Congress. The seeds of the Imperial Presidency were planted with FDR and continue to this day. The current President Bush many would argue after 9/11 inherited a country in a frightful state that required extraordinary steps to overcome the threat. It’s funny that many of the opponents of this President were curiously quiet when the extent of the threat was still being analyzed. This of course gives rise to the many conservative complaints of flip-flopping on the part of the critics.

There are four planks of the Imperial Presidency that I would like to highlight as important rungs on which the privilege is based.

1)Executive Orders – which allow the President to bypass Congress and the separation of powers, checks and balance provided for in the Constitution. These are opportunities for abuse and have been expanded to include anything the President can’t get his way on through normal channels.

2) Military Industrial Complex – warned of by Ike, these war profiteers have continued to influence our foreign policy and helped to insulate the President from the Congressional oversight mandated by the Constitution. Due to their influence many of the Presidents have felt emboldened to participate in misguided foreign entanglements.

3) Global War on Terror – what began as a response to 9/11 has now been reduced to a “bumper sticker” with no real meaning or direction. What is this thing and when and where will it end? It is this little gem that has allowed our current officeholder to usurp Congressional power (by choice) and ignore the will of the electorate. All is fair in war!

4) Spectator Citizens – this is the most important enabler of the Imperial Presidency. As long as we are more concerned with “Desperate Housewives” and “American Idol” these guys can do anything they want. These people count on our slothfulness; it is factored into their calculations. As long as all we do is complain, whine and take no action the Emperor is safe. You get the government you tolerate; this is true in the third world as much as it is in the first world. We wax poetically about the ills of other “less civilized” people and their tolerance of bad governance and yet look at our own refusal to act here at home. Get the splinter out of your own eye before you start trying to do laser surgery on the rest of the world.

The War Powers Act of 1973, was supposed to help rein in the Imperial President from just indiscriminately becoming entangled in foreign conflicts. It was designed to keep the President from committing American troops to combat without Congressional oversight. Glad we have that in place today, huh? It was suppose to restrict that ability by requiring:

1) The president has to inform Congress in writing 48 hours after he commits troops into a hostile situation.

2) Sixty days after committing troops into a hostile situation, Congress has to declare war or authorize continuous commitment. This gives Congress the power to recall the troops.

3) Congress, at any time, can pass a concurrent resolution (a resolution passed by both houses of Congress) to recall the troops. The president cannot veto this resolution.

The Congress has the power to recall troops that the President has committed to a hostile situation and does not have to stand idly by and watch the President decimate our military, our international allies and goodwill, or hold the rest of the world hostage. The reason that this is allowed to continue is that despite their protesting the majority of politicians of any ilk supports the Empire. Which can be further extrapolated to the fact that the majority of American voters support the Empire world view, too. Oh, of course not today with it going so poorly in Iraq, but the theory that we have the “Manifest Destiny” to democratize the world is prevalent, to impose our will on the uncivilized populace.

Unfortunately, the problem with the War Powers Act is that every president beginning with Nixon and including George W. Bush has claimed that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional and has refused to be bound by its terms. The Supreme Court has so far refused to rule on the constitutionality of the act. So, there you have it, for the Imperial President it is a mere courtesy to inform you of his war plans and exit strategies. It is past the time for all good men and women to stand against tyranny.

Read more!

September Mourn

Many believe that come September the debacle that is now Iraq will be ending or at least beginning to end. Those who believe this still do not understand who or what they are dealing with. This administration will stop at nothing to further its agenda and the continued occupation of Iraq is a major part of that agenda. So what can we expect to hear in September from General Petraeus when he makes his report on the progress of the “surge” strategy?

Here is what I think is going to happen. The good general will appear before Congress and will be very polite and very engaging and will state unequivocally that the “surge” has had mixed results. That there will be enough meat on the bones to allow them to continue to follow this inane strategy is almost guaranteed. Why my cynicism you ask? Because this war serves the political agenda of both sides and no one in politics that can stop it wants to really stop it. All one has to do is to listen to the rhetoric of both sides to understand the political stakes at risk. There is an ongoing chorus echoing throughout the halls of power concerning Iraq. Just look at all the blog posts that are dedicated to it, if someone were to land from outer space they would think this is the only thing in the world happening.

How does this serve the powers that be? The Republicans still believe that they can salvage their grand plans of installing a client regime in Iraq and extending America’s colonialist power in the Middle East. Can you imagine the influence of having large military bases in the Middle East without the populace screaming “bloody murder”? I guarantee you they have and the possibilities are endless and much too rewarding to just give up. This war is not about Iraqis or freedom or anything else for that matter. It is about the grand scheme of domination by the wealthy using as proxies the poor. Do not be fooled there are more than a few Democrats that would accept this scenario as well as long as it’s somebody else’s idea. With bases in Iraq, America could extend its collection services on behalf of the large corporations and hold a mighty big stick over the uncivilized Islamist.

This world view has been spelled out over and over by all the neo-con thinkers and corporate apologists. America must exert its muscle to subdue an unruly world. The only small problem is that the world does not want to be subdued by America. If our involvement in Iraq continues at its current rate, I think the populations of the world will protest vehemently and could topple some governments. These protests will not be able to be contained by our “friendly” dictators and could spill over into regional violence. Make no mistake; this is no longer just about Iraq to many this is part of a larger global resources grab by the “greedy” Americans. There are many in these worlds that are willing to sacrifice themselves to right a perceived injustice. We have never been able to grasp this about our enemies. True strength is not in the type or amount of weapons one possesses; instead it is about being willing to do what the other guy won’t do. Anyone ever unfortunate enough to do any street fighting can tell you that.

We can see the Republican explanation for further bloodshed, but what could the Democrats possibly get out of our continued involvement? The answer to this is two-fold and depends on which side of the party you reside on. Believe it or not there are some “hawks” in the party who also share a similar world view as their Republican counterparts. There are some Democrats that are in bed just as deeply with corporate lobbyists as the Republicans and have the same agenda. It would be quite a coup to be able to inherit the Middle East at the Republicans expense, all the benefits with none of the bashing. If you listen to some of the Democratic candidates you can hear them laying the groundwork for continued involvement, if only in some limited capacity. Do not be fooled anyone that is not calling for the complete withdrawal from Iraq is playing both sides against the middle. They can claim to want to end the war and still for humanitarian reasons keep US forces in Iraq to continue the same agenda.

The other side of the same coin for the Democrats is that as long as the war continues the base and many independents have been whipped up to a seething rage. Fund raising has never been easier. It is so heady that many believe it doesn’t matter who is nominated, they will trounce the Republican nominee. This is fool’s gold. Not being George Bush will not get anyone elected. I caution the Democrats to take seriously their candidate and not be overwhelmed with the desire to see America as they want it to be and not as it truly is. It is one thing to have a friendly discussion about the merits of electing women and minorities to the office of President in June, it is an all together different matter in November. I know no one wants to talk about it, but there is a reason we have only had white males in that office and don’t see any compelling reason for that to change, even if it is on the heels of George Bush. We have had incompetent before.

In the final analysis the war will continue after September and there will be outrage, but not enough to change the course. The blogosphere will scream to the rooftops and the rest of the country will continue to be more concerned with “American Idol” than with “American idols”…

Read more!