Wednesday, September 28, 2005

Behind the Curtain

In case you haven't been paying attention to the six party talks happening off-and-on over the past year, here's a good summary.

(click, wait, click again for legible image)

Got a Job?

This was actually supposed to be posted about 1 this afternoon, but I mis-typed the email address and just found out about it now.  So here's post one for today:

It's happened. Sort of.  I have a job.  For the next 2 weeks I am "Mr.
Receptionist" at a small Early Childhood programming and policy shop
in DC.  Yesterday was day 1, and today (logically) day 2.  It's a
rather fast-paced office, partially because there is a lot going on,
and partially because there are a couple people finishing up at the
end of the week, and everyone else is trying to get up-to-speed on
what they are leaving behind.

As far as temp work goes, it's decent so far, just not quite what I'm
looking to do long term.  Unfortunately it's busy enough that I don't
have a lot of time to write this.  Maybe more tomorrow or Friday when
the office is just me and one other person as everyone else will be
out of town or on vacation.

Monday, September 26, 2005

Those Crafty Communists

Here's a site I read from time to time. Usually when I'm feeling like watching DC local broadcast commercials aren't propaganda enough. (For those that don't know, we get Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, Oil Well companies--not Exxon or BP--the actual DRILLING companies, stuff like that.)

It's the "official" news site of the DPRK. Either because the internet is too threatening to have in North Korea or because of some other unknown magical reason, it's actually run from Tokyo, which is not in North Korea nor does it have particularly communist sympathies.

But just in case you thought communism was alive and kicking in North Korea's only official foray into the web, think again. They're as cut-throat capitalist as the rest of the world (though not as much as the NYTimes).

From the bottom of the main page:

This home page is provided by Korea News Service (KNS) in Tokyo.
Re-use of any material on this home page without credit
to Korea News Service (KNS) is prohibited.
So much for "last great bastion of communism." Guess we'll have to go to Burma to find utopia.

Saturday, September 24, 2005

Something better?

I just came from a meeting this morning of a few people who have been getting together about once a month for the past dozen years or so. They're an interesting mix of mid-life people who want to get together to talk about significant social issues facing the country or the world.

This week was Katrina. In preparation, we read this piece by Jim Wallace about how the disasterous consequences of Katrina are reminding America that we don't always live up to the hype.

Sure, the U.S. is the richest country in the world. But we also have some of the most inexcusable poverty. When 50% of children in New Orleans live below poverty, we're not doing all we can. When parents enroll their children at average looking schools, but say they never expected their children to go to such nice schools, we are not doing all that we can. When unemployment for many parts of New Orleans was in the mid-to-high twenty percents, our national greatness and our national wealth is not being used as well as it could be.

This brings to mind the question of how to rebuild New Orleans. President Bush has declared that it should become better than it was before, a place of new opportunity and new hope. I agree. This is what I think should be done.

1. Give rebuilding contracts to companies that promise to hire local residents to perform the work--this will ensure that money going to rebuild will be recycled into the community, rather than shipped home when the work is done and the workers leave.
2. Create grants and tax incentives for existing small businesses, and new entreprenuership. These are the types of businesses that are rooted in community, hire and invest locally, and develop their communities.
3. Establish a minimum threshhold for money used to build/rehab schools, early childhood programs, and adult education centers. These are the bedrocks of economic advancement, job growth, and capital accumulation. Without these, everything else will be like too-much makeup attempting to hide years of hard living.

Obviously these, by themselves aren't enough, they're the main ideas I took away from the conversation this morning. Anyone else have any ideas?

Thursday, September 22, 2005

Fun and Games

It's amazing what people who truly love sports will do. I mean, in the states, it's normal to throw a parade if your team wins the world series, or riot when they win the college hockey championship, or burn blocks down after the NBA finals.

But those Gambians are classy. And sneaky. Apparently a flight of 289 Gambian soccer fans faked being out of fuel, so their flight (scheduled for Lima) could land in some other city where they're under-17 boys national team was playing a world cup match against Qatar. And the best parts: the flight was run by an airline called "Air Rum" and chartered by Gambia's President!

In Wonk News Today:

Despite a pledge by Minnesota's Governor, Tim Pawlenty during his 2002 gubernatorial race to not raise taxes, it seems Minnesotan's will be basking in the warm glow of his plan to destroy Minnesota.

According to "experts" (whoever they are) property taxes around the state are expected to rise by 12%. Now this is fine and dandy for people like Pawlenty and people who fight the existence of taxes with the messianic zeal most people would put into fighting satan; people like David Strom.

There are lots of good reasons to want to decrease taxes. Deriving a greater-than-normal pleasure at the thought of being in debt; knowing that you spend your money on new cars and new tvs better than the government could spend it on new cars and new schools; or what I think is the most common reason: a mysanthropic rejection of any commitment to the place you live or the people around you.

I cringe as much as the next person when I look at my state and federal tax withholdings (or looked, when I actually got paychecks) but I believe that those taxes serve a purpose. Usually, I think the purpose is to pay police salaries so they can arrest the punk-kids who drop out of under-funded schools before they graduate and then begin to live off the dole rather than getting a low-paying wal-mart job and serving me obsequisly when I walk in.

Ooops, was that sarcastic. Sorry. Totally out of line.

Seriously though, what's wrong with government playing a role in society? And an important role: keeping us safe, helping provide our children with the opportunity to chose what they want from life, and allowing the rest of us to go about our daily lives without fear of being robbed, disposessed, or arbitrarily dropped from our jobs? Call me a liberal, or a damn hippie, but I think those are all good things.

And you know what? Those all take tax-money.

Tomorrow: all the ways government encroaches on Private Enterprise, Entreprenuership, and the Free Market that made America great in those golden days of yore.

Tuesday, September 20, 2005

Corporate Raiders have taken the Whitehouse

If one of the main responsibilities of a CEO and corporate management is maximizing shareholder value, I'd like to use that as a measuring stick for the present administration. After all, it contains more holders of MBAs than any administration in history.

Here are the numbers from the Office of Management of the Budget's own site on budget surplus/shortfall since 1998. See what you think of our CEO-in-chief.

Fiscal Year Surplus/Deficit (billions)

1998 $69
1999 $125
2000 $236
2001 $#
2002 $-158
2003 $-375
2004 $-412
2005 $-427*
2006 $-390*

*estimated; these also do not include Hurricane Katrina emergency authorizations.

# no number found at OMB.

The last year President Clinton had impact on the federal budget, the federal debt was $5.8 trillion. Yeah, that's a lot of zeros. The Bureau of Public Debt accounted the debt as of Friday (Sept. 16, 2005) at $7.9 trillion. That's about an extra $4.13 dollars per American per day since he took office.

Bush and the Congress are mortgaging our children's future for the price of a McDonald's value meal every day.

These have been numbers 100% from the executive branch, or within the whitehouse itself. There is no spin here, no opinion. Just the facts. I'll ask again, what do you think would happen if the people making decisions for America were making decisions for Microsoft, Boeing, or Payless Shoes? I'm guessing they'd be opening up golden parachutes.

Sunday, September 18, 2005

How much you'll pay...

...for what you used to get for free.

The New York Times did it. They just drastically reduced their readership. Forget your political biases, they're now charging for online access to op-eds, and other interesting content in the paper. I don't claim to speak for any other Americans, but I know I'm not particularly inclined to start paying for something today that was free yesterday.

Friday, September 16, 2005

Mt. Pleasant

As usual, I've gone the last several months living in a bubble. I thought I lived in the only Mt. Pleasant in the U.S.

Apparently, Iowa is giving us some competition. At least, if you can believe the pictures you find on the internet. (From my friend Emily's blog.)

I think I'm going to have to start keeping an eye on those crafy Iowans. First they steal Mt. Pleasant. What next? They'll probably try and convince me there really is a town named "Okoboji". Yeah. Not gonna buy that one.

Thursday, September 15, 2005

If you love gasoline and you know it...

There was a blurb about gas prices in Britain hitting $7 a gallon, so I started wondering what prices have been doing around the world. Guess what? I ask, and the government provides. The Department of Energy tracks average weekly gasoline prices in much of Western Europe--probably other places too, but in a change from normal activity, I'm not going to spend an hour looking.

Some quick points I'll draw out of the info (there have been quite a few weeks between 1996 and today).

Starting at the week of 9/11 gas prices in the U.S. began to fall. At the same time, or shortly thereafter, they fell in all other countries in the DOE data. The U.S. didn't return to the same gas price for 71 weeks. The European countries? Between 25 and 40 weeks. Average: 30.2 weeks. This means the U.S.--the world's largest consumer of gasoline, took more than twice as long for gas prices to return UP to pre-9/11 levels than our European counterparts.

When tracking started, January 1st, 1996, the U.S. paid 1/3 as much for gas as our European counterparts. On June 11, 2001 U.S. gas prices "spiked" to 1/2 of European prices. We never hit that level again until this week.

I'll let you each draw your own conclusions, but I wanted to bring this info up a little higher into the world of "real" people.

Here's the data page

This is the broader-level info page

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

World Trade or World Domination?

A couple admissions before this gets underway. First, I'm breaking my own rule of not writing any posts in a word-processor, but that's because as I went to open up the blog, my cable and internet died. It's really great.

Second, I haven't been hearing complaints yet, but I know they're building: I haven't posted much the last couple days because I've been writing things that don't really belong in a public space yet. They're more thoughtlings (thing saplings) than thoughts, so I'm going to let them grow a bit.

On to more important issues: Global Conquest.

I found it. The world headquarters of a major international commodity trading cartel. It's the world's second most heavily traded commodity. It's not traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, or the NYSE.

Sure, it looks like a normal, everyday coffee shop. But it's not. It's hiding only blocks from the White House. It sits on it's corner, quietly planning world domination, and market manipulation.

I understand this is a fairly major allegation. But I have evidence. In two and a half hours sitting in that den of secrecy yesterday, I counted about 150-200 people come through the door. Some came in more than once. One man had to poor sense to come in three times. That's actually how I figured it out. It can't be just a simple coffee shop when there's a guy who comes in for 3 separate cups of coffee in 150 minutes. He was sneaking in for secret meetings with the Godfather of the syndicate.

Now, I'm someone who thinks about world trade more often than most. But it hasn't ever struck home in quite the same way as it did yesterday. Not when I saw a Nike Factory in Mongolia, or when I lived next to a Phillips semiconductor plant for two years in China. No, this was the kind of epiphany that can only happen in a true redoubt of capitalism: Starbuck's.

Next time you go into a Starbuck's, keep an open eye. You might just see the beginning of the International Coffee Traders Syndicate's world take-over.

Monday, September 12, 2005

R E S P E C ... naww...BURN!

Tried to post this earlier today, but was having problems. Hopefully it's up now.


After more than forty years of fighting, Israel and Palestine are making progress in their conflict. Now Palestinians wait until they are the lawful possessors of Israeli structures before burning them down.

At least that's what happened in Gaza today when Israeli soldiers completed the withdrawal. I can understand the feelings of frustration and joy that accompany a long struggle and seemingly sudden win. But talk about stupid. Grade A number 1 dumb. It'd be like me going on Wheel of Fortune, winning a brand new car on the word "just deserts" and then walking over to it and throwing in a match.

Sure, Palestinians will say that they are removing a symbol of oppression and unlawful occupation on their land. Good for them. How about being smart for a change. Any idiot can start a fire. It takes a bit of creativity to really give a dig. I'm thinking what the Palestinian's most recent cultural and religious fore-bearers did about 700 years ago in a place called El Andalus, and where the conquering moors didn't simply burn down churches, cathedrals or Castles. They created such enormous, beautiful, architectural wonders in their place, that when the Spaniards finally took them back in 1492, even the bigoted Ferdinando and Isabella were left little choice but to leave them standing. The mosques and moorish palaces are still there, and still impressive.

There's a fundamental problem in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And it's not "they're in my space". It's that neither side has sufficient respect for the other. I'm not saying all Israelis or all Palestinians. But certainly the ones who are doing the fighting. I'm not sure if Sun Tsu said this, or Von Clausewitz, but either one of them should have, if they didn't: it's impossible to have an amicable peace with an adversary one does not respect. The only peace will be one of submission and destruction.

Without takings sides in this issue, Israeli actions for 22 years (at least) have demonstrated a total disrespect for Palestinians. Exhibit A? Palestinians are still living in refugee camps 56 years after the establishment of the Israeli state. Exhibit B? Palestinian militants bomb an Israeli market, Israel bulldozes Palestinian homes. It's old-testament justice, almost to the letter. And look how much peace it's gotten the people who live there.

Palestinians have just as little respect for Israelis' or even themselves. Exhibit A. Person doesn't like that Israeli settlers are moving ever-outward into supposedly Palestinian territory, so person straps TNT to his stomach and gets on a bus in Jerusalem. Hmmm. Great idea. Exhibit B? After said bus explodes, with schoolchildren and housewives on it, Palestinian leader says, "too bad, person was terrorist, nothing I could do." and then waits for it to happen again.

What's my solution? Give the two parties 5 years to show substantive improvement in relations, including the establishment of regular, respectful interactions between political and social leaders at every level between Israel and Palestine. Coordinated efforts to crack down on, and curtail the activities of terrorists and wackos--be they suicide bombers, or ultra-militant "settlers".

If progress isn't made, the UN takes the charter that granted Israel that space and says, "this will expire in 2 months". It also takes the leaders of Israel, and of Palestine, and those that support the terrorists on each side, and ships them to some deserted island in the Aluetians. Drops them there. Naked. No communications. No means of getting away, except swimming through the Northern Pacific.

One group gets a short knife, and a bow; the other a small hatchet, the string for the bow, plus an arrow.

The UN tells these self-righteous, egotistical, self-serving bafoons that a helicopter will come back in 6 weeks. If they are living peacefully, and together, they will be taken back to Israel-Palestine, and their people will be allowed to stay on, and live there--peacefully. If they are all found dead, or there is not peaceful, integrated living, all of their people will be dispersed around the world, and the entire territory of Israel-Palestine will become a World-nature preserve, under the direct administration of his Holiness the Dalai Lama.

Sunday, September 11, 2005

Wonkspedition #1

Wonkspedition: an outing of policy dorks.

The housemates and I had quite an evening. Yesterday was the Silver Spring Jazz Festival, a free jazz concert just outside of the District. The big draw of the evening was the final act: Wynton Marsallis, one of the best trumpeters in the world right now. The plan was to go to the concert, then drift back for some housewarming parties in our neighborhood.

We hopped on a bus for the 15 minute ride north, and walked another 5 minutes to the large open space where the festival was going on. As we drifted in, there were a couple sax players, accompanied by a rythm section. Relatively OK, for a pair of saxes.

After a 10 minute piano solo with only 2 notes, several of us decided to go find a beer some place. The exact phrase used was "a quick drink". That was at about 8 pm. A five minute walk showed us only one restaurant--Ruby Tuesdays.

We waited for 20 minutes while one of the three tables outside were cleared off. Yes, 20 minutes to clear 1/3 of the available tables. Then it was another 15 minutes for our waitress to come by where we orded nothing but drinks. Nothing fancy. 2 beers and a whisky-diet. About 10 minutes after THAT a friend showed up and joined us. The waitress came back to tell us the bar ran out of clean mugs, and was washing them before pouring our drinks. Our friend ordered chicken fingers and a beer.

10 more minutes. Guess what shows up? Drinks? Wrong. Chicken fingers. That's right, it's 10 minutes to fry some chicken, but more than that to get beer from a barrell into a mug. 5 minutes later the beer shows up, but no whiskey coke yet. That's right. Our "quick drink" was an hour in the making. And we're not out of the woods yet.

The waitress disapeared before we could ask for the bill. So it took us another 15 minutes to get possession of the magical piece of paper that would allow us to settle the account. By the time we managed to leave the most wonderful of all restaurants in the DC area, it was 90 minutes. For 3 beers, a whiskey-diet, and chicken fingers.

Moral of Wonkspedition, phase 1: don't ever go to Ruby Tuesdsays. Ever. Especially not the one in Silver Spring, MD.

After having our souls worn down by bad management, poor service, and overpriced bad beer, we escaped the trap that is Ruby Tuesday. We went back to catch the second half of Marsallis's set. It was pretty good, he played a couple pieces that were based on New Orlean's Funeral march style. The songs were good.

Following the short respite of good music--what I'll call the evening's interegnum--the 6 wonks began the short trek home. Or so we thought. It took us...maybe 5 minutes to walk to the bus terminal, and another 5 to find our stop (it's a big station).

So we waited.

And waited. And waited. After about 15 minutes I decided to find out the schedule. If the schedule was to be trusted, the next bus came at 10:30--which was about 2 minutes ago. but it never came. Not until about 10:50. By the time the bus came, there were enough people lined up waiting for it that it was standing room only.

Moral of the story, part 2: take the metro. you might wait 20 minutes, but at least its only 20 minutes.

By the time we made it back home, and picked up our donations for the housewarming parties that we were hoping to make it to, it was pretty late, and things were winding down.

Friday, September 09, 2005

Back to my roots

It seems like a few weeks since there's been any big news out of Asia. It feels like even longer since I've had anything to say about it. I know, I hear the groans already. You didn't know the internet can do that, but it can.

Today, China announced that the six-party talks regarding the Korean peninsula will resume on Tuesday. Yes, they gave the world a 5 day notice. To hear the NYTimes tell the story, the big issue is whether newly appointed Special Envoy for Human Rights in North Korea Jay Lefkowitz will cause a derailing of the talks.

In his defense, he's made it clear that he views his position as completely indpendent of, and on a "parrallel" track to the disarmament talks. Too bad the North Koreans have never been good at making those distinctions when it's not to their advantage to do so. The question left for us, is will NK use Lefkowitz appointment (the position was mandated by Congressional legislation) to walk out of/bog down the talks, or will they see his position the way Lefkowitz does: unrelated.

My concern about Lefkowitz is, after a cursory check of online sources, I'm not sure he's a guy I'd want in that position at this time. He started in the Bush administration as general council for the OMB, and a year later was made a "Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy" for you West Wing types, I think that puts him at about Sam's level. You'll notice Sam doesn't really get invovled with foreign issues--because he's a domestic guy. It's possible that Lefkowitz is far more talented than Sam, or has a much broader range of experience. If anyone knows for certain who the "West Wing" equivalent to "Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy" please speak up.

I certainly hope so, or the Korean peninsula might be in for some rocky times ahead.

Thursday, September 08, 2005

Leadership in Action

When we have a president who is as capable of leading a traumatized people through a crisis as ours, what more can the American public really want.

In his first actual action since the disaster struck the Gulf Coast, President Bush rushes spiritual aid to those who have been more than a week without spiritual support.

The BBC Headline: "Bush declares Katrina prayer day"

I'm by no means disparaging prayer as an important part of many people's lives, but for this to be the big news out of the Whitehouse today is a bad omen for the state of our national response to the disaster.

Maybe something happened, and Bush converted to the church of "Christian Science Government Assistance" in the past couple of weeks. I for one would feel better had the President been leading planning efforts 2 weeks ago, instead of prayer efforts today.

Speech writing made simple

Just in case anyone thought speech writing was actually difficult, try and figure out which Republican President gave this speech about which war...
This gets a bit long, but politicians tend to speak that way. The first few paragraphs are enough for flavor, I just went through the whole thing because...well... I can.

Actual Speech text:

Good evening, my fellow Americans.

Tonight I want to talk to you on a subject of deep concern to all Americans and to many people in all parts of the world, the war in _______.

I believe that one of the reasons for the deep division about _______ is that many Americans have lost confidence in what their Government has told them about our policy. The American people cannot and should not be asked to support a policy which involves the overriding issues of war and peace unless they know the truth about that policy.

Tonight, therefore, I would like to answer some of the questions that I know are on the minds of many of you listening to me.

How and why did America get involved in _______ in the first place?

How has this administration changed the policy of the previous Administration?

What has really happened in the _______ in ____ and on the battlefront in _______?

What choices do we have if we are to end the war?

What are the prospects for peace?

Now let me begin by describing the situation I found when I was inaugurated on January 20: The war had been going on for ____ years. _____ thousand Americans had been killed in action. The training program for the _______ was beyond [behind] schedule. ________ Americans were in _______ with no plans to reduce the number. No progress had been made at the negotiations in _____ and the United States had not put forth a comprehensive peace proposal.

The war was causing deep division at home and criticism from many of our friends, as well as our enemies, abroad.

In view of these circumstances, there were some who urged that I end the war at once by ordering the immediate withdrawal of all American forces. From a political standpoint, this would have been a popular and easy course to follow. After all, we became involved in the war while _____ was in office. I could blame the defeat, which would be the result of my action, on him -- and come out as the peacemaker. Some put it to me quite bluntly: This was the only way to avoid allowing _____'s war to become _____'s war.

But I had a greater obligation than to think only of the years of my Administration, and of the next election. I had to think of the effect of my decision on the next generation, and on the future of peace and freedom in America, and in the world.

Let us all understand that the question before us is not whether some Americans are for peace and some Americans are against peace. The question at issue is not whether ______’s war becomes _____’s war. The great question is: How can we win America’s peace?

Well, let us turn now to the fundamental issue: Why and how did the United States become involved in _______ in the first place? Fifteen years ago _______, with the logistical support of ______ and the ______, launched a campaign to impose a _______ on _______ by _____ and _____ a revolution.

In response to the request of the ______ of _______, _______ sent economic aid and military equipment to assist the people of _______ in their efforts to prevent a ______ takeover. Seven years ago, President ______ sent ______ military personnel to _______ as combat _______. Four years ago, President ______ sent American combat forces to _______.

Now many believe that President _____'s decision to send American combat forces to _______ was wrong. And many others, _____ among them, have been strongly critical of the way the war has been conducted.

But the question facing us today is: Now that we are in the war, what is the best way to end it?

In January I could only conclude that the precipitate withdrawal of all American forces from _______ would be a disaster not only for _______ but for the United States and for the cause of peace.

For the _______, our precipitate withdrawal would inevitably allow the ______ists to repeat the massacres which followed their takeover in the _____ years before. They then murdered more than ______ people and hundreds of thousands more died in _____ camps.

We saw a prelude of what would happen in _______ when the _____ists entered the city of ____ last year. During their brief rule there, there was a bloody reign of terror in which ______ civilians were ______, shot to death, and buried in mass graves.

With the sudden collapse of our support, these atrocities at _____ would become the nightmare of the entire nation and particularly for the million-and-a half _{religious faith}_ refugees who fled to _______ when the ______ists took over in the _{geographic direction}____.

For the United States this _{ordinal number}__ defeat in our nation’s history would result in a collapse of confidence in American leadership not only in _{continent}__ but throughout the world.

Three American Presidents have recognized the great stakes involved in _______ and understood what had to be done.

In 19__ President ______ with his characteristic eloquence and clarity said,

"We want to see a stable Government there," carrying on the [a] struggle to maintain its national independence." We believe strongly in that. We are not going to withdraw from that effort. In my opinion, for us to withdraw from that effort would mean a collapse not only of _{country}_ but _{macro-geographic region}__. So we’re going to stay there."

President ______ and President ______ expressed the same conclusion during their terms of office.

For the future of peace, precipitate withdrawal would be a disaster of immense magnitude. A nation cannot remain great if it betrays its allies and lets down its friends. Our defeat and humiliation in _______ without question would promote recklessness in the councils of those great powers who have not yet abandoned their goals of world conquest. This would spark violence wherever our commitments help maintain the peace -- in the Middle _{cardinal direction}_, in _{major world flash-point city or region}_, eventually even in the Western Hemisphere. Ultimately, this would cost more lives. It would not bring peace. It would bring more war.

For these reasons I rejected the recommendation that I should end the war by immediately withdrawing all of our forces. I chose instead to change American policy on both the negotiating front and the battle front in order to end the war fought on many fronts. I initiated a pursuit for peace on many fronts. In a television speech on _{date}_, in a speech before the _{repudiated international body}_, on a number of other occasions, I set forth our peace proposals in great detail.

We have offered the complete withdrawal of all outside forces within _{time period}_. We have proposed a cease fire under international supervision. We have offered free elections under international supervision with the _____ists participating in the organization and conduct of the elections as an organized political force. And the _{national capital city}_ government has pledged to accept the result of the election.

We have not put forth our proposals on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. We have indicated that we’re willing to discuss the proposals that have been put forth by the other side. We have declared that anything is negotiable, except the right of the people of _______ to determine their own future.

At the _{major international city}_ peace conference Ambassador _{name of famous person}_ has demonstrated our flexibility and good faith in _{large number}_ public meetings._{"bad" capital"}_ has refused even to discuss our proposals. They demand our unconditional acceptance of their terms which are that we withdraw all American forces immediately and unconditionally and that we overthrow the government of _______ as we leave.

We have not limited our peace initiatives to public forums and public statements. I recognized in _{month}_ that a long and bitter war like this usually cannot be settled in a public forum. That is why in addition to the public statements and negotiations, I have explored every possible private avenue that might lead to a settlement.

Tonight, I am taking the unprecedented step of disclosing to you some of our other initiatives for peace, initiatives we undertook privately and secretly because we thought we thereby might open a door which publicly would be closed.

I did not wait for my inauguration to begin my quest for _{diplomatic state}_. Soon after my election, through an individual who was directly in contact on a personal basis with the leaders of _______, I made two private offers for a rapid, comprehensive settlement. _{bad guy}_’s replies called in effect for our surrender before negotiations. Since the _{bad guy's international backer}_ furnishes most of the military equipment for _______, Secretary of State _____, my assistant for national security affairs, ______, Ambassador _{same famous person as above}_ and I personally have met on a number of occasions with representatives of the _{international backer bad guy}_ Government to enlist their assistance in getting meaningful negotiations started. In addition, we have had extended discussions directed toward that same end with representatives of other governments which have diplomatic relations with _______.

None of these initiatives have to date produced results. In mid-_{month}_ I became convinced that it was necessary to make a major move to break the deadlock in the _{same international city}_ talks. I spoke directly in this office, where I’m now sitting, with an individual who had known _{leader of bad guys}_ on a personal basis for 25 years. Through him I sent a letter to _{leader of bad guys}_. I did this outside of the usual diplomatic channels with the hope that with the necessity of making statements for propaganda removed, there might be constructive progress toward bringing the war to an end.

Let me read from that letter to you now:

“Dear _{leader of bad guy's title}_:

I realize that it is difficult to communicate meaningfully across the gulf of four years of war. But precisely because of this gulf I wanted to take this opportunity to reaffirm in all solemnity my desire to work for a just peace. I deeply believe that the war in _______ has gone on too long and delay in bringing it to an end can benefit no one, least of all the people of _______. The time has come to move forward at the conference table toward an early resolution of this tragic war. You will find us forthcoming and open-minded in a common effort to bring the blessings of peace to the brave people of _______. Let history record that at this critical juncture both sides turned their face toward peace rather than toward conflict and war."

I received _{bad guy leader}_’s reply on _{date}_, three days before his death. It simply reiterated the public position _______ had taken at _{international city}_ and flatly rejected my initiative. The full text of both letters is being released to the press.

In addition to the public meetings that I have referred to, Ambassador _{famous person}_ has met with _______’s chief negotiator in _{international city}_ in _{smaller number}_ private sessions. And we have taken other significant initiatives which must remain secret to keep open some channels of communications which may still prove to be productive.

But the effect of all the public, private, and secret negotiations which have been undertaken since the _{type of military action}_ halt a year ago, and since this Administration came into office on January 20th, can be summed up in one sentence: No progress whatever has been made except agreement on the shape of the bargaining table.

Well, now, who’s at fault? It’s become clear that the obstacle in negotiating an end to the war is not the President of the United States. It is not the _______ Government. The obstacle is the other side’s absolute refusal to show the least willingness to join us in seeking a just peace. And it will not do so while it is convinced that all it has to do is to wait for our next concession, and our next concession after that one, until it gets everything it wants.

There can now be no longer any question that progress in negotiation depends only on _{bad guy capital city}_’s deciding to negotiate -- to negotiate seriously. I realize that this report on our efforts on the diplomatic front is discouraging to the American people, but the American people are entitled to know the truth -- the bad news as well as the good news -- where the lives of our young men are involved.

Now let me turn, however, to a more encouraging report on another front. At the time we launched our search for peace, I recognized we might not succeed in bringing an end to the war through negotiations. I therefore put into effect another plan to bring peace -- a plan which will bring the war to an end regardless of what happens on the negotiating front. It is in line with the major shift in U. S. foreign policy which I described in my press conference at _{obscure international location}_ on _{date}_. Let me briefly explain what has been described as the _{speaking politician}_ Doctrine -- a policy which not only will help end the war in _______ but which is an essential element of our program to prevent future _______s.

We Americans are a do-it-yourself people -- we’re an impatient people. Instead of teaching someone else to do a job, we like to do it ourselves. And this trait has been carried over into our foreign policy. In _{previous national conflict}_, and again in _______, the United States furnished most of the money, most of the arms, and most of the men to help the people of those countries defend their freedom against _{overriding international fear, from American point of view}_ aggression.

Before any American troops were committed to _______, a leader of another _{global region}_ country expressed this opinion to me when I was traveling in _{same global region}_ as a private citizen. He said: “When you are trying to assist another nation defend its freedom, U.S. policy should be to help them fight the war, but not to fight the war for them.�

Well in accordance with this wise counsel, I laid down in _{same obscure international location}_ three principles as guidelines for future American policy toward _{global region}_. First, the United States will keep all of its treaty commitments. Second, we shall provide a shield if a nuclear power threatens the freedom of a nation allied with us, or of a nation whose survival we consider vital to our security. Third, in cases involving other types of aggression we shall furnish military and economic assistance when requested in accordance with our treaty commitments. But we shall look to the nation directly threatened to assume the primary responsibility of providing the manpower for its defense.

After I announced this policy, I found that the leaders of the _{a country in the region}_, _{another country in region}_, _______, _{yet another country in region}_, other nations which might be threatened by ______ist aggression, welcomed this new direction in American foreign policy.

The defense of freedom is everybody’s business -- not just America’s business. And it is particularly the responsibility of the people whose freedom is threatened. In the previous Administration, we Americanized the war in _______. In this Administration, we are _______izing the search for peace.

The policy of the previous Administration not only resulted in our assuming the primary responsibility for fighting the war, but even more significant did not adequately stress the goal of strengthening the _______ so that they could defend themselves when we left.

The _______ization plan was launched following Secretary _____ visit to _______ in March. Under the plan, I ordered first a substantial increase in the training and equipment of _______ forces. In July, on my visit to _______, I changed General _____’s orders, so that they were consistent with the objectives of our new policies. Under the new orders, the primary mission of our troops is to enable the _______forces to assume the full responsibility for the security of _______. Our air operations have been reduced by over 20 per cent.

And now we have begun to see the results of this long-overdue change in American policy in _______. After five years of Americans going into _______ we are finally bringing American men home. By _{date}_ over _{large number, fraction of total troops}_ men will have been withdrawn from _______, including 20 percent of all of our combat forces. The _______ have continued to gain in strength. As a result, they've been able to take over combat responsibilities from our American troops.

Two other significant developments have occurred since this Administration took office. Enemy infiltration, infiltration which is essential if they are to launch a major attack over the last three months, is less than 20 percent of what it was over the same period last year. And most important, United States casualties have declined during the last two months to the lowest point in three years.

Let me now turn to our program for the future. We have adopted a plan which we have worked out in cooperation with the _______ for the complete withdrawal of all U.S. combat ground forces and their replacement by _______ forces on an orderly scheduled timetable. This withdrawal will be made from strength and not from weakness. As _______ forces become stronger, the rate of American withdrawal can become greater.

I have not, and do not, intend to announce the timetable for our program, and there are obvious reasons for this decision which I’m sure you will understand. As I’ve indicated on several occasions, the rate of withdrawal will depend on developments on three fronts. One of these is the progress which can be, or might be, made in the _{international city}_ talks. An announcement of a fixed timetable for our withdrawal would completely remove any incentive for the enemy to negotiate an agreement. They would simply wait until our forces had withdrawn and then move in.

The other two factors on which we will base our withdrawal decisions are the level of enemy activity and the progress of the training programs of the _______ forces. And I am glad to be able to report tonight progress on both of these fronts has been greater than we anticipated when we started the program in _{month}_ for withdrawal. As a result, our timetable for withdrawal is more optimistic now than when we made our first estimates in _{month}_.

Now this clearly demonstrates why it is not wise to be frozen in on a fixed timetable. We must retain the flexibility to base each withdrawal decision on the situation as it is at that time, rather than on estimates that are no longer valid. Along with this optimistic estimate, I must in all candor leave one note of caution. If the level of enemy activity significantly increases, we might have to adjust our timetable accordingly.

However, I want the record to be completely clear on one point. At the time of the _{military action}_ halt just a year ago there was some confusion as to whether there was an understanding on the part of the enemy that if we stopped the bombing of _______, they would stop the shelling of cities in _______.

I want to be sure that there is no misunderstanding on the part of the enemy with regard to our withdrawal program. We have noted the reduced level of infiltration, the reduction of our casualties and are basing our withdrawal decisions partially on those factors. If the level of infiltration or our casualties increase while we are trying to scale down the fighting, it will be the result of a conscious decision by the enemy. _{bad guy capital}_ could make no greater mistake than to assume that an increase in violence will be to its advantage.

If I conclude that increased enemy action jeopardizes our remaining forces in _______, I shall not hesitate to take strong and effective measures to deal with that situation. This is not a threat. This is a statement of policy which as Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces I am making and meeting my responsibility for the protection of American fighting men wherever they may be.

My fellow Americans, I am sure you can recognize from what I have said that we really only have two choices open to us if we want to end this war. I can order an immediate precipitate withdrawal of all Americans from _______ without regard to the effects of that action. Or we can persist in our search for a just peace through a negotiated settlement, if possible, or through continued implementation of our plan for _______ization, if necessary -- a plan in which we will withdraw all of our forces from _______ on a schedule in accordance with our program as the _______ become strong enough to defend their own freedom.

I have chosen this second course. It is not the easy way. It is the right way. It is a plan which will end the war and serve the cause of peace, not just in _______ but in the _{major body of water}_ and in the world.

In speaking of the consequences of a precipitous withdrawal, I mentioned that our allies would lose confidence in America. Far more dangerous, we would lose confidence in ourselves. Oh, the immediate reaction would be a sense of relief that our men were coming home. But as we saw the consequences of what we had done, inevitable remorse and divisive recrimination would scar our spirit as a people.

We have faced other crises in our history and we have become stronger by rejecting the easy way out and taking the right way in meeting our challenges. Our greatness as a nation has been our capacity to do what has to be done when we knew our course was right. I recognize that some of my fellow citizens disagree with the plan for peace I have chosen. Honest and patriotic Americans have reached different conclusions as to how peace should be achieved. In _{major US city}_ a few weeks ago, I saw demonstrators carrying signs reading, “Lose in _______, bring the boys home.� Well, one of the strengths of our free society is that any American has a right to reach that conclusion and to advocate that point of view.

But as President of the United States, I would be untrue to my oath of office if I allowed the policy of this nation to be dictated by the minority who hold that point of view and who try to impose it on the nation by mounting demonstrations in the street. For almost _{approximate age of US}_ years, the policy of this nation has been made under our Constitution by those leaders in the Congress and the White House elected by all the people. If a vocal minority, however fervent its cause, prevails over reason and the will of the majority, this nation has no future as a free society.

And now, I would like to address a word, if I may, to the young people of this nation who are particularly concerned, and I understand why they are concerned, about this war. I respect your idealism. I share your concern for peace. I want peace as much as you do. There are powerful personal reasons I want to end this war. This week I will have to sign 83 letters to mothers, fathers, wives, and loved ones of men who have given their lives for America in _______. It's very little satisfaction to me that this is only one-third as many letters as I signed the first week in office. There is nothing I want more than to see the day come when I do not have to write any of those letters.

I want to end the war to save the lives of those brave young men in _______. But I want to end it in a way which will increase the chance that their younger brothers and their sons will not have to fight in some future _______ some place in the world.

And I want to end the war for another reason. I want to end it so that the energy and dedication of you, our young people, now too often directed into bitter hatred against those responsible for the war, can be turned to the great challenges of peace, a better life for all Americans, a better life for all people on this earth.

I have chosen a plan for peace. I believe it will succeed. If it does not succeed, what the critics say now won’t matter. Or if it does succeed, what the critics say now won’t matter. If it does not succeed, anything I say then won’t matter.

I know it may not be fashionable to speak of patriotism or national destiny these days, but I feel it is appropriate to do so on this occasion. Two hundred years ago this nation was weak and poor. But even then, America was the hope of millions in the world. Today we have become the strongest and richest nation in the world, and the wheel of destiny has turned so that any hope the world has for the survival of peace and freedom will be determined by whether the American people have the moral stamina and the courage to meet the challenge of free-world leadership.

Let historians not record that, when America was the most powerful nation in the world, we passed on the other side of the road and allowed the last hopes for peace and freedom of millions of people to be suffocated by the forces of totalitarianism.

So tonight, to you, the great silent majority of my fellow Americans, I ask for your support. I pledged in my campaign for the Presidency to ____ the war in a way that we could win the peace. I have initiated a plan of action which will enable me to keep that pledge. The more support I can have from the American people, the sooner that pledge can be redeemed. For the more divided we are at home, the less likely the enemy is to negotiate at _____.

Let us be united for peace. Let us also be united against defeat. Because let us understand -- _______ cannot defeat or humiliate the United States. Only Americans can do that.

____ years ago, in this room, and at this very desk, President Woodrow Wilson spoke words which caught the imagination of a war-weary world. He said: “This is the war to end wars.� His dream for peace after World War I was shattered on the hard reality of great power politics. And Woodrow Wilson died a broken man.

Tonight, I do not tell you that the war in _______ is the war to end wars, but I do say this: I have initiated a plan which will end this war in a way that will bring us closer to that great goal to which -- to which Woodrow Wilson and every American President in our history has been dedicated -- the goal of a just and lasting peace.

As President I hold the responsibility for choosing the best path for that goal and then leading the nation along it.

I pledge to you tonight that I shall meet this responsibility with all of the strength and wisdom I can command, in accordance with your hopes, mindful of your concerns, sustained by your prayers.

Thank you and good night.


Wednesday, September 07, 2005

Flashbacks

Those of you who know me well know that I don't do well with personal memories. Not that I don't have them, but I just don't have the same kind of recall on things that have happened to me as I do with far more pertinent information, like:

  • The longest sustained flight by a chicken: 327 ft
  • Etymology of the word "gringo" (Mexican American war, told to US soldiers by Mexicans encouraging the "green" to "go".)
  • Voter-history for Minneapolis Wards.

Like I said, useful information.

That's why I was suprized a few minutes ago--while I was writing the previous post, actually--to remember I have been in a situation similar to what happened in New Orleans. Not as bad as far as destruction, but certainly a major natural disaster.

In 2001 I went to El Salvador with a group from college, intending to spend 2 weeks travelling the country and talking with people about El Salvador's transition from civil war to democracy over the preceeding decade. That plan was derailed when, about 24 hours after our flight landed and while we were sitting in the chapel where Archbishop Oscar Romero was assassinated, an earthquake measuring 7.6 hit the capital of San Salvador. (This is sizeably larger than the earthquake that hit during the '89 World Series--about 5 times stronger.)

The earthquake lasted for 50 seconds, and it made the ground shake so much it sounded like a train was passing. But it was just the ground moving. Try and imagine that. When we got outside a minute later, there was no damage in our area, but our driver had the radio on, and reports were already starting to come in about landslides, and collapsed buildings, and people having died.

Once the dust settled, we learned the extent of the damage--at least the official numbers. This is a summary from a website that lists many of the major earthquakes and eruptions throughout recorded history.
Jan. 13, El Salvador: magnitude 7.7 earthquake set off some 185 landslides across El Salvador; at least 850 died and nearly 100,000 houses were destroyed.
Without meaning to sound trite, the devastation of the earthquake cannot be conveyed in those summary numbers. Hundreds of thousands of people were homeless. But really, everyone was homeless. After an earthquake where houses have cracked and crumbled all around, even if one's house is still standing, there is no sleeping inside. There is no inside at all, if it can be avoided. It doesn't matter that there are insects, or rain, or the ground is muddy. It's better to sleep in those conditions than to have an aftershock happen at night, and the whole family die if the roof comes down. It's happened.

There were landslides all over the capital city, and all over the country. But they were worst in San Salvador. Because poor people build ramshackle enclaves up the extremely steep sides of hills. Think Brazillian favelas, or camps of countryside Chinese on the edges of Shanghai or Beijing. Now imagine them going straight up hillsides rather than across plains and swamps. And now image what happens when mother nature shakes all the loose rock the huts are built on down the mountain. Yeah. Bad.

What absolutely amazed me was how fast the aid came in. The earthquake happened on the 13th, in the middle of the day. I don't remember if it was the 14th or the 15th, but on one of those days our little gaggle of american college students traipsed down to one of the major HQ's for the aid organizations, and there were OxFam, the Red Cross/Crescent, and half-a-dozen aid organizations I'd never heard of. With material. I mean everything you need to build refugee camps, sanitize water, build emergency sewer systems, set up clinics, build temporary shelters. Everything. Certainly not enough for every person affected by the quake, but an amazing amount of supplies for what had to have been an instantaneous response.

There were also SUVs. Wow were there SUVs. None of this Cadillac or Lexus crap. I'm talking LandRovers with sealed bottoms and snorkel exhausts, Nissans with metal-frame seats and a portable emergency room in the back looking like it came straight from the Sahara. Vehicles designed for the business end of a disaster, not the Emmys.

All of these came from somewhere else. They weren't hanging around in El Salvador waiting for something to happen. They had come in from Britain, Turkey, and Japan. From the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. And they were there. They got there fast, and they knew what they were doing.

After days of watching the Katrina fall-out, I guess I'm left in wonder. I wonder how is it that the United States can not only not be prepared to begin ministering to the victims of an event like Katrina, given several days warning that it is coming. I wonder how it is that the U.S., with a government that is supposedly functioning, can't coordinate aid offers from governments and organizations around the world. How is it that the United States, with millions of miles of paved highway, hundreds of international airports, and dozens more airforce bases and naval yards, can't get help to those who need it? How can El Salvador, a country the size and population of Massachussets, a country that 10 years previously had been engaged in all-out civil war, with one major highway--the PanAm highway--and one major international airport and one of the lowest per-capita incomes in Central America, how can it get aid to so many of it's people so quickly; coordinate with dozens of international organizations and governments; and ensure that a natural disaster doesn't become a broader human disaster?

Dancing 'round the Fire

I'm going to have to shine up my dance shoes, and get my binoculars out.

Sound like a strange combo to you? Me too. But it looks like someone just handed the President a fiddle. So there's only two things to do: dance, and watch for fires.

The only thing left to do now is dance until the dance-floor is burried in ashes.

If none of this makes any sense to you, here's the background.

Nancy Pelosi asked President Bush yesterday if he was going to fire Mike Brown for, essentially, gross negligence, and Bush's response was "what negligence?"

Here's a news story on it.
Here's the video.

At a news conference, Pelosi, D-Calif., said Bush's choice for head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency had "absolutely no credentials."

She related that she had urged Bush at the White House on Tuesday to fire Michael Brown.

"He said 'Why would I do that?'" Pelosi said.

"'I said because of all that went wrong, of all that didn't go right last week.' And he said 'What didn't go right?'"

"Oblivious, in denial, dangerous," she added.
In case anyone is going to start finger-pointing that the Democrats are "politicizing" the catastrophe that Katrina has become, there are rumors percolating (according to Wolf Blitzer on CNN) that the President is considering addressing a joint session of Congress. Hmmm, free national media before the assembled legislature of the country? That's political too.

My parting shot: I don't know that giving voice to what 49% of Americans think about our commander in chief is necessarily political, either.

Coming Home

A friend of mine is coming home from Iraq. OK, calling him my friend overstates our relationship. We played hockey together in middle school, and hung out together sometimes in highschool, and intermittently since. We get along, but we're not particularly close. That said, he's a good guy, and I'm glad he's going to be getting home soon.

He's also one of the most gifted writers I know. He's been keeping a blog about his time in Iraq, and I've got it linked on the sidebar: Delobi.us

I mention it mostly because his last post from Iraq just went up. It's a good piece of writing about his thoughts, his experience, and the uncertainty of change--even change that's been awaited for 18 months.

It's worth a read. At least it was for me. This is the permalink: Closure

Tuesday, September 06, 2005

More Bureacracy, Please!

President Bush is leading the charge. The same one Ronald Reagan led in the 80s, that Newt Gingrich led in the 90s, and that Tom DeLay has been planning since he was 14 years old. The charge to eliminate bureacracy.

"Bureaucracy is not going to stand in the way of getting the job done for the people,"
President Bush, quoted in the Wall Street Journal
He's not alone. The president of Jefferson Parish, near New Olreans is ready for bureacracy to get whacked too:
Bureaucracy has murdered people in the greater New Orleans area. And bureaucracy needs to stand trial before Congress today.

He also said this,

"So I'm asking Congress, please investigate this now. Take whatever idiot they have at the top of whatever agency and give me a better idiot. Give me a caring idiot. Give me a sensitive idiot. Just don't give me the same idiot."
We're starting to see it: the differneces between business and government. In business, most of the risks are things that can be identified, and planned for, if not entirely ensured away: you're dealing with capital and cash, and that's about it--it's called a bottom line. It's easy. Not that it isn't difficult, but it's uncomplicated. Single goal. More money.

Government doesn't work that way. There's lots of goals. And tradeoffs. And unforeseen problems. And there isn't one bottom line. There's a bunch. But the most significant is measured in human lives. In good times, it's measured in how much better off are those human's lives. In bad times, like right now on the Gulf Coast, the bottom line is measured in how many of those humans still have lives?

And many times bureacracies get in the way. They slow down the implementation of projects. Nonsensical internal rules make it harder, instead of easier, for people to get the help they need (to pull themselves up by their bootstraps). While I'm not ruling out this as a possible part of what went wrong with planning and implementation for post-Katrina, there's a more fundamental problem.

Not enough Bureacracy.

That's right. FEMA needed MORE bureacrats to get the job done, not less. Last year, FEMA lost something like 600 full-time equivalent positions because of funding shifts. They were also reorganized to spend more of their time planning for terrorist attacks and response, and less time on natural disasters.

It's moments like this when we see that a certain amount of "government waste" can be good.
Here's my logic.
The government decided it needed to save some money--it's our money as taxpayers, right? So we should keep it? So 600 jobs were cut. I don't know how much those people earned for their jobs, nor do I know how much it costs to provide office-space, etc. for them. But I'll estimate that all-together, between salary, benefits, and other expenses, the government would have spent $100,000 a year on those people.

This means FEMA's budget would have been $65 million more this year than it is today. Now, according to House Resolution 3645 (Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act to Meet Immediate Needs Arising From the Consequences of Hurricane Katrina, 2005) congress just authorized $10 billion in funding to assist with disaster relief in the South.

The cost for an extra 600 people working on natural disasters at FEMA would have come to .65% of the total new appropriation. That is less than 1%. It's not clear how much those extra 600 people could have done to decrease the physical destruction of the city, but they could have done a lot to ensure that the loss of life wasn't nearly as bad.

How? By coordinating with state and local officials for evacuation plans: how many people need to get out? How can they get out? where can they go? How many hospital beds would be needed? Where would the supplies come from? How would they get there? All items for bureacrats to figure out. BEFORE the disaster. Not during. Not after. BEFORE.

Maybe if there was a little more bureacracy on the front end of disaster planning, there would be less news about them afterward, and perhaps fewer lawyers called in to "investigate" what went wrong.

Oh, and maybe fewer people would have died.

A Moral Test

Nicholas Kristoff a the the New York Times spends most of his time looking at events in foreign countries and finding ways to make them resonate at home: Genocide in Darfur, political change in China, or the Sex Trade in Cambodia. Today's column switched the perspective. He took years of travelling the globe and writing about things happening in the rest of the world to give us some sense of where the U.S.--this greatest country on earth--really sits compared to our "less fortunate" brethren. It's not a pretty picture.

He uses inflamatory language: wealth redistribution. Infant mortality. Social fabric. But then he pushes it even further.

It's not just that funds may have gone to Iraq rather than to the levees in New Orleans; it's also that money went to tax cuts for the wealthiest rather than vaccinations for children.
Which is a nice way to bring something I've been thinking about for a while now--unemployed people have plenty of free time for silly things like "thinking".

What are our priorities as a country? Is there anyone who is articulating them? Honest to God, the things "talked" about in our political discourse are nothings. Useless. Perhaps not in their totality, but in their own right.
Defense of Marriage?
Same sex survivor benefits?
Nuclear (NOT nukeyoular) missile defense shield?
Violence in video games?
Prayer in School?


These are icing issues. The frills. These are hanging pictures on the wall after your house is put back together. They are not, ever, fundamental issues for creating a world for our children that is better than it is today.

Call me niave, or even worse, liberal, but I'm going to reach back into antiquity for the following assesment of a government:
"The moral test of a government is how it treats those who are at the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadow of life, the sick, the needy, and the handicapped."
Hubert H. Humphrey, 1978 (1911-1978)
Just in case you happen to not identify yourself as liberal, try out this page and see how it fits.

We need to get over our definitions of ourselves as Republicans or Democrats. Born-again, Evangelical, or Secular. We are so comfortable, so removed from living life, that we have forgotten what we share.

Let me throw out on an issue I think we are very close on regardless of political, religious, or ideological bent.
Our children deserve every opportunity we--as the world's richest, most well-educated society--can give them.
This means:
  • All Children have the right (yes, right) to grow up free from disease to the extent that our considerable national resources can do it.
  • All Children have the right to the best education, in school and out of it, that the richest country on earth can give them.
  • Each Child has the right to grow up without fear of being shot, abused, trampled, or drowned simply because his or her parents aren't rich.
  • Each Child has the right to grow up in an area where there is economic opportunity, where hard-work and playing by the rules is rewarded by a functioning market-system.
There are ways to do each of these. They aren't secrets. They work throughout the world, from Iceland to India, to improve the quality of life for children. And then an amazing thing happens: when life improves for children, it improves for everyone.

THAT is really a rising tide that raises all boats. Why haven't we done this yet?

Monday, September 05, 2005

Shifting Sands

The United States stands at another crossroads.

People's faith in government, and remarkably, governments' agents faith in government, are being seriously challenged by the response to the disaster in New Orleans. People's belief in the ability of government to lead is weakend through the futile recriminations and the "beltway blame game" that is going on in Washington--others call it the "D.C. twostep". Little of it is influencing the way people's lives are being irrevocably changed in Louisiana.

But the passing of a Chief Justice so shortly following the retirement of another Justice paves the way for another significant shift in the way Americans and their government interact.

It's not a simple question of politics. Many of the decisions of the Supreme Court are not based simply in the trite "liberal-conservative" duality of pundit-politics. The Court decides issues that fundamentally influence the way individuals interact with their government, and the types of power either has over the other.

Some view the court as a weapon in the war to reshape America--whether for Liberalism or Conservatism. A means to create a "Christian, 'Nation under God'" or a "secular state in the great European tradition."

The Court has this power. By determining what constitutes adequate checks on the power of the federal government in the application of the 10th amendment. It has the ability to determine if the Patriot Act violates personal privacy and property rights. It has the ability to determine if abortion is protected or not.

It has the ability to determine if voting laws are legitimate, and to decide cases on just about any other topic--no matter how esoteric. Interstate commerce, federal offices, segregation vs. integration, and school funding.

Most of the issues decided by the supreme court affect only a small portion of Americans. But many of their most influential decisions are not household names. Brown vs. Board, Plessy vs. Fergusson, and Roe vs Wade, are rare exceptions in the Court's pantheon. However the choices made by the President and the Senate in coming weeks and months will have significant bearing on how Americans are allowed to influence and interact with America.

These decisions will to a large degree influence if America continues to be a bright, shining hope for humanity, or another dissapointment to those who expect humanity to overcome our failings and strive for something greater.

Sunday, September 04, 2005

The speech we're waiting for

Americans are waiting for someone to take responsibility. For the disaster after the disaster. For the chaos of our foreign policy. For the lack of domestic policy. For the partisan zero-sumship that has gotten us here. Here's what I think it should sound like.

To Americans old and young, rich and poor, working, unemployed and retired, good evening.

As we approach the fourth aniversary of one of the most sinister deeds committed against our people, we are confronted with a disaster of monumentally greater proportions.

To the people of New Orleans, and the gulf coasts of Alabama and Mississippi, I think I can safely say that you are in the thoughts and prayers of everyone across our great country.

Efforts are under way at helping put the pieces back together after this storm. But they will never be able to recreate the places we loved and the homes we lived in. These efforts are being undertaken by serious and committed people at all levels of government. But these efforts are too little and too late.

For nearly a full week after the hurricane efforts at helping people find safety, shelter and food failed. There were not enough resources to establish emergency shelters, temporary hospitals, or to reinforce local law enforcement or emergency workers.

Just like it would have been inconceivable to blame the police officers and firemen who ran to help victims of September 11th, it would be wrong to blame the people on the ground from FEMA, or other federal agencies.

If there is blame to be leveled, level it higher up. Level it at Congress. Level it at the President. Level it at your fellow Americans who are more concerned with flourish than with function. Because America, we are all responsible for what happened on the Gulf coast. Not for Katrina, but for ensuring that there wasn't enough done to prepare.

The budget last year cut the equivalent of 600 people from FEMA's staff. Congress passed it, and I signed it. That's right. While people in my tax bracket are getting government handouts in the form of HUGE tax breaks, our fellow Americans are left to suffer and die in the aftermath of a hurricane instead of being taken care of as anyone should be taken care of in the richest country on earth.

There is enough blame to go around. And whether through Congressional investigation or talking-heads on "news" shows, I'm sure it will be doled out.

But Americans are a people of action, and we are best when our people and our politicians take actions, not when we squable. If there was ever a time for action, it is now. When one of our most well-known cities has been destroyed. When hundreds of thousands of people's homes have been washed into the sea, or need to be knocked down.

We can't stop hurricanes from happening, but we can decide how we'll respond to them. There's only so much we can do to lower oil prices, but we can commit American resources, intelligence, and creativity into finding other fuels.

Americans must expect more from their government, and the government must do more to ensure that the safety and security of all people are as ensured to the greatest extent possible in the greatest country on earth.

This is what America should do, this is what we must do, and this is what we will do.

I want to close by thanking the millions of Americans who have offered their time, talent, resources, and prayers to help those who are suffering in New Orleans.

Good night, and God bless America.

Saturday, September 03, 2005

Even fairy tales unfold

Once upon a time, there was a great man

and he started a political party.



It stood for strong central government, capable of dealing with HUGE disasters, and things even worse.


Then things changed. Over the course of 150 years the political party changed.

It started to look more like


But they still wanted people to think of them as strong, resourceful, and looking out for our best interests. It was all going perfectly well until one day something went wrong.

So we pulled back the curtain.


and we saw the reality.



The end.

PS. the rest of us want our flag, our religion, and our Bibles back.

Pith and Vinegar.

Stuff happens.

And when you combine limited government with incompetent government, lethal stuff happens.

~Maureen Dowd, NYTimes 3 September 2005

Maureen Dowd nailed what quite a few of us have been trying to say succinctly for several days. I normally think she's a little repetitive and fluffy with her problems with the administration. But she brought the A-game today.

Friday, September 02, 2005

Becoming Atlantis

For the past few days I've been almost completely seperate from the news. I've been swimming in it for the past few hours, checking out news and interviews about Hurricane Katrina. And now I know why I've been avoiding it. It's unimaginable. The devestation. The anger. The incompetence.

I'm not going to go into blame. I'm not going to play partisanship (shocking though that may be).

But here are some pieces that every American should see/read/listen to to get an idea of what's happening, and how people are feeling.

Watch or read to President Bush's statement before leaving to tour the area today.
Mayor Ray Nagin / read He's one unhappy camper. With obvious good reason--his city is now Atlantis.

Here's a slideshow from the NYTimes that strikes notes of refugees in war time, impoverished villages in National Geographic, and the chaos of protests gone horribly wrong. But I must remind myself that it's the U.S.
Is this series from 9/11, Darfur, Somalia, or N.O. The images are blurring together in my mind.
I'm giving up on trying to sort out stories. Here's the Google News page on the Hurricane. Just read down the headlines. Nowhere in the first 60 articles is there any reference to anything positive. Nothing coming in, nothing improving, nothing being brought "under control" No stories of heroism, or people finding temporary shelter that isn't over-croweded, or that is prepared. Just desolation.

There are several blogs too.
This is a friend of a friend, posting about life, and about the Hurricane too. Miss Zoot
This is more of a "nothing but the facts" type blog. Few details. But running posts.


Here's some less-than-friendly comments from global leaders.
Anyone who has had 20 seconds of conversation with me knows that I'm not exactly sitting in President Bush's corner (or his stadium, if I can help it) but to come out right now and blame the disaster on the President seems a bit over the top.
Germany's Environmental Minister had this to say, quoted in this story from Der Spiegel.

"There is only one possible route of action," he writes. "Greenhouse gases have to be radically reduced and it has to happen worldwide. Until now, the US has kept its eyes shut to this emergency. (Americans) make up a mere 4 percent of the population, but are responsible for close to a quarter of emissions." He adds that the average American is responsible for double as much carbon dioxide as the average European. "The Bush government rejects international climate protection goals by insisting that imposing them would negatively impact the American economy. The American president is closing his eyes to the economic and human costs his land and the world economy are suffering under natural catastrophes like Katrina and because of neglected environmental policies"
Countries whose leaders have expressed condolences to Bush and/or the U.S. (that I've found):
Canada, India, Britain, Australia, China, Venezuela, France, Germany, Swizterland, Saudi Arabia, the UN, Russia, the Vatican, Italy, Greece.

Countries whose leaders have offered assistance--in even the vaguest sense:
Canada, Japan, Taiwan, Venezuela.