tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-76652801598876678542024-03-12T20:19:40.715-04:00D.C. ExileA blog that focuses on international and domestic politics and economics (with a progressive slant)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger787125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-73889392160615542202014-01-28T16:48:00.003-05:002014-01-28T16:48:50.808-05:00D.C. Exile's 2014 State of the Union Drinking Game<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span id="docs-internal-guid-7fc977df-dad3-e15d-52c5-9fcb79762cda"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">He shall from time to time give to Congress such information on the State of the Union that may form the triggers of automatic consumption of alcohol by viewers at home.</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> U.S. Const., art. II, sec. 3.</span></div>
<br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- Finish a bottle of bourbon before the President speaks. America needs the consumer spending and you need the alcohol to have strong feelings about the speech.</span></div>
<br /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- Every time the President says the word “inequality” take a swig of Gran Marnier, spit it out, then take two swigs of PBR. You deserve only a taste of the good life. Work harder.</span></div>
<br /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- Every time the President mentions taking action on his own authority, without Congress, chug a pint of an imperial stout. Query whether the sick feeling in your gut thereafter is a result of the stout or crush of tyranny. </span></div>
<br /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- If the President mentions bipartisanship (the need for it, his desire for it, the boon it represents to this country), throw whatever drink you have in your hand at the screen out of disgust. Hasn’t this guy learned by now? Christ.</span></div>
<br /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- Every time the President mentions minimum wage, drink a sip of Bud heavy. Carefully not to spill, though; you can’t afford to waste a drop.</span></div>
<br /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- If the President mentions manufacturing--remember manufacturing?--take a swig of Miller Lite and lament that it’s no longer an American beer. Maybe lament you consider it a beer too.</span></div>
<br /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- If the President mentions or alludes to Pete Seeger (RIP), drink a bottle of rye. Then </span><a href="http://gawker.com/94-reasons-pete-seeger-matters-in-2014-1510562885" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">go read this</span></a><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> and reflect. If tears don’t well up in your eyes, you’ve lost the fight.</span></div>
<br /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- Every time the President mentions gun control shotgun a beer. If the President fails to mention gun control at all, take a Coors Light can, shake it and open it in your friends face. Silver bullets don’t kill people, assholes who shake up silver bullets kill people.</span></div>
<br /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- Everytime the President mentions taxes, pour a little of your drink into a communal cup. After the speech that cup will be a foul, room temperature beverage. Don’t worry it’s going to corporate interests and poor people, both of whom will drink anything.</span></div>
<br /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- Everytime the President mentions Iran, you must put down your drink and not touch it for thirty seconds. Why thirty seconds? Because that’s all the time you can hold out you drunken, morally bankrupt American!</span></div>
<br /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- Everytime the President mentions Ukraine, take a shot of vodka looking east and take a breath of freedom looking west.</span></div>
<br /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- If the President mentions GTMO or drone strikes or the war against al-Qaeda and associated forces, down a shot of mint schnapps for the inherent contradiction and its generally unpleasantness. </span></div>
<br /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- Every time the President mention Syria . . . . Ha! Sucker. He’s not going to mention Syria. Waterfall for your stupidity</span></div>
<br /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- Every time the President mentions primary or secondary education count backward from 30. This will get more fun with time.</span></div>
<br /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- Every time the President mentions higher education, recite the alphabet backwards. Just like the officer made you do sophomore year.</span></div>
<br /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- Every time you know this drinking game is more important than the speech itself, take a shot of Pimms and yell, “God save the Queen!” ALTERNATE ENDING: Chug a Molson and sing “O’ Canada!” (yelling “Save the Queen!” still applies, though. Silly Canadians.).</span></div>
<br /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- Every time the President mentions immigration take a shot of tequila. (Racist.)</span></div>
<br /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- Every time the President mentions healthcare, Obamacare, or the ACA chug Robitussin until you robotrip. What else are you going to do with it now that you have healthcare and can see a doctor?</span></div>
<br /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- Every time the President mentions the NSA throw a shot over your right shoulder. Our government overseers need a drink too. Make it top shelf liquor, too. You don’t want a bad report.</span></div>
<br /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></span><script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-21676276-1']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-79525091798718955882013-03-16T14:53:00.000-04:002013-03-16T15:17:58.204-04:00Drones and Pakistan, Consent and Sovereignty<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This week, the U.N.’s Special Rapporteur for Human
Rights and Counterterrorism Ben Emmerson, <a href="http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=13146&LangID=E">issued a statement</a> concluding, “As a
matter of international law the US drone campaign in Pakistan is . . . being
conducted without the consent of the . . . legitimate Government of [Pakistan].
. . . and is therefore a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty.” Emmerson based his conclusion on meetings he
held between March 11–13, 2013 with representatives of Pakistan’s government,
as well as Pakistani civilians. His
lengthy statement includes a detailed summary of those conversations that elaborate
the view of Pakistan’s government and is instructive because of its
contradictions. But I digress.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In so far as Pakistan does not consent to U.S.
drone strikes, those strikes most certainly violate Pakistan’s
sovereignty. Whether they violate
international law is a more difficult question.
Any discussion of the international law governing a state’s use of force
must begin with the UN Charter, which occupies the field of modern <i>jus ad
bellum</i>. Article 2(4) of the UN
Charter states:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">All Members shall refrain in their international
relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or
political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with
the Purposes of the United Nations.</span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There are three exceptions to this blanket
prohibition on the use of force between states: two found within the text of the
UN Charter, and one found in the nature of states. First, one or more states may use force when
it is authorized by the U.N. Security Council under Chapter VII:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Security Council shall determine the existence
of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall
make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with
Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security. (Article 39)</span><o:p><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></o:p><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Should the Security Council consider that measures
provided for in Article 41 [measures short of force] would be inadequate or
have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land
forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and
security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other
operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations. (Article 42)</span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Second, Article 51 (also found in Chapter VII),
preserves each state’s inherent right to self-defense in case of an armed
attack:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the
inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack
occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has
taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures
taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be
immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect
the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present
Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to
maintain or restore international peace and security.</span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Third, although not found in the UN Charter, state
consent to use of force is a well-recognized principle of international
law. That is, State A may authorize
State B to use force within State A’s territory. Although State B is clearly violating the
territorial integrity of State A by so using force, Article 20 of the Draft
Articles of State Responsibility state that “[v]alid consent by a State to the
commission of a given act by another State precludes the worngfulness of that
act in relation to the former State to the extent that the act remains within
the limits of that consent.” The
continuing validity of consent in international law was affirmed by the International
Court of Justice in <i>Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo</i>. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The U.N. Security Council has not authorized U.S.
use of force within Pakistan so at least that justification for use of force is
off the table. However, with any given
drone strike the United States may invoke consent or self-defense or both—the
two justifications are not mutually exclusive.
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But the United States is clearly <i>at least </i>relying
on consent to justify the lawfulness of its drone strikes in Pakistan. An article in the <i><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444100404577641520858011452.html">Wall Street Journal</a></i>
in September described the evolution of the quantum of consent the United
States has considered valid over the last several years. David Sanger also explored Pakistani consent
to US drone strikes in his excellent book <i>Confront and Conceal</i>. From
these and other sources, it is apparent that Pakistan gave its consent to US
drone strikes at some point. The problem
for both the United States and the Special Rapporteur is determining whether
Pakistan continues to consent to those strikes and, if not, when did it revoke
that consent. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As the Draft Articles state, consent only
precludes the wrongfulness of an act to the extent that act remains within the
limits of the consent given. Thus, if
State A consents to force by State B in the northern half of A’s territory, any
force used by B in the southern half of A would be wrongful whereas the same
sort of force used in the northern half would lawful. Similarly, consent to force tied to narrow
objectives is only lawful in pursuit of those objective. For example, if Pakistan were to authorize
drone strikes targeting Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan but not Lashkar-e-Taiba, then
any U.S. strike targeting LeT would be a violation of Pakistan’s consent and
thus wrongful under international law.
Even after granting consent to use of force in it’s a territory, a state
may subsequently revoke that consent, rendering any use of force by the outside
state after the revocation of consent unlawful.
Such was the case of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda in <i>Armed
Activities on the Territory of the Congo</i>.
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Public statements by Pakistani politicians and
elected officials, and statements by officials from the Pakistani Ministry of
Foreign Affairs and Defence on which Emmerson relies, seem to suggest that
Pakistan has revoked its consent for U.S. drone strikes. However, statements alone cannot be conclusive. As Roberto Ago noted in his capacity as
Special Rapporteur for State Responsibility, “like all manifestations of the
state . . . consent can be expressed or tacit, explicit or implicit, provided,
however, that it is clearly established.”
Obviously, observers’ lives are made easiest when consent is expressed
and done so through some public, verifiable means as in a treaty. Unfortunately consent is not always given in
so accessible and identifiable a fashion.
Consider, for example, the consent given by former President Saleh to
U.S. drone strikes in Yemen. Reports of
that consent indicate that it was broad consent to use of force given verbally
and privately by President Saleh with the expectation that Saleh would claim any
U.S. strikes were the work of Yemen’s airforce both in public and to Yemeni
lawmakers. In Yemen’s case, then,
consent was clearly given by Yemen (or at least President Saleh) to the United
States. But the clarity of this consent
let alone its very existence was secret and not accessible to observers. Thus, it is not sufficient merely to look to
public statements by a state’s political leadership for evidence of consent or
its absence. We must also consider the objective
behavior of the state.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In <i>Armed Activities on the Territory of the
Congo</i>, the ICJ was forced to consider when the Democratic Republic of the
Congo withdrew its consent to the presence of Uganda armed forces on its
territory. The Court considered the
arguments of both sides but concluded that, when Congo President Kabila
declared the presence of Ugandan forces in the DRC to be an invasion, consent for
their presence had been revoked.
Although his statement is similar to accusations from Pakistani
officials that the United States is violating its sovereignty, one must recall
that Kabila’s statement was paired with Congolese actions. Within two weeks of declaring that Uganda’s
presence constituted an invasion of the DRC, Kabila had enlisted the armed support
of Namibia, Zimbabwe, and Angola to oust both Uganda and Rwanda’s forces from
the territory of the Congo. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It is worth noting that Pakistan has taken no
similar, concrete steps to demonstrate its revocation of consent to U.S. drone
strikes. This is not to say that
Pakistan need pair its verbal protests with a direct assault on U.S. or
coalition troops operating in Afghanistan to make a revocation of consent
operative. But Pakistan’s behavior in
general has been at best ambiguous. Despite
having the capacity to “‘trace and detect any aircraft’” operating near its
border with Pakistan and (apparently) the ability to shoot such aircraft down,
there have never been reports of Pakistan shooting down a U.S. drone. Although the absence of public reports of
such downings is not dispositive, the fact that U.S. drones carry out any strikes
even though they are slow moving, are not maneuverable, and carry no air defense
countermeasures, strongly suggests that Pakistan is <i>choosing</i> not to
interdict drones. Additionally, Pakistan
has a modern air force that is at least as capable as the Iranian air force
but, while Iran has chased a number of U.S. air force drones over the Persian
Gulf in recent months, there have never been any similar reports from
Pakistan. Finally, and perhaps most
tellingly, Pakistan has not taken the sort of concrete steps vis-à-vis the
United States for drone strikes as it has for other violations of Pakistani
sovereignty. For example, in November
2011, a frontier incident between U.S. and Pakistani troops (that resulted in
the death of 26 Pakistanis), led Pakistan to both close its border with
Afghanistan to NATO convoys and to kick U.S. drones out from their Pakistani
bases. Pakistan also upgraded its
Afghan-border air defense systems.
Similarly, after a CIA contractor killed two Pakistanis in January 2011,
Pakistan ousted all CIA contractors and reduced the number of U.S. special
operators allowed in Pakistan for training missions from 120 to 39. Not only has Pakistan not taken such steps in
response to U.S. drone strikes, at least until the <i>Wall Street Journal</i>
report at the end of September 2012, Pakistan continued to clear the parts of its air space
in which the CIA indicated it would conduct drone strikes. That is to say, not only is Pakistan not
intervening to prevent drone strikes, it is taking affirmative steps to
facilitate those strikes. Thus, Pakistan’s
behavior at least renders its public statement ambiguous and, more likely,
supersedes those statements altogether.
Again, consent must be clearly stated but clearly stated to the
recipient of that consent not the outside world. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">If the United States is operating without Pakistan’s
consent within Pakistan, it is violating Pakistan’s sovereignty—and it may be
violating international law. However,
Emmerson’s conclusion notwithstanding, it is far from clear that, as a matter
of international law, the United States is violating Pakistani
sovereignty. </span></div>
<script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-21676276-1']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-69741189228465505132013-02-20T20:07:00.005-05:002013-02-20T20:07:45.812-05:00Republicans: Good for the Wealth; Bad for National Security<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: left;">
Greg Sargent <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/02/20/new-study-badly-undermines-gop-position-on-sequester/?hpid=z4">writes at the Plumlin</a>e:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
If anything, that position is made worse by the new study’s finding [that increasing income inequality is driven by the shift of wealthy peoples' income from wages to dividends and capital gains]. After all, Republicans are openly conceding the sequester will damage our national security, even as they refuse to avert it by agreeing to the closing of loopholes benefiting the wealthy — even though this would likely be part of a deal in which they got <em style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">more</em> in spending cuts than they’d be conceding in new revenues! As the new study shows, those benefiting from GOP opposition to any new revenues are doing extremely well indeed — lending more ammo to the Democratic argument that Republicans would sooner damage our military and economy than ask for a penny in new revenues from the very rich.</blockquote>
<br />
<script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-21676276-1']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script><br />
<div>
You can find the study to which he refers <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2207372">here</a>.</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-28521829303966525832013-02-12T11:00:00.000-05:002013-02-12T11:00:05.993-05:00DCExile's 2013 State of the Union Drinking Game<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>We shall from time to time create a drinking game . . .</i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Yes, dear Reader, it is that time of the year again. The invitation has been sent. The speech is in its final draft. All that remains is the delivery itself (and the pre-game show, the pre-pre-game show, the introduction by the Sergeant at Arms, the handshakes, the standing ovations, and doubtless some display of incivility on the part of Tea Party members of Congress). With that in mind, we humbly submit to you our annual rules (see <a href="http://dcexile.blogspot.com/2012/01/dcexiles-2012-state-of-union-drinking.html">2012</a>, <a href="http://dcexile.blogspot.com/2011/01/dcexiles-2011-state-of-union-drinking.html">2011</a> rules) for consuming alcohol while viewing that Constitutionally-mandated presidential rite: the State of the Union.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- Pre-game show rules: one shot of bourbon, one blow to the head from a ball-peen hammer each time Erin Burnett appears on screen. </span></span></b><br />
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></b>
<b id="internal-source-marker_0.8600661822129041" style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- “Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States!” On that statement, drink one flute of champagne. After all, we’re still celebrating it’s BHO again and not that other guy.</span></span></b><br />
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></b>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- Speaking of the other guy, <a href="http://www.hulu.com/watch/423753">drink a carton of milk</a>. That joke will never get old.</span></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></b><span style="vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">- Each time the President says "immigration reform," pour a half shot of </span><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">tequila</span><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"> into a half shot of bourbon. It'll all be American soon.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></b><b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- Each time the President says "nuclear arms" shake up your beer can and try to drink it without any spillage. </span></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></b><b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- Each time the camera shows a shot of the Al Green(TX-9) take a drink while attempting to howl</span></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></b><b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- Each time a Republican-appointed Supreme Court Justice is on camera, do a slammer shot and yell, "Order in the court!"</span></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></b><b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- Each time the President says “bipartisanship” pull out a clump of your hair, put it into a shot glass of 151, and set the whole thing on fire. Drink at your peril--and the country’s.</span></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></b><b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- Each time there's a camera shot of Sen. McConnell take a shot of Kentucky Gentleman and say "Hello Clarice."</span></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></b><b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- Each time John Boehner tears up, do a waterfall. You don’t stop until he does. God help us all.</span></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></b><b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- Each time the camera shows Michelle Obama drink a Cosmo and do a set of curls.</span></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></b><b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- Each time the President mentions infrastructure, chug one can of American beer (your humble authors suggest Dale’s Pale Ale or Pabst Blue Ribbon), place it intact on your coffee table, and construct a pyramid. If you can still see the TV over the pyramid by the end of the State of the Union, consider the speech a missed opportunity.</span></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></b><b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- Each time a Republican is rude, uncivil, or otherwise disrespectful of the President, take one shot of tequila mixed with sugar because somethings aren’t improved by any amount of sugarcoating. </span></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></b><b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- If the Pope is mentioned, eat a saltine and enjoy a glass of Carlo Rossi. Bonus: write your own name on a piece of paper, set it aflame, and wait pensively for the smoke to turn white. It’s going to be a long couple of months, folks.</span></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></b></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- If the President mentions or otherwise hints at the possibility of one of his nominees being held up or otherwise filibustered, take <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution">(Article) Two</a> shots of rye whiskey and shout, "j'accuse!" at the television. Bonus: If at this point the camera pans to Lindsey Graham (R-SC), throw a copy of the 9/11 Report at the screen. </span></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></b><b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- If the President mentions Afghanistan, drink an entire bottle of Johnnie Walker Red: Keep Walking.</span></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></b><b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- If the President mentions health care reform, drink one shot of mouthwash. To your health!</span></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></b><b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- If the President mentions Syria, eat one spoonful of humus mixed with shards of glass.</span></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></b></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- If the President mentions voting or election reform, enjoy one tall glass of Budweiser because, although it used to be made in America, it's done right by the Belgians anymore. </span></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></b></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- Each time the camera pans to Ted Nugent, take one long pull off a bottle of vodka and air guitar "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh0iDVsmLqw">Cat Scratch Fever</a>."</span></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></b></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- Each time the camera pans to the <a href="http://www.newser.com/article/da4d093o0/first-ladys-102-year-old-state-of-the-union-guest-waited-3-hours-tried-twice-to-vote.html">First Lady's 102 year old guest</a>, set aside one sip of sweet vermouth to be consumed two hours hence. Don't forget to drink . . . I mean, vote.</span></b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">And that's all for the State of the Union, folks. Our only advice to you for the post-game shows is take all remaining booze, beer, shards of glass, humus, mouthwash, and sugar, blend over ice, and hope it's strong enough to knock you out for the next six months. We'll wake you when the political capital is spent and we're in much the same place we are today.</span></span></div>
<script type="text/javascript"> var _gaq = _gaq || []; _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-21676276-1']); _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']); (function() { var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true; ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s); })();</script></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-31386750595228876922013-02-03T10:06:00.000-05:002013-02-03T10:06:03.655-05:00Rendition vs. Rendition or Adjectives Matter<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">On New Year’s Day, <a href="http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-01/world/36323571_1_obama-administration-interrogation-drone-strikes">Craig Whitlock reported in the <i>Washington Post</i></a> an August 2012 arrest by local authorities of three Somali men
transiting Djibouti in August who were then interrogated by FBI agents and transferred
to U.S. custody to face charges in the United States in Article III
courts. After this depiction, Whitlock
concludes that “the Obama administration has embraced rendition,” declaring
that they have “tak[en] on renewed significance because the administration and
Congress have not reached agreement on a consistent legal pathway for
apprehending terrorism suspects overseas and bringing them to justice.” He
clearly links the Obama administration’s practice to the Bush administration
practice, impliedly asking us to see this as yet another example of Obama
carrying on his predecessor’s counterterrorism tactics (and getting away with
it without criticism):</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The men are the latest example of how the Obama
administration has embraced rendition — <b>the practice of holding and
interrogating terrorism suspects in other countries without due process —
despite widespread condemnation of the tactic in the years after the Sept. 11,
2001, attacks.</b> (emphasis mine).</span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></o:p><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But the practice Whitlock describes through the
August 2012 vignette is not the practice as he defines it in the emphasized
quotation above. Whitlock describes the
arrest of suspects, their transfer apparently without extradition or other
judicial process to the United States, and their subsequent indictment and
trial. The Bush-era practice—the one subject to “widespread condemnation . . .
in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks”—involved detaining individuals
in one country, transporting them to a third country, and then torturing them.
These individuals were not indicted, they were not provided attorneys, in fact
there was little expectation that these individuals would be heard from again.
Examples of the Bush-era practice include the abduction of Osama Moustafa
Hassan Nasr in Milan in 2003 and his subsequent transfer to Egypt to be
tortured—</span><a href="http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/02/01/cia_agents_convicted_in_extraordinary_rendition_kidnapping_of_egyptian_terror_suspect_in_italy.html" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">26 Americans have been convicted by an Italian court in absentia forthis incident</a><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">—and the 2003 mistaken arrest of Khalid el-Masri by Macedonian
police, his transfer to U.S. authorities, and his being held or tortured in
Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2004, after the U.S. realized that el-Masri was
mistakenly detained, he was flown to Albania and deposited on the side of a road
at night.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">If these practices—the ongoing Obama administration
practice described by Whitlock and the Bush-era practice—sound substantially
different to you, that is because they are. The Obama administration is engaged
in a practice Whitlock correctly identifies as <i>rendition</i>. The Bush-era
practice Whitlock invites us to remember is known as <i>extraordinary rendition</i>.
The adjective matters a great deal.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Rendition is a practice greatly predates September
11, 2001—see, for example, this 1934 <a href="http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/bulr14&div=28&id=&page=">BU law review article</a> on the practice. It
is also exactly as Whitlock describes it: “The return of a fugitive from one
state to the state where the fugitive is accused or convicted of a crime.” 8
ed. Black’s Law Dictionary. Rendition allows states to avoid the normal legal
procedure of extradition when there are barriers to extradition like the
absence of an extradition treaty, or the absence of a similar crime in each
jurisdiction, or when extradition might be unfeasible for political reasons.
Rendition is certainly not the normal mode of business between states, and it
may circumvent due process rights the accused is entitled to, but it is not
uncommon and its purpose is to expose the rendered individual to judicial
process: either trial or the execution of a sentence for conviction. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">What makes extraordinary rendition <i>extraordinary</i>
is that its purpose is not to bring the target before a court for trial or to
otherwise subject the target to judicial process. No, the point of
extraordinary rendition is to avoid judicial process altogether—to cause an
individual to disappear, be held incommunicado, and extract intelligence not
evidence from that individual. What made the practice so heinous in the Bush
administration is not merely its lack of transparency or accountability but
rather that its opacity facilitated torture.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So, yes, the Obama administration is using <i>ordinary
</i>rendition. Is this shocking? No. Is it in anyway similar to the abduction,
black sites, and torture used in the Bush administration? No. Adjectives
matter.</span></div>
<script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-21676276-1']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-65004026263736546392013-01-31T11:05:00.001-05:002013-01-31T11:05:20.013-05:00Gun Control via Liability Insurance<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<i>This post is cross-listed on <a href="http://cornfields2thecapitol.blogspot.com/2013/01/gun-control-via-liability-insurance.html">From Corn Fields to the Capitol</a>.</i><br />
<br />
NPR has a really great post tied to a story they ran on Morning Edition this morning. In it some experts suggest one practical way to achieve a measure of gun control and price in the potential for negative externalities is by <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/01/31/170700177/should-gun-owners-have-to-buy-liability-insurance">requiring gun owners to purchase liability insurance</a>. If you own a gun you must also purchase a liability policy to cover the cost of any damage your gun incurs, very similar to the requirement many states have requiring car owners have, at minimum, liability insurance. But there's another wrinkle that could be throw in there. Here's Prof. Justin Wolfers from the University of Michigan:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Another even more powerful approach is to recognize that the problem isn't guns per se, but gun violence. Thus, instead of taxing guns, we should tax gun violence. Basically, this is the same as saying that we should make gun owners liable for any damage their guns do. Not only would this discourage some people from buying guns, it would lead those who do keep guns to be more careful with how they're stored. Indeed, greater care would surely have kept Adam Lanza out of his mother's cache. The problem though, is that Nancy Lanza is neither with us to pay the damages her gun caused, nor could she afford to pay for the enormous damage her gun wrought in Newtown. And so the only way this solution works is if guns required mandatory liability insurance, much as we force car owners to buy insurance for the damage their machines wreak.</blockquote>
This is an intriguing solution to me, and one I think may sportsmen and women would find very compelling. I know my dad would. He's a card carrying member of the NRA, hunter, gun enthusiast, and all the rest. In the wake of the tragedy at Newton our annual Christmas Eve dinner started out talking about gun control. You won't find a bigger proponent of the second amendment, but you won't find a bigger proponent of individual responsibility either. He thought it made perfect sense that if your gun is used in a crime, you are charged as if you had committed the crime. What if the gun is stolen? Did you report it? Was it locked in a gun safe or did you have a trigger lock on it?<br />
<br />
Of course, the trouble with requiring the purchase of "gun insurance" or "gun violence insurance" is that some people just won't buy it. Here's Russ Roberts a research fellow at the Hoover Institution:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[T]he logic is not quite as neat as it might appear. Many people already buy and own guns illegally without license or registration. Adding the cost of insurance would further discourage honest gun ownership. That would make matters worse not better. And is it so obvious that all guns are harmful to others and that gun ownership should be made more expensive to every owner?</blockquote>
Point taken, but we know there are folks on the road who don't have liability insurance. It's part of the landscape, but it doesn't mean doing this is a bad idea. It was a bit like Mr. Wayne LaPierre at the Senate Hearing yesterday <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/01/30/lapierre-more-background-checks-not-the-answer/">saying background checks wouldn't do anything, so we shouldn't do them</a>. Wonder what he would think about requiring liability insurance to be purchased.<br />
<br />
Also, if you didn't see this Daily Show segment about how hard it is for the ATF to do it's job, a job Mr. LaPierre said it should be doing, you're missing out.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
!!!!<br />
<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font: 11px arial; height: 340px; width: 512px;"><tbody>
<tr style="background-color: #e5e5e5;" valign="middle"><td style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" style="color: #333333; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">The Daily Show with Jon Stewart</a></td><td style="font-weight: bold; padding: 2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align: right;">Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 14px;" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-16-2013/there-goes-the-boom---atf" style="color: #333333; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">There Goes the Boom - ATF</a></td></tr>
<tr style="background-color: #353535; height: 14px;" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align: right; width: 512px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" style="color: #96deff; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">www.thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 0px;"><embed allowfullscreen="true" allownetworking="all" allowscriptaccess="always" bgcolor="#000000" flashvars="autoPlay=false" height="288" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:422933" style="display: block;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="512" wmode="window"></embed></td></tr>
<tr style="height: 18px;" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 0px;"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="height: 100%px; margin: 0px; text-align: center; width: 100%px;"><tbody>
<tr valign="middle"><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/" style="color: #333333; font: 10px arial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Daily Show Full Episodes</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.indecisionforever.com/" style="color: #333333; font: 10px arial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Political Humor & Satire Blog</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow" style="color: #333333; font: 10px arial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">The Daily Show on Facebook</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; line-height: 21px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-21676276-1']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-32001555589110539282013-01-26T14:37:00.000-05:002013-01-26T14:38:01.178-05:00The Changing Nature of War?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This from <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/01/women-who-fight.html">Dexter Filkins writing in the <i>New Yorker</i></a> about the revocation of the U.S. military's ban on women in combat irked me:</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Notions of equality aside, the real factor that rendered the “non-combat” distinction meaningless was the changing nature of the wars. In an old-style conflict like, say, the Second World War, big, uniformed armies squared off against other big, uniformed armies. In a war like that, driving a truck in a supply convoy, or briefing reporters on the days’ events, could be deemed relatively safe. As long as you were behind the lines, your chances of getting killed were small. But in Iraq and Afghanistan there are no front lines. Or, as the troops on the ground say, the front line is where you are.</span></blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; font-size: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px;">
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Filkins is write that insurgencies are messy and are largely fought without front lines in the way we often imagine European-style warfare in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. But insurgencies are not new and that the United States has faced two in the last twelve years is hardly reflective of the changing nature of war. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Don't misunderstand me: Filkins' point that the distinction between combat and non-combat jobs--and the supposed protection this distinction afforded female servicemembers--was fairly meaningless in Iraq and Afghanistan is not lost on me. But Filkins wrongly locates the cause of the distinction's meaninglessness in a non-existent paradigm shift in the nature of warfare itself. It is not warfare that has changed but the composition of the U.S. armed forces. Even in Filkins' imagined World War II, women driving supply convoys would be frequent targets of attack. Airborne interdiction played a prominent role in World War II. In North Africa and the Italian campaign, for example, the U.S. Army Air Corps attacked supply depots, ports, and even the ferries traveling over the Messina Straits. Had women soldiers been used by Axis forces to pilot those ferries or load or unload materiel at ports, then female soldiers would have been killed there. </span></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-24092728715995191122013-01-23T10:30:00.000-05:002013-01-23T10:30:03.490-05:00Diplomacy Isn't Dead<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<i>This post is cross-listed on DC Exile and <a href="http://cornfields2thecapitol.blogspot.com/">From Corn Fields to the Capitol</a>, Jason's new wider ranging blog.</i><br />
<br />
Writing in the New York Times, Roger Cohen has a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/22/opinion/global/roger-cohen-diplomacy-is-dead.html?_r=0">column up claiming flatly "[d]iplomacy is dead."</a> He feels the U.S. will never achieve a diplomatic accomplishment to rival Nixon's trip to China or the peaceful <span style="font-family: inherit;">dissolution of the Soviet Union. While, I'm inclined to agree on the latter example, I think Mr. Cohen doth protest too much declaring diplomacy dead.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit;">He rightfully criticizes our current age of, "<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 25.59375px;">impatience, changeableness, palaver, small-mindedness and an unwillingness to talk to bad guys.</span>" He notes the role of professional diplomats has been squeezed in this country because of our post-9/11 focus on non-state actors, which have more visibly involved the armed forces and the CIA, then the State Department. Again, I agree.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit;">But I think he goes too far when he laments the end of realpolitik, but cites Syria as an example of diplomacy failing. I'd tend to think many a realist would size up Syria, even back two years ago, and say there is an not imminent national interest there. Indeed realpo</span>litik isn't for the squeamish, but it seems like that's the cold-hearted analysis driving the lack of U.S. engagement in the country today.<br />
<br />
He goes a bit too far when he cites three long standing thorns in the paw of U.S. foreign policy: Cuba, Iran, and Israel-Palestine. These thorns have been lodged for 52, 34, and 65 years respectfully. And while I'd agree sometimes these three issues are used to scare up domestic constituencies I think to cite them as diplomatic failures is to ignore the facts.<br />
<br />
In Cuba, we had a dictator that was uninterested in seeking a change in relations with us for nearly all the 52 years of the dispute. But now with a new leader there has been some thawing out of relations with revised travel permissions and a continentially slow creep of capitalism into the country. You must have a willing partner to make a diplomatic break through and I'd dare say slow and steady still wins this race.<br />
<br />
In Iran, much like Cuba, we find a ruling authority quite disinterested in making peace with us. And yet, diplomacy has happened around the edges. Have we normalized relations? No. Have we convinced Iran to give up any supposed nuclear ambitions? No. But you can't call the ballgame in the third quarter.<br />
<br />
With respect to Israel and Palestine, you're dealing with two parties whose own political machinations have made a lasting peace agreement fall in and out of vogue. This is an old conflict and America isn't quite seen as an honest broker. It's hard to fix something so entrenched, which is why so many past efforts have failed To declare diplomacy dead because the U.S. hasn't facilitated a peace agreement in the Middle East is to raise the bar to dizzying heights and tell the competitor to jump flat footed from the floor.<br />
<br />
Mr. Cohen also dismisses two big diplomatic successes, namely Burma and Libya. He mentions Burma but glosses over how the U.S. diplomatically engineered the opening up of the country with carrot extended only in reward for desirable behavior. It was peaceful, it was orderly, and it appears to be genuine. If that's not diplomacy in action, I don't know what is.<br />
<br />
With regard to Libya, I'm talking Libya 2003 when Gaddafi voluntarily gave up nuclear weapons without a shot fired. Again, this is a success story for diplomacy, even more so given what would follow eight years later. Imagine a nuclear armed Libya disintegrating into revolution. Surely that we avoided such a scenario should prove diplomacy isn't dead.<br />
<br />
Indeed, diplomacy isn't dead. It's alive and well and working all over the world. As we look to continue to manage the Arab Spring, as we look to manage a rising China, and as we face all manner of international challenges, we know there are diplomats around the world engaging in diplomacy. It's not often flashy, it's unlikely to be trending on Twitter, but it's happening nonetheless and we'll see it from time to time when the moment is right.<br />
<script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-21676276-1']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-5549043520835523252013-01-02T16:51:00.000-05:002013-01-02T16:51:54.056-05:00Think Again, Again: GOP Foreign Policy Soul Searching<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Over at Foreign Policy, Danielle Pletka, vice president for foreign and defense studies at the American Enterprise Institute has a <a href="http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/01/02/think_again_the_republican_party?page=0,0">"Think Again" piece</a> trying to both reassure and direct today's GOP toward some sort of foreign policy coherence. Pletka encourages the GOP to return to being "the bedrock of U.S. defense." There are a myriad of things in the post I could quibble with, not the least of which is the preceding quote, but let's I'm going to pick just a few to focus on.</span><div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;">1) Foreign Policy Doctrine is dramatically overrated</span></i></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Sure we've had a lot of doctrines. Some were <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny">rested in the divine</a>, some helped <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine">safeguard our nascent revolution</a>, some were about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truman_Doctrine">containment</a>, and some were about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_Doctrine">putting a fist on the scale</a>. Pletka clearly pines for the Reagan Doctrine and speaks glowingly of how "<span style="background-color: white; color: #1f1f1f; line-height: 23.149999618530273px;">Reagan stirred the pot and worked with like-minded allies to oust communist dictators.</span>" Nevermind some of those "dictators" were duly elected. They were on the wrong team.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The example of Iran-Contra and Reagan's Latin American misadventures highlight the problem of doctrine. A doctrine can be a box, limiting options, the scale of a response, and neglecting the contours of a specific conflict. Perhaps I'm wishy washy but all the studying of the world I've done suggests the actors are too complex to be reduced to a simple doctrine and when we've tried, we've ended up doing things that seem, well, un-American.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;">2) Moral Imperatives are in the eye of the beholder</span></i></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Pletka takes a lot of time talking about the distinction between Republicans and Democrats and how that difference centers around values and a feeling of a moral imperative. She says:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #1f1f1f; line-height: 23.149999618530273px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">In the simplest terms, values are what divide us from them and them from us. There are those who believe that American values form a moral imperative for U.S. power in the world -- that because U.S. democracy is among the world's most durable and just, the United States has an obligation (not merely the occasional inclination) to help others attain the benefits of a free society. That is what Republicans have stood for abroad and the distinction they must now again draw with their Democratic counterparts.</span></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I've a lot to take issue with. First off, is it a settled questioned that our democracy is the "most durable and just?" Haven't there been countless pieces on how broken our political system is? Aren't there a bevy of laws on offer in no small number of the states designed to disenfranchise as they chase after a voter fraud problem that doesn't exist? Isn't the durability of a democracy threatened with the distinction between the two parties foreign policies is rooted in the argument that one has "values" and the other does not? Doesn't a "moral imperative" sound a lot like a crusade? And where does waterboarding fall under American values?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I think it's fair to say all Americans would like the peoples of the world to enjoy our many freedoms and live in similar prosperity to what we have achieved, but let's not forget our own pyramid is unfinished. Let's not wrap those hopes in "American Exceptionalism" to the disregard of British Exceptionalism or Japanese Exceptionalism. I'm not prepared equate exceptional with superior. Pletka is and wants the GOP to do the same.</span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>3) The Soviet Union =/= Al Qaeda (and AQIP =/= AQIM)</i></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">As is the want of many listless Republicans, Pletka waxes nostalgic for the Reagan years and a foreign policy rooted in opposition to a known enemy, the evil empire. Pletka suggests </span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #1f1f1f; line-height: 23.149999618530273px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">[A] new Republican foreign policy recommitted to the idea that where the United States is able to identify a strategic and moral imperative -- as in the fight against the Soviet Union or the battle against Islamic extremism -- it is in America's interests to use its power to help shape a safer world.</span></span></blockquote>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #1f1f1f; font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 23.149999618530273px;">This is a dangerous comparison. The fight against the Soviet Union and the fight against terrorists who wrap themselves in Islamic rhetoric are incredibly different and require incredibly different solutions. Also, this leads back to the challenges created by something like a doctrine and being motivated by a moral imperative. Imagine a Truman Doctrine for Islamic extremism. What would it look like? Would we undermine any Islamist government? Be prepared to invade? If our motivation is a moral imperative that sounds a lot like a crusade to save </span><span style="line-height: 23.133333206176758px;">heathen</span><span style="line-height: 23.149999618530273px;"> masses, are we really improving our safety or just fomenting more hate? It is simpler to stand in opposition to an ideology embodied by a country. There is symmetry there, but we lack similar symmetry in our fight against terrorists who are as Islamic as the KKK is Christian (West Wing shout out).</span></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #1f1f1f; font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 23.149999618530273px;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #1f1f1f; font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 23.149999618530273px;">And that lack of symmetry leads to a sidebar rant. Al Qaeda is not a uniform entity. It is a series of disparate franchises with a myriad of motivations and leaders. Every article like this that speaks simply of an Al Qaeda threat does us a disservice by perpetuating the misconception that the organization is monolithic and dramatically overstates the ability of any specific franchise to pose an existential threat to the United States.</span></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>4) Money Doesn't Equal Effectiveness</i></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">One final note on this, since I had an argument with my mother about this over the holidays. Pletka makes the comment repeatedly that the GOP should advocate for a well funded defense and get rid of the notion of cutting the defense budget. It's certainly been a winning strategy in the past, but it's not grounded in reality or the requirements to fight the threats we face today.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Pletka is actually dismissive of the amount and percentage of GDP the US spends on defense. She notes:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #1f1f1f; line-height: 23.149999618530273px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The truth is the United States spends remarkably little on defense. The Pentagon's budget now represents about 4 percent of GDP, close to the lowest proportion in modern history. It is eminently affordable. Yet the country is on track to cut more than $1 trillion in military spending over the next decade. The lion's share of spending is not on operations or weapons systems, as some believe; nearly 50 percent of spending goes to veterans' benefits and uniformed and civilian personnel. So what can be cut? A better question is: What would America like to stop doing?</span></span></blockquote>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #1f1f1f; line-height: 23.149999618530273px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Now the 4% number is closer to 5% according to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures">Wikipedia</a> and the <a href="http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?order=wbapi_data_value_2011+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=asc">World Bank</a>, but let's move past the conversation of the percentage of GDP, even if that 4.7% equals 41% of the world's spending on defense. My issue is thinking money equals effectiveness. Our national security threats have changed. We are technologically ahead of any and all our closest competitors and the Chinese boogeyman sitting just in the background of the entire post is only spending 2% of its GDP on defense. That's not the spending habits of a global power looking to have military parity to the U.S. It is ham handed to suggest and try to sell to the American people that our safety is entirely related to the amount of money we spend on defense. It's also bad policy.</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #1f1f1f; line-height: 23.149999618530273px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #1f1f1f; line-height: 23.149999618530273px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">-----------------------------------</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #1f1f1f; line-height: 23.149999618530273px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The bottom line: Pletka offers some ideas that would sound appealing on the stump, but they aren't good policy. They aren't ideas that move our country forward, rather they're designed to get the GOP some foreign policy points while doing nothing to help our national security. Perhaps that was the point of the exercise for Pletka, but I'd hoped for more distinction and less window dressing.</span></span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-73626098156378313712012-12-30T19:20:00.001-05:002012-12-30T19:58:09.431-05:00Due Process and Drone Strikes <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Micah Zenko, who normally does outstanding work at
the Council on Foreign Relations, got a bit sloppy with his <a href="http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/12/28/the_year_in_quotes">“Year in Quotes”</a> at
</span><i style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Foreign Policy</i><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">.</span><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Among the twenty
quotes that Zenko describes as “puzzling, hypocritical, and revealing” </span><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">is the following:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">4. Attorney General Eric Holder: "An
individual's interest in making sure that the government does not target him
erroneously could not be more significant." ("Remarks at Northwestern
University School of Law," March 5, 2012.)</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Holder offered this remarkable observation during
a landmark speech that provided the Obama administration's justification for
why U.S. citizens can be killed, </span><b style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">and why secret Executive Branch discussions
are sufficient to deprive a citizen of his Sixth Amendment right to due
process.</b></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> (emphasis
mine). While Attorney General Holder did
give a speech at Northwestern’s Law School defending U.S. counterterrorism
policies, his defense of the targeted killing of (presumably) Anwar al-Aulaqi
did not center around the Sixth Amendment but the Fifth Amendment. The Sixth Amendment deals with criminal
procedures like trial by jury whereas the Fifth Amendment deals with Due
Process. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">More importantly, Holder did not argue that “Executive
Branch discussions are sufficient to deprive a citizen of his [Fifth Amendment]
right to due process.” Rather, Holder rightly
argued that Fifth Amendment protections exist on a continuum that balances
individual rights against the interests of the state. That is, the amount of process owed to an individual
depends on the significance of liberty the individual will be deprived of and
the significance of the state’s interest in depriving the individual of that
liberty. Obviously, life is a
fundamental individual interest but likewise the state’s interest in survival
is paramount:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Now, it is an unfortunate but undeniable fact that
some of the threats we face come from a small number of United States citizens
who have decided to commit violent attacks against their own country from
abroad. Based on generations-old legal
principles and Supreme Court decisions handed down during World War II, as well
as during this current conflict, it’s clear that United States citizenship
alone does not make such individuals immune from being targeted. But it does mean that the government must
take into account all relevant constitutional considerations with respect to United
States citizens – even those who are leading efforts to kill innocent
Americans. Of these, the most relevant
is the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which says that the government may
not deprive a citizen of his or her life without due process of law.<br /> </span><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Supreme Court has made clear that the Due
Process Clause does not impose one-size-fits-all requirements, but instead
mandates procedural safeguards that depend on specific circumstances. In cases arising under the Due Process
Clause – including in a case involving a U.S. citizen captured in the conflict
against al Qaeda – the Court has applied a balancing approach, weighing the
private interest that will be affected against the interest the government is
trying to protect, and the burdens the government would face in providing
additional process. Where national
security operations are at stake, due process takes into account the realities
of combat.</span><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Here, the interests on both sides of the scale are
extraordinarily weighty. An individual’s
interest in making sure that the government does not target him erroneously
could not be more significant. Yet it
is imperative for the government to counter threats posed by senior operational
leaders of al Qaeda, and to protect the innocent people whose lives could be
lost in their attacks.</span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In the case of Anwar al-Aulaqi and other U.S.
citizens who are actively waging an armed conflict against the United States,
Holder is asserting that state owes those individuals a fairly small amount of process
compared to, say, an individual who is accused of murder. This is not terribly
controversial—consider, as Holder analogizes, the case of U.S. citizens who
fought for Nazi Germany during World War II or U.S. citizens who were in
rebellion during the Civil War. In each of these cases, it would be
preposterous to assert that it was incumbent upon the United States to single
out U.S. citizens fighting in opposition to the United States, serve them with
warrants, and try them for domestic law violations. No, these citizens exhaust heavily weight the
due process balancing test in favor of summary state action by taking up arms
with the enemy and actively opposing the United States.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The discomfort that arises in the case of
al-Aulaqi and others is that these citizens were singled out for targeted strikes.
But this discomfort is misplaced—at least in Zenko’s formulation. We are not discomfited
by a supposed violation of the due process clause but, rather, by the notion of
targeted killings in general—a notion that we too easily conflate with
assassination. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-21676276-1']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-50130587761692039952012-10-03T16:05:00.000-04:002012-10-03T16:05:41.962-04:00Presidential Debate #1 Drinking Game<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Tonight is the first of three presidential debates, and while everyone agrees the main event is really Uncle Joe versus Paul Ryan Hayek, your editors felt a drinking game was necessary. So without further ado, here are the drinking game rules for Presidential Debate #1.</span><script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-21676276-1']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script><br />
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<div class="im" style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
- When Romney starts his opening statement take a shot of milk.</div>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">- When Obama starts his opening statement take two shots of Evan Williams whiskey, to compensate for Romney's sobriety and Obama is a "man of the people".</span></div>
<div>
<div class="im" style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="im" style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
- Every time a candidate says the word "Jobs" put a nickel in your pocket. You're going to need the savings after your laid off.</div>
<div class="im" style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<br />
- Every time stimulus is mentioned take a swig of beer and tweak your nipple</div>
<div class="im" style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<br />
- Every time Romney has a zinger take a shot of Jaegermiester and roll your eyes</div>
<div class="im" style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="im" style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<div class="im">
- Every time Obama or Romney says "Obamacare" lick the bar. Don't worry, you're most likely covered by insurance now.</div>
- If you're a woman, take your free birth control pill with a cosmo chase</div>
<div class="im" style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="im" style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
- Every time Salt Lake City Olympics are mentioned, enjoy a cup of hot cocoa with extra government subsidized sugar to really sweeten its success. </div>
<div class="im" style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="im" style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
- Every time Obama says Osama finish your beer.<br />
- Every time Romney says Osama, but means Obama smash your glass over the head of the person to your right</div>
</div>
<div class="im" style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<br /></div>
<div>
<div class="im" style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
- Every time Obama or Romney talks about their "plan" for anything, spin in place three times. When you stop and are dizzy the explanation of the plan will make perfect sense.</div>
<div class="im" style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<br />
- Every time Romney speaks to his kinship with the one of seven states he claims to be from chug a beer from that state.</div>
<div class="im" style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
- Every time you hear the words "business" or "equity" order a glass of scotch and light a dollar bill on fire.<br />
<br /></div>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
- Every time Romney mentions "apologizing for America," drink a Budweiser and thank God you can still have all American beer. <a href="http://articles.marketwatch.com/2008-07-14/news/30710150_1_inbev-offer-anheuser-busch-inbev-belgian-brazilian">Wait, maybe not</a>.</span></div>
<div>
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">- If Obama mentions Romney's taxes, returns, or rate, finish your drink and flee the bar without paying your tab.</span></div>
<div>
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">- When the Republicans in the audience violate the rules by cheering or booing, have an old fashion and lament what could have been had this President recognized the futility of working with the GOP at the outset.</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"> </span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">- Anytime Obama mentions the 47% tell the barkeep to put your drinks on the government tab</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
- Anytime "you didn't build that" comes up yell, "Take your government hands off my Medicare!" at the top of your lungs. Take a shot of schnapps for medicinal purposes.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
Finally, when the debate is over and the candidates shake hands, order a bottle of Tsing Tao because we're all going to belong to the Chinese regardless of the election.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-23178005923145780332012-09-29T11:45:00.000-04:002012-09-29T16:37:02.432-04:00Sovereignty and Inapt Analogies<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">On Wednesday, the <i><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444100404577641520858011452.html">Wall Street Journal</a></i>
published a stunning article detailing the interaction between the United
States and Pakistan—the CIA and the ISI, really—that the United States
interprets as Pakistani consent for drone strikes. The CIA faxes a geographic description of
where strikes will take place. Pakistan
does nothing—previously, the ISI would fax a response acknowledging receipt of
the description. The United States
effectively equates its notice with Pakistani consent and goes forth with drone
strikes. It bear emphasis here that
Pakistan does take positive steps that indicate consent, such as clearing
airspace in the region described in the faxes.
That said, the question of what constitutes actual consent by one state
for another state to violate the first state’s sovereignty is extraordinarily
deep. <a href="http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/09/implied-consent-in-drone-strikes-congressional-briefings-dorm-rooms-and-property-disputes/">Lawfare and Brooking’s Benjamin Wittes offers this</a>:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In many
ways, the CIA here is only behaving towards Pakistan the way it behaves every
day in briefing Congress on covert actions. Members of Congress listen to
briefers and often stay silent so as to be able to criticize the operation if
it goes bad and not be too implicated in it. The CIA, in turn, has learned to
consider such silence to be the intelligence committees’ consent: The agency,
after all, has given the committees the information they need to stop a program
and they have not acted to do so. Here it is really treating the ISI the same
way. (Never mind that the if the Pakistanis acted to stop the strikes, the U.S.
would probably consider that evidence that the country was unwilling or unable
to stop terrorist activity emanating from Pakistan’s soil—and consider <em><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in;">that</span></em><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>to be legal grounds for U.S.
unilateral action on Pakistani territory.)</span><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">. . .<br /> </span><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">On the
other had, there’s a long history in property rights disputes of flagrant
assertions of right leading to legally recognizable claims–squatters who
acquire residency rights, residents who over time acquire title, and the like.
So whether implied consent has any legs is highly dependent on context.</span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">For the moment, let us put aside the question of
whether implied consent is sufficient consent for one state to authorize a
violation of its sovereignty. As noted,
this is a deep question and requires, at the least, a discussion of the international
community’s evolving understanding of sovereignty, and the debate between strong-
and weak-sovereignty proponents—the debate that underlies the debate over R2P. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Instead, let us consider Wittes’ comparisons of
supposed Pakistani permission for U.S. drone strikes to the interaction between
the CIA and Congressional intelligence committees, and adverse possession. Both comparisons are inapt and, with respect
to adverse possession, Wittes clearly misunderstands its operation.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Wittes’ analogy between Congressional intelligence
committees and Pakistan suggests that the CIA derives its authority to conduct
operations in general from notifying Congress of an action and Congress failing
to object. But this is not correct. The CIA’s authority to conduct
operations—actually, the President’s authority to conduct covert actions—does not
derive from prior notification to Congress met by Congressional silence. Instead, the President’s authority comes from
prior Congressional grant in a variety of acts including the National Security
Act of 1947, as amended, and the Intelligence Authorization Act of 1991. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Congressional notification of covert actions is an
accountability mechanism but Congress’ reaction to the notification—silence or
vociferous endorsements—does not change the legality of the covert action. So long as the action satisfies the other
legal requirements including a presidential finding, the notice is just that:
notice. Notice is necessary for the
action to be executed but Congressional reaction—positive, negative, or neutral—is
immaterial. Congress could, of course,
legislate to prevent or specifically authorize a given covert action. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In contrast, there is no supervening license to
violate sovereignty in international law—with the notable exception of
self-defense. Instead, sovereignty is
presumptively inviolable and international law’s overarching norm is non-interference. So far as we know, Pakistan has not provided the
United States with a broad license to violate Pakistani sovereignty. In the absence of such a grant—and under extant
international law—mere notice (acknowledged or otherwise) is insufficient. Thus, Wittes’ Congress-Pakistan comparison is
inapposite. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">If Congressional silence upon notification has
taught the CIA to treat silence as authorization in all situations regardless
of the applicable legal regime then the CIA’s very capable lawyers have failed
singularly in this instance. That
strikes me as unlikely.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Wittes’ analogy between adverse possession and
authorization for drone strikes is similarly unpersuasive. But unlike Congressional authorization contingent
upon notice, which is a regime founded on actual authorization with notice
acting as an accountability mechanism, adverse possession by its nature
unauthorized. Indeed, the term
itself—adverse possession—suggests that it is possession without consent. It is the process by which one person gains
title to another person’s property through squatting. But adverse possession requires <i>hostile</i>
possession of another person’s property—once consent is given, the process of
title acquisition via adverse possession is interrupted. You see, not only does adverse possession not
result in consent, consent is actually fatal to adverse possession. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">While Wittes is most certainly correct that what
constitutes consent is context dependent, analogies are only useful in so far
as they share similar premises. In
employing these two inapt analogies, Wittes not only fails to elucidate the
real issues of sovereignty implicated by U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, he downplays—wrongly
in my estimation—the serious concerns raised by the CIA’s novel practice. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>UPDATE:</b> <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/yemeni-president-acknowledges-approving-us-drone-strikes/2012/09/29/09bec2ae-0a56-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_story.html?hpid=z1">Greg Miller in the <i>Washington Post</i></a> reports Saturday afternoon that Yemen's President approves every drone strike launched in Yemen. Such approval would be an example of actual consent.</span></div>
<script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-21676276-1']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-69226506912155936622012-09-27T07:47:00.000-04:002012-09-27T07:47:08.215-04:00The Least-Bad Option in Pakistan?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
Over at <i>the Atlantic</i>,<i> </i><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/09/targeted-killing-pro-and-con-what-to-make-of-obamas-afghan-drone-policy/262862/">JoshuaFoust</a> takes issue with the new Stanford and NYU report, <i><a href="http://livingunderdrones.org/">Living Under Drones</a></i>,
and argues that drone strikes are the least-bad option in Northwest
Pakistan. Says Foust: <o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="background: white; line-height: 15.05pt; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;">
In the short run, there aren't
better choices than drones. . . . <o:p></o:p></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Drones represent the choice with
the smallest set of drawbacks and adverse consequences. Reports like Living
Under Drones highlight the need for both more transparency from the US and
Pakistani governments, and for drawing attention to the social backlash against
their use in Pakistan. But they do not definitively build a case against drones
in general. Without a better alternative, drones are here to stay.</blockquote>
<div style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; line-height: 15.05pt; margin: 8.35pt 0in; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst">
But Foust is suffering from at least two ailments
common to the debate about drone strikes in Pakistan. The first is subscribing to the premise that
action—specifically U.S. action—is required; the second is lumping all drone
strikes against all targets in Northwest Pakistan together.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
Under the first ailment, observers and
policymakers presuppose that the situation in Northwest Pakistan demands
kinetic action. Across the spectrum of
vectors by which to deliver that kinetic action—drone strikes, U.S. military
incursions, Pakistani military actions—drones offer the least-bad option
because they offer a high degree of precision and the impact from individual
strikes is fairly circumscribed.
However, it is not entirely clear that military action is required—and,
even if some action is required, it is not clear that the scale of U.S. action
in Pakistan is appropriate. First, Northwest
Pakistan is home to a mélange of non-state actors pursuing varied agendas,
targeting different populations. The
correct approach to addressing these various actors is almost certainly not
uniform. Instead, responses ought to be
highly contextualized—drones, because of their relative ease of use, offer a
low-cost alternative to formulating complex policy. Second, to the extent that Foust is right and
all of these actors exist due to “the Pakistani government’s reluctance to
grant the FATA the political inclusion necessary for normal governance or to
establish an effective police force,” drone strikes offer a solution wholly
inapposite to the problem at hand.
Rather than in any way addressing the underlying causes that Foust
identifies, drones strikes substitute a tactic for a strategy and act as <a href="http://tiny.cc/rllalw">a mere—if perpetual—stop-gap</a>. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
The second ailment that Foust and many others
suffer from is lumping the myriad non-state actors in Northwest Pakistan
together. This facet, combined with the
penchant for painting the targets of drone strikes with a broad brush, leads to
statements like: <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The targets of drone strikes in
Pakistan sponsor insurgents in the region that kill U.S. soldiers and
destabilize the Pakistani state (that is why Pakistani officials demand<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in;">greater control</span><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>over targeting). They cannot simply be
left alone to continue such violent attacks. </blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
The groups targeted by drone
strikes in Pakistan include al Qaeda, the Afghan Taliban, Tehrik-e-Taliban
Pakistan, the Haqqani Network, and many others.
These groups don’t have different names just to confuse the West. No, they have different names <a href="http://tiny.cc/qmlalw">because theyare distinct organizations, with distinct orders of battle, distinct agendas,and different enemies</a>. The last is perhaps
the most important piece. By treating
these groups as an undifferentiated mass, the United States tends to drive them
together—making them stronger—where it could potentially (in some cases,
easily) drive a wedge between them.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
More to the point, however, the
targets themselves are not all “sponsor[ing] insurgents.” The vast majority of the militants killed by
drone strikes are not leaders. The vast
majority of those fighters killed are mere foot soldiers. This fact alone begs the question of why
drones are employed so frequently. It is
perhaps an inefficient use of resources to employ a drone—relatively cheap
though it may be—to kill a grunt.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
Fundamentally, drone strikes are
here to stay not because they are the least bad option but because the problems
in Northwest Pakistan are complicated and, potentially, intractable. Addressing those problems is both difficult
and not the responsibility of the United States—it is, instead, the
responsibility of the Pakistani state.
In so far as those festering problems present an immediate threat to the
United States, and the Pakistani state is unwilling to address it, then the
United States should—and has every right to—avail itself of self-defense. However, rightly employed, these invocations
would almost certainly occur far less frequently than do drone strikes today.<o:p></o:p></div>
<script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-21676276-1']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-72297139156842105162012-09-04T15:17:00.002-04:002012-09-04T15:17:18.007-04:00Obamacare: Losing the Battles of Communication & Facts<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
There's a brief post up at Economist's Democracy in America blog <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/09/valerie-jarrett">commenting on a speaking appearance</a> by Valerie Jarrett, Senior Adviser to the President. When asked what the administration's biggest mistake has been so far, Ms. Jarrett reportedly said it was a failure to communicate the benefits of the administration's policies. <span style="font-family: inherit;">"<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 20px;">If people voted their self-interest, they would vote for [President Obama]."</span></span><script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-21676276-1']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 20px;">The author of the post calls this sort of response "arrogant," and in full said:</span></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 20px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">I think, goes to the heart of one of the Obama administration's weaknesses, one that certainly cost him the 2010 mid-terms and might cost him the presidency itself in two month's time. It is the idea that if only people were in full command of the facts, they would immediately see that the president was wise and right. It is arrogant, and, when you think about it, fundamentally anti-democratic. And it leads you to push policies that voters don't actually like.</span></span></blockquote>
I have to disagree with the author that this sort of response is arrogant. I think ACA (Obamacare) is a great example of this. When people are polled on the individual elements of the legislation they support many of the pieces, but the administration has lost the battle of communicating the law in totality. Now part of losing that battle is the willful cognitive dissonance of the conservative attack on the legislation, perhaps tippified by this <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSxngjIoIbE&list=UUcX-wx627-WaOL50cd_HlOQ&index=7&feature=plcp">absurdly false and misleading advertisement</a> from the <a href="http://www.60plus.org/">60 Plus Association</a>, which perpetuates Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan's shameful and repeated attack that the Obamacare cuts $716 billion from Medicare (when it's actually future savings, not diverted funds) when Ryan himself would have included the same cuts in his Medicare plan.<br />
<br />
The broader point being, healthcare reform as enacted by Obamacare is incredibly complex. The individual parts, healthcare for dependents up to age 26, no exclusion for pre-existing conditions, insurance plans required to cover birth control, poll incredibly well. The parts that don't poll well, like wringing $716 billion in savings over ten years from Medicare, which helps perpetuate the Medicare program aren't as easy to understand immediately. The point being, it's easier to point at these things, call them flaws, and harp on them at the cost of not telling the whole story.<br />
<br />
That's where the administration is suffering. On certain elements they have been drowned out by misleading half-truths on policies that aren't simple to understand. This is all by way of saying that facts aren't what they used to be and if you lose the communication battle it can obscure the positive effects that the facts would seem to indicate, because everybody is getting skewed facts. I don't think it's "arrogant" on the part of Ms. Jarrett to says that's a mistake. I think it reflect the reality of a conservative movement that has systematically created a world of parallel facts designed to discredit ideas not aligned with their ideology.<br />
<br />
I'm not sure how we fix it, but it is frightening that beyond trying to get an electorate engaged, we will now constantly debate who's facts to believe.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-87842145918755754472012-08-28T21:23:00.000-04:002012-08-28T21:23:03.306-04:00Coke Comes to Somaliland<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Although Somaliland remains unrecognized--and remains substantially more stable and democratic than internationally recognized Somalia--the Coca Cola corporation has provided it with a measure of recognition. That's right, Somaliland is the proud host of Africa's latest Coca Cola bottling plant. <a href="http://www.npr.org/2012/08/28/160117706/somaliland-a-pocket-of-stability-in-a-chaotic-region"><i>NPR</i> has the story</a>.</span><script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-21676276-1']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-39661563094385159432012-08-13T10:00:00.000-04:002012-08-13T10:00:09.680-04:00Romney's 98 Page Millstone, Courtesy of Rep. Ryan<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Been devoting all your time to the Olympics this week? Have you, like me, been talking less about the sports and more about NBC awful coverage? Then maybe you missed the news that <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whitehouse/ap-us--presidential-campaign-us/2012/08/11/0545e64e-e38c-11e1-89f7-76e23a982d06_story.html">Gov. Romney selected Rep. Paul Ryan</a> to be his running mate. Now a lot of the smart money had been on Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio, but I'm on record thinking that if Romney went "outside the box" that would lead to Paul Ryan. Rep. Ryan is more exciting (just barely) than Sen. Portman, less confrontational than Gov. Chris Christie, less green than Sen. Marco Rubio, and more everything else than Gov. Tim Pawlenty.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But Rep. Ryan comes with one big problem for Romney. He's very <i>very</i> specific about the changes he would make to federal spending and the tax code. Like, <a href="http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pathtoprosperity2013.pdf">nearly 100 pages specific</a>. Remember a week ago when the Brookings Institute's Tax Policy Center said Romney would have to<a href="http://dcexile.blogspot.com/2012/08/romney-will-raise-taxes-on-middle-class.html"> raise taxes on the middle class</a> to make his sketch of a tax plan revenue-neutral? Remember when Romney's campaign said the study, put out by a highly respected think tank that gave every possible positive assumption to Romney, was "<a href="http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/08/02/mitt-romney-campaign-defends-tax-plan-calls-critical-study-joke/V8GTn1448ZbXWbEpSeDykI/story.html">a joke?"</a> Well, Romney could bob and weave on the study because conservatives have been living to discredit studies that have anyone associated with it who once breathed on a Democrat. He could have gotten past that.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But Romney's selection of Ryan suggests that he doesn't believe he can win running as "the not Obama," as Ezra Klein wrote about on Saturday, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/11/paul-ryan-will-be-mitt-romneys-vice-presidential-pick-heres-seven-thoughts-on-what-that-means/">"you don't make a risky pick like Paul Ryan if you think the fundamentals of the campaign favor your candidate."</a> I tend to agree. And that could be true, I mean people could figure out that a good part of the reason unemployment remains so doggedly high is because<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/11/brookings-without-government-job-cuts-unemployment-would-be-at-7-1-percent/"> the government isn't replacing jobs it's lost</a>. So instead of playing it safe and seeing if he can knock off an incumbent beset by poor economic performance, he decides to pick Ryan and strap a 98 page millstone around the neck of the campaign. Remember when Romney's campaign was arguing revenue neutrality? You can forget about revenue neutrality the second you say, "Paul Ryan."</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Why do I describe Ryan's plan as a millstone? Take it away Washington Post:</div>
<div>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">His proposals contain three major elements:</span><span style="font-family: inherit;">First, the Ryan plan would overhaul the entitlement programs that have grown to consume about 40 percent of the budget, reshaping Medicare coverage for the elderly, and cutting deeply into Medicaid, food stamps and other programs for the poor. </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Second, he would rewrite the tax code, slashing the rates paid by corporations and the wealthy. </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Finally, Ryan would cut spending on other federal programs and agencies, with the exception of the Pentagon. </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Most controversial is Ryan’s proposal to transform Medicare so that the government, rather than paying for health care for the elderly directly, would give beneficiaries a set amount of money to shop for a private health insurance plan.</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div>
Now, without a doubt, there is a certain segment of the Republican party that will get very excited about this plan, but I don't think you'll excite too many undecided independents with that plan. Lest we forget, Newt Gingrich said the Ryan plan was<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/17/gingrich-apologizes-paul-ryan-right-wing-social-engineering-criticism/"> "right-wing social engineering."</a> Of course, now that Ryan's on the ticket, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/newt-gingrich-in-about-face-sings-ryans-praises/2012/08/12/ce697372-e48d-11e1-8741-940e3f6dbf48_blog.html">Newt's position on the Ryan budget plan has evolved</a>. The point being, Romney didn't need to tap Ryan to be VP. He could have tilted toward the Ryan plan, without totally, completely embracing it and lived in an ambiguous policy space until the election. The math was not on President Obama's side. Romney didn't need to rile up his base, considering a fair percentage of that base believes the entire Obama presidency is illegitimate anyway, and I'm even sure Ryan does that.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But what Ryan does do it change the decision making process for discontented independents. Until this weekend it was pretty straightforward: Do we stick it out with Obama, or do we make a change to Romney? Now the decision becomes: Do we want to <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/12/what-paul-ryans-budget-actually-cuts-and-by-how-much/">gut government programs and remove safety nets for the less fortunate</a> or do we want to keep those programs?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I was tempted at the end of last week to write up a post about how petty this presidential race has been so far. It appears we could have the sweeping ideological debate that this country needs, provided we can all be honest about what these choices mean. And I think that's good for the country, but I'm not so sure that's good for candidate Romney. But hey, if this election doesn't go his way, maybe he can go to NBC and fix their Olympic coverage in time for Sochi. NBC sucks.<br />
<br />
<b>Further reading</b>: Jacob Weisberg at Slate <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_big_idea/2012/08/why_paul_ryan_was_probably_the_best_choice_mitt_romney_could_make_.html">says what I'm saying, only better</a>. Why do you think I put this link at the bottom of the post?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-42214692075008065922012-08-01T09:31:00.001-04:002012-08-01T12:06:06.023-04:00Romney Will Raise Taxes on the Middle Class<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<i><b><span style="font-family: inherit;">"[I]t is not possible to design a revenue-neutral plan that does not reduce average tax </span></b></i><br />
<i><b><span style="font-family: inherit;">burdens and the share of taxes paid by high-income taxpayers under the conditions described </span></b></i><br />
<i><b><span style="font-family: inherit;">above, even when we try to make the plan as progressive as possible."</span></b></i><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">With this statement, a new report from the Brookings Institution and the Tax Policy Center blows the lid of the even the scant tax plan promoted by Gov. Romney. You can read the <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2012/8/01%20tax%20reform%20brown%20gale%20looney/01%20tax%20reform%20brown%20gale%20looney.pdf">full report here</a> and the article in the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/study-romney-tax-plan-would-result-in-cuts-for-rich-higher-burden-for-others/2012/08/01/gJQAbeCCOX_story.html?hpid=z4">Washington Post here</a>, but the punchline is this: If you do what Romney wants to do to the tax code and then try and make it revenue neutral you will end up increasing the tax burden on people making less than $200,000 a year, while reducing the tax burden on those making more than $200,000. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In order to achieve revenue neutrality we would have to eliminate the mortgage interest tax credit, eliminate tax breaks on employer-funded health insurance, tax breaks against state and local income, and child care tax breaks. While that <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/18/156928675/episode-387-the-no-brainer-economic-platform">might be sound economic advice</a>, all those tax breaks are very popular with the middle class. The Washington Post reports the tax burden for 95% of population would increase by 1.2% under Romney's plan.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I'll be updating throughout the day with more analysis, but something to start your morning off.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><br />
<b>Updated 12:02pm:</b> From <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/08/01/mitt_romney_s_version_of_tax_reform_will_raise_taxes_on_the_middle_class.html">Matt Yglesias writing at Slate</a>, "<span style="line-height: 18px; text-align: -webkit-auto;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Raising taxes on the rich and middle class alike in order to afford spending on social insurance, education, and infrastructure is one thing. Raising taxes on the middle class in order to afford tax cuts for the rich is another.</span></span>"<br />
<b><br /></b><br />
<b>Updated 11:50am:</b> <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/01/the-regressivity-of-across-the-board-rate-cuts/">Wonkblog has a post up</a> on the Romney tax plan and a GOP Congressional alternative, "<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 22px;">Romney can take some solace in knowing his allies in Congress have proposed a plan that shifts the burden from high-income to middle-income taxpayers even more dramatically. A new </span><a href="http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3812" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: black; line-height: 22px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">paper</a><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 22px;"> by Chuck Marr and Chye-Ching Huang at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities looks at the distributive impact of the Pathway to Job Creation Through a Simpler, Fairer Tax Code Act of 2012, the proposal introduced by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Ways and Means chairman David Camp (R-Mich.), and included in the 2013 House Republican budget, that would set a framework for tax reform.</span></span>"<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Updated 11:17am:</b> <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/08/01/620561/tpc-romney-study-taxes/">Think Progress weighs in</a> the Brookings Report, "<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/02/22/430396/romney-tax-cut-rich/" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 22px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">On several occasions</a><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 22px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">, Romney has denied that his tax plan would provide a big tax break to the wealthy. But as this analysis shows, even giving him all of the benefit of the doubt when it comes to eliminating deductions, the plan is </span><em style="background-color: white; line-height: 22px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">still</em><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 22px; text-align: -webkit-auto;"> a massive tax break for the rich.</span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;">" (h/t @_al_man)</span><br />
<script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-21676276-1']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-57383304634633010812012-07-31T13:23:00.000-04:002012-07-31T14:59:08.585-04:00Romney's International Gaffe Tour<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
It's a new convention to have a (presumptive) presidential nominee do a world tour, and one that might go out the window after Gov. Mitt Romney's gaffe ridden trip. The timing couldn't have been better. After enduring weeks of attacks from the left about his <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/george-will-matthew-dowd-blast-romney-for-not-releasing-tax-returns/">scant disclosure of tax filings</a> and about this <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2012/07/12/government_documents_indicate_mitt_romney_continued_at_bain_after_date_when_he_says_he_left/">actual level of involvement with Bain Capital</a> as the firm outsourced jobs, including a <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-romney-and-his-time-machine/2012/07/16/gJQA9MYfpW_story.html">much lampooned retroactive retirement</a>, the world was going to give reporters two big distractions. First, Romney was taking a <strike>road trip</strike> airplane ride to the United Kingdom, Israel, and Poland. Second, the Olympics were getting underway. Clear sailing until after the closing ceremonies, right? Keep your head down, look presidential, smile, and just wait until August where you can steal the news cycle with the announcement of the winner of the veepstakes. If only.<script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-21676276-1']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The Romney camp made no friends in the UK or back at home as the candidate himself questioned both <a href="http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/07/26/mitt-romney-olympics-comments-trigger-response-from-cameron-british-press/SWkQUijICVCH5ihkXEqXTN/story.html">the country's preparedness and commitment to the Olympics</a> and while a campaign spokesman said Romney understood the special relationship because of a <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78960.html">shared Anglo-Saxon heritage</a>. The Olympics comment became the story in the lead up to the opening ceremony, which even led British Prime Minister Cameron to make a rather backhanded comment about Salt Lake City and Utah. The Anglo-Saxon comment has been contested by Romney's campaign and I don't believe there was any intended racism in it, but boy it sounds pretty racist on it's face. Honestly, I think Cameron is in the bag for Obama. They may not agree on policy approaches, but I think they're too guys who like each other. Did you seem how loose they looked <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/14/us-obama-cameron-basketball-idUSBRE82D04120120314">taking in a basketball game together</a>?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Next stop, Israel. Romney did receive a warm welcome in Israel and clearly his relationship with Bibi is far stronger than Obama's consider the widespread speculation that the <a href="http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/07/25/warning_turbulence_ahead?page=full">two men just don't get on</a>. But Romney couldn't help himself, making a ham-handed comment that the reason the Palestinian territory is experiencing slower economic growth is because of <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/us/politics/romney-angers-palestinians-with-comments-in-israel.html?pagewanted=all">cultural differences between the Israelis and the Palestinians</a>. Now, I don't think Gov. Romney is too concerned about rankling the feathers of the Palestinian Authority, but it's the sort of comment that could come back to haunt a President Romney hoping to move the needle in peace talks.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Final stop, Poland. Poland always seemed like a bit of an odd duck. Clearly the U.S. has a special relationship with the UK and Israel and we sure do like Poland a lot, but the depth of the bond isn't as strong. So this was the gimme. No topics to trying, again, just go, smile, shake hands, take in the culture, and get out. Just don't talk...wait...what's that? A Romney spokesman wants to say something to the <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/07/31/157647513/romney-aide-to-reporters-kiss-my-this-is-a-holy-site?ft=1&f=1001&sc=tw&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter">press pool: "Kiss my a**. This is a Holy site."</a> Yuh-ikes. And with that Romney was hurried away in a car and likely not going to be available to the media for a week or so.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
With that, Romney's international trip is coming to an end, and the question that arises is simply. Does this impact Romney's chances back home? It's tough to say at this point. I tend to think it could hurt Romney with independents for two reasons. Number one, Obama's foreign policy has been rather strong and he can get up to the podium at the debates and with every foreign policy question just say, "I ordered the killing of Osama bin Laden."</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Moderator</b>: "Mr. President, China has been accused of currency manipulation. What if any recourse does the U.S. have to end this market distortion?"</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>President</b>: "I ordered the killing of Osama bin Laden."</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Moderator</b>: "Mr. President, our ally, Israel, believes Iran will soon have a nuclear capability. What action are you prepared to take to prevent a nuclear Iran?"</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>President</b>: "I ordered the killing of Osama bin Laden."</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Moderator</b>: "yes sir, but what else?"</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>President</b>: " I would order his killing again if he were alive today. But he's not, because I ordered the killing of Osama bin Laden."</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I call this the Rudy Giuliani approach to foreign policy debates. After that extended distraction, reason number two, these international trips are about looking presidential. When you offend your first host, are passively racist against anyone not anglo-saxon and against Palestinians, and then your spokesman curses at the press pool. Well none of that looks very presidential.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Without a doubt this election is primarily about domestic issues, but people still want a president who acts presidential abroad and that moderator's quiver just got loaded up with foreign policy statements that need some explaining by candidate Romney during the debate. Time will tell how much this will really impact things, but I would imagine many in the Romney camp are now thinking to themselves they should have just stayed home.<br />
<br />
<b>UPDATED 2:58pm:</b> Unsurprisingly, the Obama campaign d<a href="http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/07/31/obama_campaign_romney_trip_shows_he_is_failing_the_commander_in_chief_test">oesn't believe Romney's international trip passes the "commander-in-chief test."</a> This is entirely the sort of thing that hurts Romney with independents and once again he's on the defensive.</div>
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-62126744784637488622012-07-26T14:07:00.001-04:002012-07-26T14:49:06.918-04:00The Problem with Pronouns or You Didn't Build What?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As the "you didn't build that" debate continues, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-romney-obama-spar-over-you-didnt-build-that-small-businesses-add-context/2012/07/25/gJQA6IN79W_story.html">Romney and his supporters are staging a number of rallies</a> titled "We Did Build This." Admittedly, I am not the resident grammarian on this blog, but as a continuation of my post yesterday regarding my <a href="http://dcexile.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-government-created-internet-and.html">complete confusion that it's not okay to say the government built the internet</a> when it did, I want to talk about pronouns.</span><script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-21676276-1']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Namely the pronouns "that" and "this." So we'll start with the President. The quote that's been bandied about is as follows: "If you got a business, you didn't build that." Pitchforks and socialist recriminations have ensued, but what's plain to see if you read the fuller quote is that the quote above is taken out of context. Here's the full quote:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In other words, the President wasn't saying that the "that" is "a business," but rather that the "that" are "roads and bridges." Quite an inopportune moment for a great orator to have pronoun confusion, but I think we can all agree that business owner A didn't build road B or bridge C. That's the work of a government based on priorities vetted by a community or its elected representatives. But that's not how the quote is being received by people or how the Romney campaign is talking about it.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">No, the Romney campaign is twisting it around to imply that the "that" meant "a business" and we're hearing that message back from Romney backers. Take this quote from Melissa Ball, a business owner at a "We Did Build This" rally in Richmond, VA, “President Obama is wrong. Americans do build their own business and we need a president who believes that as well.” Oh pronouns! Why do you spite us so? Clearly the name of the rally is meant to imply, incorrectly that the "that" Obama spoke of was "a business" because the rally's "this" is clearly intended to mean "business."</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">And so now we're down the rabbit hole and the light is fading. President Obama never said people don't build their own businesses, just that they don't build the roads or bridges that grease the gears of our economic machine. It's disappointing to see Romney's campaign embrace the wrong contextual appearance of the president's comments, but it is campaign season and recriminations abound on both sides. So I guess I'll just have to me mad a pronouns that betray the American people. I hate them...Wait, maybe I said that wrong.</span><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 22px;">UPDATED: Damn you Jon Stewart! <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-july-25-2012-joseph-stiglitz">The Daily Show talks pronouns and context</a>. This is what I get for going to bed early!</span></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 22px;"><br />
</span></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;"><br />
</span></div>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;"><br />
</span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-88017434270402203482012-07-25T10:50:00.001-04:002012-07-25T10:50:52.873-04:00The Government Created the Internet, And That's Okay<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
In the continued wake of President Obama's ill-phrased, but largely correct assertion that "you didn't build that" referring to society and the government's hand in the success of businesses comes an article from Gordon Crovitz in the Wall Street Journal completely <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444464304577539063008406518.html">rewriting the history of the genesis of the internet</a>. Over at Slate, Farhad Manjoo does the <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2012/07/who_invented_the_internet_the_outrageous_conservative_claim_that_every_tech_innovation_came_from_private_enterprise_.single.html">requite takedown of Crovitz's falsehoods</a>, but I'm struck by two things.<script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-21676276-1']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
One, only now could the idea that ARPA created the internet be contentious. There's a strong Jacobin current among the right-wing of the U.S. body politik that can not fathom the government doing anything positive or having any positive hand in business. They get apoplectic when you suggest that maybe the internet or the roads, created by or built by the government have a positive impact on business and that we should perhaps acknowledge what was previously an innocuous fact. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Two, why is there a sizable minority of people in this country who can't seem to reconcile that A) the government created this great commercial platform and B) the private sector, disinterested in the basic science that was necessary to create, was able to make the internet a great commercial platform? I give all credit to Jim Bezos, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and all those other great American entrepreneurs that took the risk, but they were only able to do so by standing of the shoulders of the U.S. government.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This isn't an unequivocal endorsement of centrally planned industrial policy or limitless government funding for basic science. For sure government has failed, as have many entrepreneurs, but can't we all agree that sometimes in this modern commercial ecosystem that government, universities, and private industries are all responsible for many of the great technological advances that allow some random guy like myself to post random thoughts on a blog that's available around the world?</div>
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-159681623794604732012-07-24T12:26:00.002-04:002012-07-24T14:25:12.967-04:00Casualties and Use of Force Decisions<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Mark Penn's polling firm is out with a public opinion survey of Americans regarding genocide. You can review the <a href="http://www.slideshare.net/proofic/appendix-for-ushmm/download">complete results here</a> (free SlideShare account required). The survey includes a question about U.S. military intervention to stop genocide, as well as a follow-up question about whether that opinion would change given the death of at least 100 U.S. troops. </span><script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-21676276-1']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMvBaqjw7EakDjVVjSykUqZanm4Yn8lmrQWsUwuD5QLVThpQQJQfC7f24Y4JRGjclFwkdfcz6XK4qNqbiGILO65O0EOQRIUskNhV1b9GYdMAoWgodckbi-j2x3Suih57rmLsUlwjT8Pcm6/s1600/Penn+Results.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMvBaqjw7EakDjVVjSykUqZanm4Yn8lmrQWsUwuD5QLVThpQQJQfC7f24Y4JRGjclFwkdfcz6XK4qNqbiGILO65O0EOQRIUskNhV1b9GYdMAoWgodckbi-j2x3Suih57rmLsUlwjT8Pcm6/s320/Penn+Results.jpg" width="237" /></span></a></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Remarkably, more than 30% of those in favor of using force to stop genocide cease favoring it faced with that prospect. These results ought to give pause to those who downplay the importance of casualty aversion to policymakers deciding whether and when to use force. While some have downplayed the practical significance of drones being pilot-less--given that drones are used in permissive environments--these data should serve as a reminder that even broadly popular reasons for using force will be undercut by U.S. casualties. Uses of force that receive far more ambiguous popular endorsements may suffer even more from casualties. </span></div>
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-88785494617511507532012-07-23T11:30:00.000-04:002012-07-23T15:37:48.674-04:00The Obamacare Direct Mail Campaign<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Affordable Care Act, often labeled (derisively) as Obamacare, has never been an incredibly popular piece of legislation at least not when pollsters ask about the overall legislation. Individual elements do <a href="http://healthreform.kff.org/scan/2011/november/kaiser-november-health-tracking-poll-individual-elements-of-the-aca-popular-with-the-public.aspx">poll quite favorably</a>. ACA has become <i>the</i> domestic achievement for this White House for good or for ill and I think a recent letter I received could help to change the perception of the ACA and make the title "Obamacare" a positive descriptor.<script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-21676276-1']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script></span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">About two weeks back I had a curious voice mail from my health insurance company about an issue I should really call them back about. I didn't because typically when my health insurance company needs to talk to me about something, it's not a good something. Not this time. A few days later I received a letter in the mail. There were two sheets and on the second sheet in large, plain type it read: "<span style="background-color: white;">A rebate will be paid to your employer due to new requirements outlined in the Federal Healthcare Reform regulation." </span><span style="background-color: white;">A rebate you say? On the other page was more of fine print:</span></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Affordable Care Act requires [my employer's provider] to rebate part of the premiums it received if it does not spend at least 80 percent of the premiums [my employer's provider] receives on healthcare services...No more than 20 percent of premiums may be spent on administrative costs...This is referred to as the "Medical Loss Ratio" standard or the 80/20 rule. The 80/20 rule in the Affordable Care Act is intended to ensure that consumers get value for their health care dollars.</span></blockquote>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So let me get this straight, my employer will receive a check from our insurance provider because our insurance provider didn't meet the 80/20 rule, and the letter goes on to describe how my employer can distribute the rebate, provided it's a non-Federal governmental plan.</span></div>
<div>
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"Reducing premiums for the upcoming year; or"</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"Providing a cash rebate to employees or subscribers that were covered by the health insurance on which the rebate is based."</span></li>
</ol>
<div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">My employer's insurance provider is a large one, covering over 3 million people. While the 80/20 rule is determined state to state--basically my provider didn't meet the standard in DC, but might have in Virginia--there are potentially a couple million people just from my provider that are primed to see a tangible benefit from the 80/20 rule and they all got a letter telling them they would get a tangible benefit. You can't buy this kind of positive publicity for legislation.</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Now, I'm not here to debate the wisdom of this rule. I'm simply suggesting a piece of legislation that has elements a majority of people clearly favor just picked up what will likely prove to be a net positive in an election year. Obviously Romney has been reluctant to come out too strong against Obamacare because, well Obama aped Romneycare, but potentially there are independents who weren't too excited about Obamacare that have now seen as many as three direct benefits from legislation that doesn't even take full effect until 2014. They've seen insurance companies can't deny them coverage, they've seen their children receive continued coverage until age 26, and they've seen a letter about a rebate.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Now perhaps I'm overestimating the impact and I haven't seen other pundits talk about this much, but this seems like a piece of good news for Obamacare and by transitory properties, a good piece of news for the president.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">UPDATE: <i>I've been informed by a friend at <a href="http://www.drsforamerica.org/">Doctors for America</a> that I got one of the policy points wrong. </i></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; text-align: -webkit-auto;">Insurance companies can still deny coverage to people over 18 due to pre-existing conditions. This protection isn't set up to take place for a bit longer. Right now only those 18 and under cannot be denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition. If someone over 18 is denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition and can't get coverage for 6 months, they are </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; text-align: -webkit-auto;">eligible</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; text-align: -webkit-auto;"> for a high-risk buying pool through the federal government. Full details available at <a href="http://www.healthcare.gov/">www.healthcare.gov</a>.</span></i></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-13886579419691531202012-07-20T13:30:00.000-04:002012-07-20T13:33:55.160-04:00Didn't We Do This Once?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>The following is cross-posted from the <a href="http://neworganizingeducation.com/content/blog/didnt-we-do-this-once-woody-guthrie-today">New Organizing Institute</a></i>.</span><div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I bet you didn’t learn these lyrics in grade school when
they taught you to sing <i>This Land is Your Land</i>: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="lyrictext" style="background: #FFFEF0; text-align: center;">
<i><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As
I went walking I saw a sign there<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br />
And on the sign it said "No Trespassing."<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br />
But on the other side it didn't say nothing,<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br />
That side was made for you and me.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div align="center" class="lyrictext" style="background: #FFFEF0; text-align: center;">
<i><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div align="center" class="lyrictext" style="background: #FFFEF0; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>In
the shadow of the steeple I saw my people,<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br />
By the relief office I seen my people;<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br />
As they stood there hungry, I stood there asking<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br />
Is this land made for you and me?</i> </span></div>
<div align="center" class="lyrictext" style="background: #FFFEF0; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Woody Guthrie would have been 100 years old last Saturday. A
troubadour who wandered the country during the Great Depression, Woody remains
one of the most influential American songwriters of all time, inspiring folks
like Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, and Pete Seeger. He recorded hundreds of
songs and wrote lyrics for thousands more. His songs reflect his experience
growing up in Oklahoma and traveling throughout the United States during the
Great Depression. His songs reflect America. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: center;">
<i><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Yes, as
through this world I’ve wandered, I’ve seen lots of funny men,<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: center;">
<i><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Some
will rob you with a six-gun, and some with a fountain pen.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: center;">
<i><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">And as
through your life you travel, yes, as through your life you roam,<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>You will
never see an outlaw drive a family from their home.</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">For me, Woody’s influence grows more from what he wrote than
the amount he wrote. His was an often humorous, often earnest, message about
what it was to be a hard workin’ person in America. He was a humanist. He
demanded justice and he demanded fairness. He gave voice to Arkies and Okies,
Mexican migrant workers, and union maids alike. He hated those who benefited
from inequity—from fascists to racists to bankers who turned farmers into
dustbowl refugees. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>When dust storms are sailing, and crops they are failing, </i><i><br />
<span style="background: #FFFEF0;">I'm a jolly banker, jolly banker am I.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span></i></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i><br />
<span style="background: #FFFEF0;">I check up your shortage and bring down your
mortgage,<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><br />
<span style="background: #FFFEF0;">Singin' I'm a jolly banker, jolly banker am I.</span><o:p></o:p></i></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I take comfort in the crackling of Woody’s recordings from
eighty years ago and lyrics distilled from the Dustbowl. They seem familiar,
those songs about foreclosures, deportations, poverty, and getting a raw deal. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">At the same time, their resonance is unsettling. Didn’t we
do this once? Didn’t we solve these problems already? Haven’t we already fought
these battles? Yes. We did. Much of what Woody parodied, derided, and fought
with his guitar wasn’t just the natural condition of hard workin’ people, it
was the product of capitalism run amok. By the time he achieved fame, the
causes of those problems—if not the problems themselves—had been mitigated by
the New Deal, including federal regulation of the banking and financial
sectors.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Eighty years on, we’ve gone out of our way to exhume Woody’s
muse. We dismantled financial regulations and the regulatory apparatus. We got
familiar results: rising income inequality, a foreclosure crisis, persistent
unemployment—an economy that increasingly appears to work for a very narrow
jolly banker segment of the populace, leaving the rest of us in the dust. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: center;">
<i><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">You
won't have a name when you ride the big airplane<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: center;">
<i><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">All
they will call you will be deportees<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But the familiarity of Woody’s lyrics doesn’t stop there.
Unions are busted and look like they will remain so. The debate over
immigration consigns undocumented works to an undifferentiated mass known as
“illegal.” And throughout this country laws are being ever more directed at
preventing individuals from exercising their fundamental freedoms instead of protecting
them.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: center;">
<i><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Every
state in this union us migrants have been,<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: center;">
<i><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">We work
in this fight, and we’ll fight till we win.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpLast">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Maybe that’s why when Occupiers chant, “Whose
streets? Our streets!” I hear “I went walking down a ribbon of highway . . . .”
Maybe that’s why “We are the 99%” signs look to me like the lyrics to <i>Hard
Travelin’</i>. And maybe that’s why people all over the country gathered last
weekend to sing Woody’s songs and celebrate his centennial. </span></span></div>
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-81912596423433162352012-07-11T09:30:00.000-04:002012-07-11T09:30:03.285-04:00Reflections on South Sudan: One Year After Independence<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div>
<i><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">On July 9, 2012 South Sudan, the world's newest country, celebrated its first birthday. This past March I traveled to Juba, South Sudan and on the occasion of the first anniversary of the country's independence, Ben encouraged me to write about my experience and my thoughts on the country as it stands today.</span></i><br />
<b><u><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></u></b><br />
<b><u><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Deep End of the Pool</span></u></b></div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">After nearly 24 hours' travel, I stepped down the stairs and onto the tarmac at Juba Airport. It is March but the midday temp was already surpassing 90 degrees and the natural musk of airplane food and recycled air was compounded by sweat. I followed the crowd into a sparse room split in two by a wooden counter. To my left was the immigration control window, which looked shabbier than the bullet-proof check-out counters that are becoming harder to find in the bodegas of Northwest DC. There was a vague system of lines, but mostly a mass of people, some wearing UN badges, some wearing suits; mostly, it was a seething mob hot and crowded into a third of a larger room after being trapped hot and crowded in the plane from Addis Ababa to Juba. This was my introduction to Africa. I'd never been to the continent before, but suffice to say I was starting in the deep end of the pool.<script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-21676276-1']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script></span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">After arguing, some shoving, and handing over the USD 100 entrance fee--cash only from bills printed after 2006, as I learned from the discourteous immigration officer--I went to customs and had my bags searched and then okay-ed by writing "OK" in the bag with white chalk. None of the customs "officers" wore uniforms and it was difficult to see or perceive the official state. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">On the way to the hotel I experienced about 50% of the paved roads that exist in Africa's newest capital city. My hotel, the Nile Beach Resort, was behind the soccer stadium, down about a half mile of dirt roads. Later, I learned that my hotel was probably the fourth best hotel in Juba. You see, my room had running water (though not hot water), an A/C, a TV that got two channels (one channel would change based on the whims of the individual working in the registration hut), and if I stood close to the registration hut I could get a wifi signal. Belying its name, the resort has no beach whatsoever.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This was March 2012, two month after the government of South Sudan had refused to pay the extortionist rates Sudan wanted to charge to transit the South's oil through Sudan's pipelines to the coast. The South Sudanese decided the best bet was to <a href="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/01/20/136485/s-sudan-to-halt-oil-production.html">just shut the oil off</a>. But this was just before the <a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/video/africa/2012/04/2012420121142587117.html">violence in Heglig</a> along the border. I was in Juba for a conference, an opportunity for the South Sudanese government to talk about all the investment opportunities in the country. And there were many. The country needs paved roads, clean water, agriculture, industry; you name it, Africa's newest state needs it.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<b><u><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Afterglow of Independence</span></u></b></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">At the conference, there was a former <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudan_People's_Liberation_Army/Movement">Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA)</a> soldier who'd started a construction business based almost entirely on hard labor. His workers had literally dug the ditches and helped plain many of the dirt roads around the city. He joined the SPLA when he was 12 years old and now I figured him to be in his late 20s. Here was a man whose life knew more of war than of peace. Yet, to speak to him, you couldn't help but be excited. On the first day of the conference he came wearing the South Sudan flag like a cape and a beaming smile; this was a man who had fought for the freedom and independence of this country and the excitement of that victory still shown upon his face. When he took the stage he spoke in broken, nearly unintelligible English, but the pride, the care, the sheer commitment he had to his country was evident immediately. He encouraged many of the assembled potential investors to believe in South Sudan. He thanked the international community for its support. </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Juba is one place in the developing world where being a Westerner isn't a liability and the gentleman's energy was infectious. As he left the stage, all those assembled clapped and cheered. After a dizzying arrival, this man appealed to the optimist in me that South Sudan was a country full of opportunity, freed from the burden of state neglect, her freedom fighters were now rulers, and if they were anything like this man surely the country had a positive future, with or without the oil on.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Another speaker in the conference was a South African who had been sent by SAB Miller to open the South Sudan Brewery. Literally the first factory in South Sudan was a brewery (and having enjoyed a not insignificant quantity of their product while in Juba, I would say it beats PBR). The brewery gave way to general bottling of soda and filtered bottled water. This brewery, the first industry, which on the surface strikes as a specious use of priorities was turning a healthy profit, but as just importantly it was providing an incredibly large quantity of free filtered water at various water stations around the city. I felt like I was hearing from the brewery a lecture on what corporate social responsibility is supposed to be: make a product, make money on that product, but use the byproduct of that profit to help a community that desperately needs it. The head of the brewery was a jovial man, excited to be in Juba (I would come to find this was a rather uncommon sentiment), excited about the work he did, and the ability of his company to give back. Again the optimism swelled within me. This was an investment that had paid off and was paying dividends to the community. But this was not my final impression of South Sudan and its prospects.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<b><u><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white;">Unfortunately</span> Out of the Country</span></u></b></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">If the conference began on a hopeful tone, it did not end so. The agenda called for an impressive list of government ministers from all conceivable departments of the South Sudanese government. The goal was to put decision-makers in the room with investors, but time and time again we heard that "Minister so-and-so is unfortunately out of the country." For a young nation, it seemed curious that so many of it's high government officials would be out of the country. What became clear was "out of the country" more precisely implied "in Nairobi at his villa."</span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It became an open joke that many of the decision-makers, former generals in the SPLA, many whom had long toiled at war and had deep connections with Western diplomats, had gained independence for their country, fleeced what they could from the international development community and retreated to the modernity and solemnity of Nairobi rather than confront the stark poverty of their own country. Imagine if the founding fathers of the United States, fatigued by war, prideful of their victory, had then largely retreated to estates in France, our ally and benefactor rather than stay to govern the country. Where would we be as a nation? South Sudan finds itself nearly bankrupt, playing games of brinkmanship with Sudan over oil and land, as a populace enjoys new found independence without progress. The fleecing of international aid is so pervasive that President Salva Kiir has actually demanded <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/04/us-southsudan-corruption-idUSBRE8530QI20120604">government officials return what is calculated to be $4 billion dollars in pilfered funds</a> to help keep the country afloat as oil negotiations drag on between South Sudan and its erstwhile former masters in Khartoum.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<u><b><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Ground Truth</span></b></u><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"Oh, the country will be bankrupt by September," said a friend of mine who'd spent the past year in Juba. In 2011, revenue from oil accounted for 98.1% of all government revenue collected by Juba. And the spigot has been off since January. But it gets worse than that. My friend continued, "And even if they turn the oil on, right now, today, it'll be six months before they receive payment." This was back in March and the oil is still off and doesn't look to be turned on anytime soon. The story I heard from my friend and many of his colleagues was one I saw played out at the conference. The leaders in government had won the war and seemed quite disinterested in doing much more than that. Juba is the epicenter of more NGOs and aid groups than any other place in the world right now. The UN presence is huge, as is the U.S. presence. The aid workers live in compounds, gilded prisons, with more stringent obvious security than I saw to get into the White House. I never felt unsafe in Juba. Ever. But no U.S. government employee could travel in Juba at night except by armored car. Those shiny, white Toyota Land Cruiser arrived in convoys after meals outside the compound like a mobster's taxi service.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I had a hard time reconciling the pessimism felt by the aid workers I talked with to the optimism felt by the man wearing the South Sudanese flag. I couldn't wrap my head around the notion that government leaders would leave so quickly after achieving independence, while this South African man opened a brewery and maintained a thriving business. There was opportunity here, good will, and people ready to do something for their new country, but the leaders were asleep at the wheel.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<b><u><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A Dangerous Game</span></u></b><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Alan Boswell does a great job breaking down <a href="http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/07/09/the_failed_state_lobby">the massive lobbying effort by NGOs, celebrities, congressmen, and others</a> that led to the sustained effort to have an indepedent South Sudan. The effort was bi-partisan; it connected liberals with evangelicals; it was supported by the UN; and the final transition to independence was peaceful. South Sudan's independence was not easy but its oil wealth (even if it can't get it out) and the support of the international community give it substantial advantages not enjoyed by other nascent states. But with so much support comes corruption. And, as patrons of South Sudan high-fived each other, the SPLA commanders picked the pocket of their own nation to enrich themselves.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It was like the objective of independence blinded the international community to the corruption. So what happens now? Don't believe the hype about an <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-16720703">oil pipeline to Mombasa</a>, that's a dream and the initially suggested timeline of 18 months is laughable to anyone who knows anything about the extractive industry--worse, it still hasn't gotten started. For now, it looks like Juba will go bankrupt, but maybe so does Khartoum. Right now, I think the South Sudanese government is playing a dangerous game with Sudan and with the international community. I think President Kiir and the country's leaders feel like they've been propped up and pushed along by the international community for this long. Why would that change, especially with Khartoum falling off more people's Christmas card list every day? <span style="background-color: white;">But that's a big if and in the end those government leaders can retreat Nairobi. It's the populace, long neglected by Khartoum, that will now suffer the </span><span style="background-color: white;">brinkmanship</span><span style="background-color: white;"> its leaders have engaged in.</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">When I had arrived at Juba airport, I had missed it. My friend told me about the old Russion MiG jet, crashed off to the side of the runway, now obscured by the long grass that had begun to overtake it. When I walked back out onto the tarmac to board the plane home I made a point to look. And there it was rusting in the sun, a souvenir left behind by Khartoum, inoperable, in shambles. No one has bothered to move it, the battle over, the debris remains unattended.</span></div>
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665280159887667854.post-67974472113192733252012-07-02T15:24:00.003-04:002012-07-02T15:25:00.446-04:00Trolling CNN Continued<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Via <a href="http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/07/twee.html">The Dish</a></span><script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-21676276-1']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e2016768180221970b-800wi" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="109" src="http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e2016768180221970b-800wi" width="320" /></span></a></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Jokes aside, congratulations to Anderson Cooper for coming around to the notion that the ambiguity of his sexuality was doing more harm than good. Ones sexual orientation shouldn't matter--it shouldn't be an issue--but so long as it is, this Editor hopes prominent gay men and women will continue to serve as role models.</span></div>
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0