The Power of Deregulation
Regular readers know that I love The Colbert Report. Here is his 'The Word' segment from last night, describing the power of deregulation.
July 15, 2008
July 14, 2008
Free speech, but...
I'm a big believer in free speech. I don't like political correctness and think that almost all types of speech, including hate speech, should be protected. That doesn't mean that I support hate speech. But, once you start drawing the line on any form of censorship, it becomes a real slippery slope. One person's freedom cry is another person's treason. If the government can decide which is which, then the government can't be challenged, even challenged to improve.
With all that said, this week's New Yorker cover disturbs me. You can see a slide show of many poltical satire New Yorker covers on their web site. In just about all of the covers, the satire is that the leaders are depicted as incompetent idiots. The reader can decide if they agree with this.
However, the Obama cover above takes the 'terrorist fist bump' (man, is that ridiculous) and extends it to a terrorist image. Does that mean that the reader gets to decide whether or not they think Obama is a terrorist? And, this image includes a picture of Bin Laden over a fireplace with a burning American flag.
No matter what you think of Obama or McCain, can you really question either one of them on patriotism? You may not agree with where they want to take the country, but that doesn't mean that they want the country to fall.
So, as a free speech zealot, why does this cover bother me so much? I think that it's because The New Yorker has a certain amount of credibility. Also, the cover goes beyond satire in my opinion. Now, I don't think that anyone should stop The New Yorker from being able to publish this. But, Obama has decried this, and McCain agreed. And, I hope that regular New Yorker readers express their outrage so that The New Yorker apologizes. The only penalty that should be imposed on improper speech should be from the marketplace -- people who disagree shouldn't buy it.
July 11, 2008
Diversity
I listened to an interview with Bill Bishop, author of The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America Is Tearing Us Apart. This reinforced my belief that one of America's greatest strength is that we are a melting pot. But, if we all gravitate to communities and social circles where everyone is just like us, we will all miss out on the benefits of the diversity.
When I think about entrepreneurship, I always associate it with new ideas, high energy, and commitment. This is exactly what you get with new immigrants who come to the US to make their lives better. My grandparents were immigrants, and my paternal grandfather was an entrepreneur. He built up a pretty big wholesale and retail grocery business after coming the country with very little. While there is nothing stopping native-born Americans from being just as entrepreneurial, our privileged upbringing probably removes some of the inner hunger that an immigrant who has to overcome large obstacles probably has.
But, even more important than making sure we continue to have a steady stream of immigrants coming into the US with new ideas and new energy, we all need to continue to expose ourselves to new people and new ideas to avoid complacency. We tend to settle into our comfort zones where life is predictable and less challenging. That's a recipe for stagnation. Instead, we need to force ourselves to meet new people, from different backgrounds, and embrace new ideas.
Unfortunately, it seems that too many people are pulling back into a comfortable cocoon of familiarity. Even our news sources are reinforcing this, with opinion and news being all mixed together so that our minds are made up for us. You have to work hard to get multiple points of view on an issue.
The more we learn about other people, other cultures, and other ideas, the better we will be able to deal with the world's problems. The more innovative we will be. The better our solutions will be. So, fight the tendency to stay with your comfort zone and push out of it once in a while. Travel to really different places and countries. Push into social circles with people of different backgrounds -- ethnic and financial. And, make sure your kids do the same. You'll understand the world in different ways.
This brings me to Barack Obama. Despite my real disappointment that he zig zagged on the FISA/telco immunity issue, I still think that he is the rare candidate that can pull the different parts of the country together. He's not perfect, and he's not as experienced as some people would like. But, I think that we are all going to have to sacrifice somewhat to solve the big problems facing the US. It will be easier to sacrifice with someone who really unites us at the helm. I think that one reason Bush won in 2000 was his 'uniter, not a divider' line. If only it were true.
(PS - read the Salon article from the last link. Is that really the same person who has been President for the past seven years?)
June 29, 2008
Look Before You Give
This article in today's Boston Globe was pretty interesting. The examples are all from the Republican side, but I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happens on the Democratic side, too.
The article describes how candidates hired firms to run their fund-raising. The candidates were not very successful, but the fund-raising firms took 90-97% of all of the money raised for fund-raising expenses. According to the article, 30% is a more typical number. Even more surprising, some of the firms kept on raising money nationally for candidates that had dropped out of the race. They were playing on people's emotions -- "Defeat Liberal Barney Frank" -- even when his opponent had only garnered 147 votes statewide and couldn't qualify to get onto the ballot.
This is a year when more people than ever have paid attention to politics. There is a ton of fund-raising done over the Internet and via direct mail. Our political financial system is very complicated, and people give money to causes as well as candidates. Before you give to someone or some cause, make sure you know where the money will go. I don't know how you could have figured out that giving money to one of these candidates would just fund the fund-raising consultants, but at least make sure your candidate is still in the race!
June 21, 2008
Bush's Strategy Revealed
Jon Stewart figured out what Bush's strategy has been for the past 7 1/2 years....
June 06, 2008
Perspective
Now that Senator Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee for President, there is a lot of interest in him picking Hillary Clinton as his VP. Since the battle between them was so close, people think that teaming them up will give the Democrats the best chance to beat John McCain in November.
I don't get that. One reason why the race between Obama and Hillary was so close was that their positions are not that different. Certainly, they have different levels and types of experience and have different styles. I like Obama but would have been willing to vote for Hillary had she been the nominee. Strangely, there are many Hillary supporters who say that they'd rather vote for John McCain than Obama. Huh?
Maybe they are bitter that Hillary lost. The press was tough on Hillary, particularly the conservative pundits. It may not have been fair and may have been misogynistic. But, I don't think that Obama showed her anything other than respect. And, if you support Hillary's positions, you can't be that disappointed with Obama. There are some differences, but mostly those of degree.
Meanwhile, if Obama wants to build a strong ticket, he needs balance. Someone with more Washington experience. Someone with some complementary positions who is willing to support Obama. Maybe from the South or West or a state he's got to carry. And, dare I say, an old white guy may not be a bad selection. Race does matter, although Obama's nomination shows that progress is being made. I don't know enough to suggest anyone, but Jim Webb from Virgina is mentioned a lot (he says he's not interested).
It would be easy to rush to a decision to put Hillary on the ticket, appease her followers, and strive for unity. But, time and perspective will lead to a better decision. This is often the case, and big decisions should only be made when they need to be, after sufficient time and consideration. Anyway, Hillary is going to support the Democratic ticket no matter what. She doesn't have to be on the ticket to endorse Obama.
May 17, 2008
You Are What You Golf
As NPR reports, Politico.com interviewed President Bush this past week. In the NPR story, they talk about the message sent by Presidents and their golf game. Bush said to Politico:
For the first time, Bush revealed a personal way in which he has tried to acknowledge the sacrifice of soldiers and their families.
“I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf,” he said. “I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal.”
Bush said he made that decision after the August 2003 bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad, which killed Sergio Vieira de Mello, the top U.N. official in Iraq and the organization’s high commissioner for human rights.
“I remember when de Mello, who was at the U.N., got killed in Baghdad as a result of these murderers taking this good man's life,” he said. “I was playing golf — I think I was in central Texas — and they pulled me off the golf course and I said, ‘It's just not worth it anymore to do.’"
I guess Eisenhower, as a general, played golf during World War II. He also played golf during the Korean War. Everyone needs a way to relax, even a President during a 5+ year war. Maybe this is the message Bush really wants to avoid:
May 12, 2008
Crazy and Dangerous
If you live in Massachusetts, watch out. This group -- Committee for Small Government -- is trying to create some chaos. According to today's Boston Globe, this group is trying to put a binding ballot initiative on the November ballot that would abolish the Massachusetts state income tax. Now, it sounds great to not pay income taxes, but, according to the Globe, this represents about 40% of the state budget. You can't make a cut that big without a plan.
The Globe says that this is 3x the amount of money that the state sends to cities and towns for schools. So, your income tax savings would probably be offset with big property tax increases. But, Proposition 2 1/2 makes it hard for towns to raise their property taxes, so schools, police, and fire departments will just be cut, probably deeply.
The advocates of this crazy idea cite government waste as the reason to do this. I am all in favor of cutting government waste. I'd love to pay less in taxes. But, I'll only do it with a well thought out plan for making departments more effiicent, thinking through alternative funding sources, etc. I know from looking at my town's school budget that there is huge pressure from special education and energy costs that ensures that the schools have to tighten and cut a bit every year. Although this is painful, it does make sure that the adminstrators are looking out for effiicency. Could they do more? Probably. Could they cut 40% overnight and still do anything close to their current mission? No way. We'll be paying fees for everything to offset this crazy scheme.
Something like this surprisingly got 45% of the vote in 2002. I expect a more organized fight this time. I'd love to see a debate between Governor Patrick and Carla Howell on this. We'd be so much better off if people like this put forward well thought out proposals on cutting government spending without creating chaos.
May 09, 2008
Persuasion not Domination
I haven't read his book yet, but I did listen to an extensive interview with Fareed Zakaria where he discussed "The Post American World". My main exposure to Fareed has been on The Daily Show, where he is a frequent guest. I always liked his viewpoint.
Fareed's new book is about how America finds its place in a new world where there are many powers, not one superpower. With the ascendancy of China and India, the resurgance of Western Europe, and the US bogged down in Iraq and with some internal issues, the US has lost a lot of influence over the past few years. I don't think we can get this back by flexing our muscles. Instead, we must change our approach and be the 'Chairman of the Board', as Fareed describes.
One of the best lines from the interview (and probably a quote from the book) is that the US must lead by persuasion, not domination. We have lost our power of persuasion and have tried to get our way by being the bully. We'd be much better off, and much safer, with a persuasive and inclusive approach. We need to be engaged with the world and building coalitions, not demanding that we get our way.
I think that this is one of the most important meta-trends in our country. One of my main criteria in deciding who I am going to vote for in the Presidential election is "which candidate is best able to change the perception of the US in the world and lead by persuasion?" Hint: Talking about being in Iraq for 100 years or obliterating Iran probably disqualifies you.
Another good line from Fareed: When other countries are looking out for their self-interest first, we call it nationalism. When we look out for our own self-interest first, we call it patriotism. I think that what we need to do is to persuade people that all of our interests are actually aligned.
This theme particularly resonated with me because our new investment firm, Sempre Management, will also require us to use the power of persuasion with our active, hands-on investor approach. We like to think that we are pretty good at persuasion.
May 02, 2008
The issues are the issue
I thought that the long, drawn out Democartic nomination process would be a good thing, but now I am not so sure. I thought that having the whole country involved, with two closely matched interesting candidates running, would lead to more people paying attention to the election, more careful consideration of the candidates, and higher voter participation. Certainly, there are more people voting, which has to be a good thing. Also, the Democrats have an easier time staying in the news, which is probably helpful to them. But, I think that the nomination race has deteriorated greatly.
I am late to the party on this, but the focus on which fringe religious person support whom and what misstatement each candidate when is a complete waste of time. I can't believe that a whole hour of the last debate was focused on this. Who cares?
I liked Hillary's idea of a head-to-head debate with no moderator. I guess that Obama is not going to do this. He must feel that he has a lead and doesn't want to give her any openings. There have been a lot of debates, but much of the country has only been paying attention since February. Once Super Tuesday didn't end the race, it got a lot more interesting.
Unfortunately, in the last few months, there has been very little discussion of the issues between the candidates. They had their slightly different views of NAFTA. They certainly disagree on the usefulness of a federal gasoline tax holiday. But, they should be talking again about the big issues -- Iraq, the economy, energy policy, healthcare. That may not be what the press wants to focus on, but that's what the country needs to focus on.
I'd love it if one of the candidates in the last debate told Charlie Gibson "that is a ridiculous question that I am not going to answer. Can we have a question about the real issues, please?"
April 19, 2008
Funniest Colbert Video of the Week
This is the funniest Colbert video in a long time. As a spoof to Stephen's 'The Word' segment, John Edwards makes an appearance doing 'The EdWords'. And, Edwards is probably the most sought after Caucasian male vote in the country!
April 07, 2008
Trust the System?
If you have any concerns about having the superdelegates decide the Democratic nomination, this should reassure you that the superdelegates are qualified to make the right choice. What a system!
March 03, 2008
The word on Obama
Whenever I have written about politics, I have tried to be as even handed as I can. I've tried to focus on principle rather than on candidates. But, I read something today that crystallized my own feelings on Barack Obama.
Marc Andreessen wrote about his meeting with Barack Obama in early 2007. His summary of Obama is:
Smart, normal, curious, not radical, and post-Boomer.
More interesting to me was Obama's answers to the two big questions: 1) lack of executive/management experience and 2) lack of foreign policy experience. On 1), Obama predicted that he would run a well-organized campaign. Hard to argue with that. And on 2), he points to his personal background and his experience on the foreign relations committee.
That second answer is OK, but doesn't really show experience. I'd like to see Obama complement himself with some real hands-on experience, like Bill Richardson. Perhaps he will. But, in general, I don't think any Senator reall has foreign policy experience. They may have knowledge, but not real experience. That comes from being in the State Department, an ambassador, at the UN, etc. You have to face real trade-offs to have experience.
We have a family friend who had Obama as a law professor at the University of Chicago. She calls him the smartest person she has ever met. That confirms Marc's impression of intelligence. And, Marc is pretty smart, you have to be smart to impress him.
I was drawn to Obama for many of the resons Marc listed. I also think that he is one person who can really unite the country. After almost 16 years of very divisive politics, I think that the country wants to come together more than we want to argue. Most politicians and pundits don't get this. That's why so many Republicans ignored Rush Limbaugh's lambasting of John McCain. They liked McCain's moderate positions and appreciate his frankness and independence. More proof that we, as a country, want to be united and less polarized.
I expect that Obama will win the two major primaries tomorrow in Texas and Ohio. If he does that, it's over. And, we should have a pretty interesting general election season.
February 18, 2008
Less Than One More Year...
February 15, 2008
Bringing Back Some Checks and Balances
Finally.
I'm glad to see the Democratic-led House of Representatives finally stand up to the Bush Administration as they continue to trample on some of our freedoms. The House has refused to send to President Bush a bill which extends a temporary electronic surveilance act that circumvents the FISA process and adds immunity for telecom companies that helped the Administration get around existing laws. If you look into the FISA process, you'd see that it is nowhere near as onerous as the administration claims for them to get a FISA warrant to wiretap a suspected terrorist. And, I am all in favor of a very flexible FISA court that aids the administration's ability to monitor terrorist communication.
But, according to people like this guy, the administration is fighting terror with a machine gun rather than a laser-guided missle. This is why the administration needs immunity for the telecom companies for past activities. According to this story, AT&T aided the administration monitor all Internet traffic from a large peering point and probably did the same elsewhere.
"That was my 'aha!' moment," Klein said. "They're sending the entire Internet to the secret room."
The diagram showed splitters, glass prisms that split signals from each network into two identical copies. One fed into the secret room, the other proceeded to its destination, he said.
"This splitter was sweeping up everything, vacuum-cleaner-style," he said. "The NSA is getting everything. These are major pipes that carry not just AT&T's customers but everybody's."
One of Klein's documents listed links to 16 entities, including Global Crossing, a large provider of voice and data services in the United States and abroad; UUNet, a large Internet provider in Northern Virginia now owned by Verizon; Level 3 Communications, which provides local, long-distance and data transmission in the United States and overseas; and more familiar names such as Sprint and Qwest. It also included data exchanges MAE-West and PAIX, or Palo Alto Internet Exchange, facilities where telecom carriers hand off Internet traffic to each other.
"I flipped out," he said. "They're copying the whole Internet. There's no selection going on here. Maybe they select out later, but at the point of handoff to the government, they get everything."
So, all of our privacy has been violated, not just that of suspected terrorists. This is clearly a violation of our rights and an example of real abuse of power.
Since our next President is probably going to be a Senator (Clinton, McCain, or Obama), hopefully they'll have much more respect for the checks and balance system which makes our country great and helps preserve our freedoms. I'd rather have freedom and some more bureaucracy than give anyone in the government the broad ability to do whatever they want.
February 07, 2008
Getting Better Polling Data
The Daily Show has some ideas on how to get better polling data.
January 22, 2008
Johnson and MLK
After writing yesterday about Martin Luther King, Jr., I was intrigued to hear this NPR show that included recordings of several telephone conversations between President Johnson and MLK in the early 60s. The show is timely because of some of the squabbling between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama about who actually 'got things done' when it came to civil rights.
The argument is ridiculous. The recordings you'll hear if you listen to the show indicate some strong collaboration between Johnson and King. Johnson needed King to continue to mobilize the public and create public awareness of the inequities of racism. King needed Johnson to push legislation ahead through Congress. I don't think that either could have been successful without the efforts of the other.
This issue has also brought a new focus to Johnson's efforts to improve civil rights in the US. Johnson went down in flames due to getting us stuck in Vietnam. But, he also needs to get credit for driving civil rights legislation.
January 09, 2008
Just Getting Started
Although Hillary is not my first choice for President, I am thrilled that she won the NH Primary yesterday. I don't want the process to be over before it gets started. I think that voters are just starting to pay attention, and it's good that neither party's nomination is wrapped up. Let's at least get through Super Tuesday on February 5 before any of the top 2-3 Democrats and top 3-5 Republicans drop out.
There has been an interesting side-effect from the early starting Presidential campaign. The candidates had lots of time to raise money, build an organization and generate interest. Then, there is a hard sprint for four weeks from Iowa through Super Tuesday. That's when the voters are just starting to watch the race and make decisions. A lot of voters in NH decided yesterday who they were going to vote for.
I couldn't believe that the pundits were speculating that Hillary would have to drop out if she didn't win NH. Yes, Obama would have had momentum, but Hillary still has plenty of money and a strong organization with broad support. If she had lost to Obama, she'd have to make a comeback, but only two small states would have voted. She certainly would have carried on through Super Tuesday. By then ~30 states will have voted, and the race should be winnowed down.
I'd love to have split races through the Conventions. I think it would be great political theater and may captivate more voters. It may get very negative, but I think that we would really get to understand the candidates with some small scale, more detailed debates. I hope that some intrigue would get voters more interested and get people to turn out. If that happens, and two inspiring candidates emerge, we may get an interesting election with high turnout.
Call me an optimist, but I think we could have an election that could be interesting and end up being good for the country.
August 17, 2007
Maybe Bill is the one?
A few days ago, I wrote about my disgust at the government's misuse of power. I also said I would vote for the first candidate who convinces me that they will lead with strength, peace, and ethics. Maybe Bill Richardson is that guy.
Thanks to my brother, Chuck, I read this article by Richardson in the Harvard International Review. It's not a surprise that Richardson is very qualified on foreign policy matters as he is a former UN Representative (as well as former Energy Secretary, Congressman, and current Governor of New Mexico).
The article describes the six trends he sees changing the world:
- Fanatical jihadism
- Growing power and sophistication of criminal networks
- Rapid rise of Asian powers
- Re-emergence of Russia
- Global economic interdependence and financial imbalance
- Globalization of urgent health, environmental, and social problems
Yikes!
Richardson lays out his New Realism approach to foreign folicy:
- US must repair its alliances
- US must restore commitment to international law and multilateral cooperation
- US must be impeccable in its own human rights behavior
- US must be a leader on environmental issues, including reducing greenhouse gas emmissions and developing and commercializing clean, alternative engery technologies
- Engage directly with other nations, including Iran and North Korea
- Focus on real security threats, including building international cooperation to do so
- Lead the world in opening an ideological front in the ware against jihadism, including living up to our own ideals (no prisoner abuse, torture, secret prisons, and evasion of the Geneva Convention. Close Guantanamo). Lots more on this in the article.
I don't know if Richardson can win because politics has become such a money game. But, I'll be studying him further. I like what he has to say on the international side, and we have gone so wrong there in the last 7 years.
August 15, 2007
Cheney Used To Be Right
He'll never answer the obvious question about what changed between 1994 and 2003, but it's clear that the idea that Iraq would be a quagmire if Saddam fell is not a new one.
August 01, 2007
No End In Sight
I heard an interview on NPR's On Point with the Director and Producer of the movie No End In Sight. If you are feeling a bit short on rage with the Bush Administration, watch the preview of the movie below. If you want your rage to boil over, listen to the interview on the On Point site. I haven't seen the movie, but I plan to.
The bottom line from the On Point interview:
In the suburbs of Washington and all around the country today, there's a small army of civilian and military experts and soldiers who did their time in Iraq and are now back, brooding, ashamed and angry.
They are angry about how badly wrong their mission went, about how they might have done it better, but mostly about how virtually all their best ideas and direst warnings were steadfastly ignored by the handful of men who led them.
There was one example cited in movie of a report written on how there would likely be a bloody civil war in the aftermath of invading Iraq. The report was summarized in a one-page memo. President Bush never even read the one-page summary. In fact, according to those cited in the movie, he was disengaged during the first 18 months of the invasion and aftermath. Hey, it was only a war. He must have had other things to worry about.
June 29, 2007
Immigration bill dead for now
June 27, 2007
Governing from a compromising position
I've written about the immigration issue in this country a few times previously (here, here, and here). Today, it looks like there may be some progress on getting some sort of immigration bill passed.
This issue has been really affected by polarizing politics in this country. There are factors of declining real wages of the lower and middle classes, large influx of illegal immigrants who are willing to perform lower wage jobs, employers willing to violate the law in order to hire lower wage workers, concerns about cultural fragmentation due to an influx of people who don't speak English or follow other American traditions, entangled thoughts about national security from open borders, and much more. Any solution short of deporting all 12 million illegal immigrants runs the risk of being branded as amnesty (which, I guess, is a bad word to some). At the least, most people would agree that people who came here illegally shouldn't get an advantage in becoming a citizen over someone who tried to follow a legal process.
And, we have at least 12 million mostly-hard working people who have settled here and become part of our communities. Do we really want countless raids going on in this country, separating illegal immigrants from their US-born (and US-citizen) children, as we try to send them all somewhere else?
I'm glad to see that there seems to be some spirit of compromise, starting with President Bush (whom I almost never agree with). He convinced some Republican Senators to re-start this issue. I agree with Bush that the status quo is unacceptable. We need to reconcile ourselves to some solution that addresses this issue. It's way too complicated for everyone to be satisfied with the ultimate legislation. In fact, I am sure that no one will be satisfied with the result. But, it's going to be better than the status quo.
There hasn't been enough compromise in today's political climate. This has led to either bad policy or stalemates. In the end, we all lose. We can gain much more if we have spirited debate and all try to form a workable solution. There's always the next legislative session to try to make it better. The status quo, on so many issues, is unacceptable.
Here's a quote from Ronald Regan on compromise. He seems very practical in today's context:
"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it.
"Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything.
"I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.'
"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.
June 19, 2007
The Daily Show explains Bush's Middle East Strategy
June 15, 2007
The Daily Show Strikes Again
I love The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. These shows give great insight into the news while being very humorous. And, they often point out the weaknesses in 'real' news coverage. There's nothing like 'fake news', and I watch every morning during the week when I work out.
Here's a video from yesterday's Daily Show that captures the spirit of what they do. Why don't other media outlets hold politicians responsible when they contradict their previous claims? Note that this video will only work unitl July 15, according to Comedy Central. After that, you'll have to trust me that it was pretty funny as well as being a sad commentary on the integrity of Tony Snow.
The video is also available here.
May 16, 2007
Checks Unbalanced
The wheels of government generally move slowly. I think that is a good thing. One thing that slows it down (or should) is the knowledge that decisions and actions can be reviewed under a healthy system of checks and balances. Knowing that the spotlight will be turned on you keeps you honest. In start-ups, we often talk about the Wall Street Journal test -- would you want this decision or action reported on the front page of the Wall Street Journal? If not, don't do it.
I try not to rant too much about the Bush administration on this blog, but today the latest breach of checks and balances has come to light. As reported here, President Bush, then White House counsel Gonzales, and Chief of Staff Card overruled the Attorney General and went ahead with an aggressive domestic wiretapping program.
Now, if John Ashcroft thinks that a program tramples on civil liberties, it's got too be overreaching. However, Bush and Gonzales went ahead and authorized it anyway. Finally, as the Democrats have re-taken Congress, we are seeing checks and balances in action. These decisions and out-of-balance approaches are coming to light. There was virtually none of this Congressional oversight in the Republican controlled Congress in the first six years of the Bush administration.
No matter who gets elected President in 2008, we need a more open and ethcial administration that will cooperate with Congress to ensure that our system of checks and balances remain in force. It's for all of our benefit.
March 27, 2007
Endgame?
Dealing with illegal immigration is something that has been on my mind lately. It started with the raids in New Bedford. What bothered me most was the treatment of families and children when their parents were detained. Despite an attempt at coordinating with the state of Massachusetts, in the end, children were separated from their parents and left without care. This could have been prevented without compromising the goal of the raid.
I recently found out about Endgame, the Department of Homeland Security's plan to remove ALL the illegal immigrants from the US by 2012 (or, as an update (see page 10) to the plan states, 2009). This is somewhere between 8 and 12 million people removed from the country! Do we really want to spend our tax dollars on this?
I am all in favor of enforcing our laws, but this is closing the barn door after all the animals have left. We have US citizens that are the children of many of these immigrants. They are mostly hard working people who are not threats to our country. Endgame has nothing to do with terrorism (although preventing terrorist attacks is listed as the number one goal). We have to deal with the reality of the situation, not some posture we wished was true.
I find it ridiculous that nothing in Endgame has anything to do with punishing the employers who provide jobs (and motivation) for illegal immigrants. We should be putting these people out of business. If employers stop offering jobs to illegal immigrants, many fewer will come.
We can't do a sudden crackdown after years and years of lax enforcement. We have to have a more sane and humane way of dealing with the law abiding illegal immigrants who are here. They should have some way to earn legal status. It doesn't have to be easy or be amnesty. But, it should be able to be accomplished without disrupting communities and families. We also need to crackdown on employers and continue to have tight enforcement on the border. We'll never eliminate all the illegal immigrants or totally stop their entry into the US. But, we should be able to peaceably make a big dent.
March 15, 2007
Immigration crimes and victims
I've been tracking the story about the immigration raid in New Bedford, MA on March 6. The short summary is that the federal government planned a raid on a factory in New Bedford that had hired many illegal immigrants. This factory, ironically, was making backbacks for the Department of Defense. However, many of the people arrested had dependent children at home who were left behind as the illegals were sent to Texas for processing.
I strongly believe that we need to crack down on employers who hire illegal immigrants. If it is hard to get a job here as an illegal immigrant, fewer illegal immigrants will come.
I also think that illegal immigrants run the risk of being prosecuted. We have been so lax for the past 20 years or more that it's hard to crack down now. But, the mood of the country has stiffened on this front, and illegal immigrants know that they could be deported if caught. My personal feeling is that we should be very tolerant of hard working immigrants as they generally add more to our society than they cost us. The US was strengthened by the big wave if (legal) immigration in the late 1800s through early 1900s. But, until the laws are changed, illegal is illegal.
Two things happened here that shouldn't have: First, but less importantly, the factory was still in business the day after the raid, making their backpacks for the Department of Defense. The federal government should have put this guy out of business, or at least cancelled all his federal contracts. The employer committed the much more significant crime than the employees, in my opinion.
But, the real crime was how the federal government treated the immigrants, particularly those with small children. According to the Massachusetts officials, the state had coordinated with the federal government to have social services people involved with those arrested to ensure that any dependent children were taken care of as the illegal immigrants were processed. At the last minute, it appears that the federal government did not allow this and went ahead with the raid. Mothers, including those who were nursing their babies, were arrested and sent to Texas. No access was given to them by social services. One seven year old child at home called a hotline to report that his mother never came home. Some of these children are US citizens as they were born here (that's also a law!).
This wasn't a national security matter. Other than a flight risk, these people didn't represent any threat to the community or to others. There was no reason to whisk them off to Texas before making sure that their children were taken care of. The children are not criminals. The federal government of course, called the factory a 'crime scene', which is the reason why the social services people were not allowed there. They never apologized or acknowledged that their handling of the matter was wrong.
As a society, we need to protect our children and those who can't take care of themselves. To leave these children scared, hungry, and unattended was the real immigration crime here. Shame on us all if we let this happen again.
March 03, 2007
A New Low
Ann Coulter stooped to a new low in a recent speech. Fox News reports on it here. You can watch the video on the John Edwards campaign site here. I'm not advocating that you give money to Edwards's campaign, but that's the first place where I found the actual video.
I hate it when politics stoops to personal attacks. I think that it turns off voters. Even staunch conservatives gain nothing by calling candidates 'faggots.' If she thinks that Edwards is gay, I think that there is clear evidence to the contrary. If she thinks he is weak-willed and spineless, she could just say that. To use such a derogative term guarantees that she'll get coverage, but also drags the discussion into the gutter.
I wish that the press had the guts to ignore such hateful speech. Only then will people like Coulter stop doing this in desperate attempts to call attention to themselves.
February 20, 2007
OK, now I'm old
We all have those moments when we realize that we are older than our self-image. Beyond life's mileposts (graduation, marriage, parenthood), there are times when we figure out that people who were always younger than us who are now older.
Today I realized that, for the first time, a serious Presidential contender is younger than I am. Barack Obama is almost exactly three months younger than me. I don't know if he'll win, and I don't know if I would vote for him. But, he's a contender. And, I am no longer as young as I always thought I was.
February 01, 2007
Be very afraid...
Unlike today's other story of the Boston bomb scare/hoax/marketing ploy, the story of what the CIA did to Khaled al-Masri is really scary. If you haven't read this, you should. Any of us could be next.
It seems like Khaled al-Masri was kidnapped by the CIA because he has a name similar to Khalid al-Masri, a member of al-Qaeda. Now, if they had detained him, questioned him with some sort of due process, and released him when they figured out that they had the wrong guy, that would be understandable. How long would that have taken -- days, weeks? Khaled was detained for five months after being picked up in Macedonia, beaten, drugged, and taken to an Afghan prison. This guy is a German citizen who happened to have the wrong name!
I am all for interrogating suspected terrorists. But, we can't treat anyone like this. I think that we win in the world if we show everyone our high ideals and regard for human rights (or how my ideal America regards human rights). Even someone wrongfully detained could understand a mix-up. But, if they are drugged, beaten, and raped, as Khaled al-Masri claims to be, then our CIA operatives are subject to arrest in Germany.
How do we get Germany to support our anti-terror efforts if we treat one of their citizens like this and then release him only after he agrees not to tell anyone of his detention. He was dumped in Albania with no money and no apology. It's a disgrace.
Of course, this story has played out hundreds of times over in Guantanamo Bay. We need to put the detainees we still have on trial or release them. Enough is enough.
Commitment to human rights and proper treatment of prisoners and suspected terrorists is one thing I'll be looking for in the next Presidential election. I am all for being tough on potential terrorists, but we need to do this within the bounds of due process and with respect for himan rights.
I hope that there is no terrorist named Michael Finestine some day. If there is, I could end up in an Afghan prison, too.
January 23, 2007
Politico
If you like national politics, check out Politico.com. Content looks interesting. I heard about it in an NPR OnPoint podcast today.
Which is the real Romney?
There has been a lot written about how former Massachusetts Governor Romney has shifted to the right to woo more national conservative voters who would be otherwise put off by his Massachusetts pedigree. Although I didn't vote for Romney when he ran for governor, I didn't think he would do a bad job. He is a venture capitalist and had done a good job on big projects, such as the Salt Lake City Olympics. When Romney focused on something, such as the collapse of the Big Dig tunnel ceiling, he got results. Maybe he should have had more competent people monitoring the Big Dig all along, but that project was a mess for a long time before he got into office.
Anyway, once Romney decided to run for President, he has tried to portray himself as more conservative. The contrast in the Scott Lehigh column referenced above is very illustrative. For me, the most important (and most elusive) trait a candidate can have is integrity. I want to vote for someone who has some core beliefs, tells me what they are, and then follows-through on them after they are elected. Even though I never voted for Reagan, I always felt that he told America what he was going to do, and then did it. Pretty rare these days.
Not only has Romney pulled a major U-turn on social issues, he has tried to discredit Brian Camenker, a conservative activist who has taken Romney on. Camenker has highlighted that Romney hasn't always described himself as a conservative. I am no fan of Camenker. And in this Press Release which has been removed from the index of Mitt's Web site, Romney doesn't like hearing what Camenker thinks of his record.
The funniest aspect of the Press Release is the link to this video in which the Daily Show's Ed Helms interviews Camenker and pokes fun at his stridently conserv