I have to admit, I haven't been blown away by President Obama's work lately, and I didn't go into tonight's State of the Union speech with high expectations, so perhaps that's why this evening was so impressive. It was a reminder why we elected the man - it's not just great speeches, it's the great ideas in those speeches. While he got in some light jabs at the Republicans, he's also willing to call out his fellow Democrats for not getting enough done. While he inspires hope for our economy - "the worst of the storm is over" - he also acknowledges that "the devastation remains".While he pushes for Democratic platform - particularly around healthcare - he also pushed for supposed Republican causes like taxcuts, nuclear power, incentives for small businesses, and fiscal responsibility.
The president has still not proven that he can execute his plans, but he made a strong case for his own success over the past year, reminding us where we were twelve months ago; when we were on the verge of a banking collapse and fearing of another Great Depression. It does look like we made it through the storm, not unscathed, but certainly alive and making real progress. So perhaps the proof isn't there, but the evidence is building, and his plans for the next year are good. Maybe I shouldn't, but after tonight, I have renewed confidence in what he can accomplish.
If you didn't watch the State of the Union, take a look here:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/state_of_the_union_message_us/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Something to be Thankful For...
...the healthcare bill.
I don't know a single person that fully supports the current healthcare bill, in any of its forms. I'm certainly not one. It is, perhaps, the great compromise of the decade. Although it's not going to win much Republican support, it has incorporated some conservative principles, and removed many liberal ones from what one might expect a potentially filibuster-proof Democratic congress to produce.
Like any big compromise, this means that the bill contains several flaws that render it less effective than it might otherwise be. This is the curse of a democracy such as ours. By its nature, Congress is a mediocre institution. We're handicapped by our legislators competing with one another, representing 50 states and more than 300 million people, with the influence of special interests and the comfort of the status quo; but ultimately this is a good thing. If you want an efficient legislative process, move to China, where little attention will be paid to your rights. If you want an inefficient one that gets what you need, respects your rights, and you can live with, even if it doesn't give you exactly what you want, you're probably in the right place.
What we've ended up with is a hodgepodge of pretty good ideas. Few of them are great. Few of them are terrible. We're going to end up with an upgrade to a flawed system, and it's not going to fix it forever. We're taking one step back and two steps forward. In another thirty or forty years we'll likely have to do this all over again.
In the meantime, we'll all complain about the feds taking over our health, we'll hear crazy talk about death panels and bureaucracy, and we'll pay too much for our health care. But we'll also sign right up for that public plan when we lose our jobs or turn 65, we're not going to jump on flights to foreign countries to see better doctors (because they'll still be here), we sure won't complain if our premiums take a dip (they're not going up), and when all is said and done, I really don't believe that any of us are going to be worse off than we are today. When this bill passes, we'll all move on, and our lives aren't going to change much at all, and if it turns out to be a disaster, well we'll just have to pass a new bill fix it.
A nice overview is here:
http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/11/obama_and_the_atlantic.php
I don't know a single person that fully supports the current healthcare bill, in any of its forms. I'm certainly not one. It is, perhaps, the great compromise of the decade. Although it's not going to win much Republican support, it has incorporated some conservative principles, and removed many liberal ones from what one might expect a potentially filibuster-proof Democratic congress to produce.
Like any big compromise, this means that the bill contains several flaws that render it less effective than it might otherwise be. This is the curse of a democracy such as ours. By its nature, Congress is a mediocre institution. We're handicapped by our legislators competing with one another, representing 50 states and more than 300 million people, with the influence of special interests and the comfort of the status quo; but ultimately this is a good thing. If you want an efficient legislative process, move to China, where little attention will be paid to your rights. If you want an inefficient one that gets what you need, respects your rights, and you can live with, even if it doesn't give you exactly what you want, you're probably in the right place.
What we've ended up with is a hodgepodge of pretty good ideas. Few of them are great. Few of them are terrible. We're going to end up with an upgrade to a flawed system, and it's not going to fix it forever. We're taking one step back and two steps forward. In another thirty or forty years we'll likely have to do this all over again.
In the meantime, we'll all complain about the feds taking over our health, we'll hear crazy talk about death panels and bureaucracy, and we'll pay too much for our health care. But we'll also sign right up for that public plan when we lose our jobs or turn 65, we're not going to jump on flights to foreign countries to see better doctors (because they'll still be here), we sure won't complain if our premiums take a dip (they're not going up), and when all is said and done, I really don't believe that any of us are going to be worse off than we are today. When this bill passes, we'll all move on, and our lives aren't going to change much at all, and if it turns out to be a disaster, well we'll just have to pass a new bill fix it.
A nice overview is here:
http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/11/obama_and_the_atlantic.php
Monday, November 23, 2009
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Thinking about Terrorism
In today's NY Times, Robert Wright has a interesting take on terrorism:
It is, however, something that we might be able to better fight off if we think about those that are most susceptible to the terrorism virus, and consider how we can both immunize them and keep them away from conditions that encourage its spread. This poses some big questions when it appears that our strongest antivirus - the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - are also a core part of the conditions that encourage terrorism. In weakening the virus, we weaken ourselves and put those with a low resistance at risk. We have to strike a balance in this conflict (and maybe we're doing so), but we don't seem much closer to a victory in the war on terrorism than we did five years ago. So perhaps it's time for a rethink of our strategy. We cannot simply ask, "who are the terrorists?" so that we can hunt them down.
The question must be, who are the people with low-resistance to the terrorism virus, and how do we prevent them from getting it?
[Liberals warn] that killing terrorists is counterproductive if in the process you create even more terrorists; the object of the game isn’t to wipe out every last Islamist radical but rather to contain the virus of Islamist radicalism.This is a rather astute perception that I haven't heard before. You can't use traditional medical warfare - antibiotics - on viruses, but too many people think that a prescription can fight back when we catch a cold or the flu. We want to attack the attackers. Likewise, when threatened by terrorism, we aim to defeat it head-on with traditional warfare. We might be smarter thinking about how to remove the conditions that make us susceptible to it in the first place, and how to immunize against it. Mr Wright continues, referring to the murders at Fort Hood:
It’s true that Major Hasan was unbalanced and alienated — and, by my lights, crazy. But what kind of people did conservatives think were susceptible to the terrorism meme? Like all viruses, terrorism infects people with low resistance. And surely Major Hasan isn’t the only American Muslim who, for reasons of personal history, has become unbalanced and thus vulnerable. Any religious or ethnic group includes people like that, and the post-9/11 environment hasn’t made it easier for American Muslims to keep their balance. That’s why the hawkish war-on-terrorism strategy — a global anti-jihad that creates nonstop imagery of Americans killing Muslims — is so dubious.It's important to note that regardless of our counter-terrorism strategy, Major Hasan, and any criminal or terrorist, is ultimately responsible for his own actions. Understanding that our policies may influence him does not remove his own culpability or turn the blame on ourselves. His crime wasn't our government's, or our society's fault.
It is, however, something that we might be able to better fight off if we think about those that are most susceptible to the terrorism virus, and consider how we can both immunize them and keep them away from conditions that encourage its spread. This poses some big questions when it appears that our strongest antivirus - the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - are also a core part of the conditions that encourage terrorism. In weakening the virus, we weaken ourselves and put those with a low resistance at risk. We have to strike a balance in this conflict (and maybe we're doing so), but we don't seem much closer to a victory in the war on terrorism than we did five years ago. So perhaps it's time for a rethink of our strategy. We cannot simply ask, "who are the terrorists?" so that we can hunt them down.
The question must be, who are the people with low-resistance to the terrorism virus, and how do we prevent them from getting it?
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Rationing
“I mean, let the rationing begin. This is what happens when bureaucrats make your health care decisions,” said Representative David Camp, the ranking Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee.
Representative Camp is definitely on to something. Whatever happens, we do not want the government conducting any studies on whether current health practices actually do any good. Let this continue and soon you will not be able to get your hands on a good leech when you need one.-Gail Collins
Monday, November 9, 2009
Fort Hood
After the Fort Hood shooting, there's a lot of news and speculation about whether this was a jihadist attack against American troops. Anytime there's a mass murder like this, we try to break it down into some simple explanation. The simplest, though, is that we live in a crazy world where lots of crazy stuff happens. For as long as we have the ability to destroy each other (which will be forever), people will always destroy each other, and there will never be a good reason. Megan McArdle of the Atlantic says this:
Was this just a "random psychopath", or do we have ways of identifying such people? Are more Muslims in the military likely to share his views? Are we at risk of non-Muslims conducting similar attacks? (Timothy McVeigh was an ex-military, anti-federalist type of extremist that would have found himself at home with the Tea Partiers of today). Are there ways that military bases can be made safer?
These are fair questions. Avoiding the Islam angle entirely is not the answer, as it almost certainly played a role. Overplaying it is not either, for this is more than just a crazy guy; he appears to have had concerning motivations, but it is almost certainly not part of an organized conspiracy. It's more likely someone that thought he was playing his part for a bigger cause, but doing so independently, and doing so out of a combination of extremism and desperation.
Two final thoughts:
A good post by a smart conservative: http://www.frumforum.com/the-shootings-at-fort-hood
A thoughtful reaction in the NYT takes us in a different direction, also reflecting on veterans as we approach Veterans Day: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/opinion/08alexander.html?emc=eta1
There is absolutely no political lesson to be learned from this. Gun control would not have stopped a commissioned officer from obtaining guns. Barack Obama had no power to stop this. Infectious PTSD is a lousy theory. And nations certainly do not--and should not--shape their foreign policy around the possibility that a random psychopath will start shooting up a crowd. Evil people do evil things. That's all.Perhaps that's a bit of an exaggeration - i there probably are some political lessons; unfortunately they are unlikely to be the ones we actually learn. It's looking more likely that this man was motivated, at least in part, by an extreme and twisted of Islam. Does that tell us that we should be wary of Muslims in the military? Not really. It tells us that a certain type of person - extreme Muslims that are psychiatrists for PTSD veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, that hold and share extremist and anti-American beliefs (as has been reported about the Ft. Hood killer), and that are on the verge of being shipped off to war -those types of people should probably be booted from the military and monitored closely.
Was this just a "random psychopath", or do we have ways of identifying such people? Are more Muslims in the military likely to share his views? Are we at risk of non-Muslims conducting similar attacks? (Timothy McVeigh was an ex-military, anti-federalist type of extremist that would have found himself at home with the Tea Partiers of today). Are there ways that military bases can be made safer?
These are fair questions. Avoiding the Islam angle entirely is not the answer, as it almost certainly played a role. Overplaying it is not either, for this is more than just a crazy guy; he appears to have had concerning motivations, but it is almost certainly not part of an organized conspiracy. It's more likely someone that thought he was playing his part for a bigger cause, but doing so independently, and doing so out of a combination of extremism and desperation.
Two final thoughts:
A good post by a smart conservative: http://www.frumforum.com/the-shootings-at-fort-hood
A thoughtful reaction in the NYT takes us in a different direction, also reflecting on veterans as we approach Veterans Day: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/opinion/08alexander.html?emc=eta1
Saturday, October 10, 2009
How Many Chickens?
Even the president's most ardent supporters were surprised when they heard that Mr. Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize. His biggest opponents claim to be embarrassed and outraged by it, and cite it as another example of his celebrity being far bigger than his accomplishments. Troll the internet for five minutes, and you can find a thousand explanations for why Obama should not have won, and there is a strong case to be made for that: The Iraq war is still going. The Afghanistan war is growing. The threat of a nuclear Iran is expanding. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues. Guantanamo remains open. In Obama's time on the national and world stage, we've heard peaceful rhetoric, but where are the results?
In a great piece in Foreign Policy, Ronald Krebs summarizes (without necessarily supporting) the justification for this prize:
In many cases, "the Nobel committee's noble intentions have set off a tragic chain of events."
For Obama, it is a stretch to believe that the world will suddenly pay more attention to his policies or approaches, though I also doubt it will negatively impact anything he's doing; he's already the biggest political celebrity on the planet. Above all else, this does seem to be a direct affirmation of his style. The Nobel committee is in effect saying that in speaking of peace on the international stage in the way Obama does - in Cairo, at the UN, in Germany - he is doing the right things to actually accomplish it. It's saying that Obama is not simply style over substance, but rather that his style is substantive (as well as a substantive change from his predecessor).
That said, the Nobel committee has a basketful of eggs, and is already counting the chickens. I think it's fair to criticize the committee for their choice, but let's not turn this into an attack on the man himself. Republicans and Democrats alike should take this as an opportunity to demand that he live up to his celebrity, but not to pull him down from it. We should expect American presidents to be international celebrities. We should expect them to be the world's biggest defenders of peace. We Americans love to see the mighty fall, but little is accomplished by pulling Mr. Obama off his pedestal.
So let's think of it this way: Americans have higher standards than the Nobel committee, and while we're glad that the world thinks so highly of him (or at least we should be glad), we haven't seen enough. So, Mr. President, you've won your award - now please go out and earn it.
In a great piece in Foreign Policy, Ronald Krebs summarizes (without necessarily supporting) the justification for this prize:
The Nobel Peace Prize's aims are expressly political. The Nobel committee seeks to change the world through the prize's very conferral, and, unlike its fellow prizes, the peace prize goes well beyond recognizing past accomplishments. As Francis Sejersted, the chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee in the 1990s, once proudly admitted, "The prize ... is not only for past achievement. ... The committee also takes the possible positive effects of its choices into account [because] ... Nobel wanted the prize to have political effects. Awarding a peace prize is, to put it bluntly, a political act."If the goal is to raise awareness about an issue - which Krebs refers to as "aspirational prizes" - often little is accomplished, and at times the prize-winner's cause is actually negatively impacted. Yet these types of prizes are becoming all-too common - awarding the promotion of peace rather than the accomplishment of peace.
In many cases, "the Nobel committee's noble intentions have set off a tragic chain of events."
For Obama, it is a stretch to believe that the world will suddenly pay more attention to his policies or approaches, though I also doubt it will negatively impact anything he's doing; he's already the biggest political celebrity on the planet. Above all else, this does seem to be a direct affirmation of his style. The Nobel committee is in effect saying that in speaking of peace on the international stage in the way Obama does - in Cairo, at the UN, in Germany - he is doing the right things to actually accomplish it. It's saying that Obama is not simply style over substance, but rather that his style is substantive (as well as a substantive change from his predecessor).
That said, the Nobel committee has a basketful of eggs, and is already counting the chickens. I think it's fair to criticize the committee for their choice, but let's not turn this into an attack on the man himself. Republicans and Democrats alike should take this as an opportunity to demand that he live up to his celebrity, but not to pull him down from it. We should expect American presidents to be international celebrities. We should expect them to be the world's biggest defenders of peace. We Americans love to see the mighty fall, but little is accomplished by pulling Mr. Obama off his pedestal.
So let's think of it this way: Americans have higher standards than the Nobel committee, and while we're glad that the world thinks so highly of him (or at least we should be glad), we haven't seen enough. So, Mr. President, you've won your award - now please go out and earn it.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Stay Classy, Sarah Palin
I can't believe she almost became our vice president. I really can't. Here's our last look at Sarah Palin as governor of Alaska, followed by a quick summary:
Summary:
Part 1: Oh, what a great day it is here in Fairbanks. Support our troops! Our troops are fighters, and they defend the best nation in the world. Today is my last day as governor, but our troops are much more important. America's soldiers deserve our gratitude. Troops, troops, troops. Soldiers. Troops. Protecting our freedoms. Troops.
Part 2: Media - you have such important jobs, and could and should be respected. Shame on you, liberal media, for ruining democracy. "Democracy depends on you, and that's why our troops are willing to die for you. So, how about, in honor of the American soldier, ya quit making things up." Don't be mean to our new governor's family!
Part 3: Alaska, I have served you well, and I was a great governor. We promised ethics reform, and we delivered it. We promised you that you would finally see a fair return on your Alaskan natural resources. It's your money, and you know how to spend it better than the government. [Alaska; America's Saudi Arabia! Give them a few hundred bucks of oil money and you can do whatever you want]. Outside special interest groups still just don't get it. You'll see anti-second amendment circuses from Hollywood trying to take our guns. So much success!
Part 4: To stay successful, we must resist enslavement to big and central government. Big government destroys freedom. No one will work hard anymore, and the economy will crash. And it makes us less free. Washington D.C. is destroying Alaska! Government "can't make you healthy or wealthy or wise. What can? The wisdom of the people".
Part 5: Alaska is a contributor and securer of America. The pressing issue of our time is energy independence, and Alaska will lead with energy. "Alaska is the gatekeeper of the continent".
Part 6: Why I made a decision to chart a new course for the state. "It is because I love Alaska this much, sir, that I feel it is my duty to avoid the typical, unproductive, business as usual, lame duck session in one's last year in office. How does that benefit you?" [umm...how about staying in office and not being a lame duck]. "Now with this decision, I will be able to fight even harder for you". [she might actually believe this]. Tod, Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper, Trig...[quote from earlier, "mean liberal media - don't be mean to my family (even though I drag them into this)"]
I was 99% certain I would hear, "you won't have old Sarah Palin to kick around anymore", a la Richard Nixon.
And don't forget, support our troops.
Summary:
Part 1: Oh, what a great day it is here in Fairbanks. Support our troops! Our troops are fighters, and they defend the best nation in the world. Today is my last day as governor, but our troops are much more important. America's soldiers deserve our gratitude. Troops, troops, troops. Soldiers. Troops. Protecting our freedoms. Troops.
Part 2: Media - you have such important jobs, and could and should be respected. Shame on you, liberal media, for ruining democracy. "Democracy depends on you, and that's why our troops are willing to die for you. So, how about, in honor of the American soldier, ya quit making things up." Don't be mean to our new governor's family!
Part 3: Alaska, I have served you well, and I was a great governor. We promised ethics reform, and we delivered it. We promised you that you would finally see a fair return on your Alaskan natural resources. It's your money, and you know how to spend it better than the government. [Alaska; America's Saudi Arabia! Give them a few hundred bucks of oil money and you can do whatever you want]. Outside special interest groups still just don't get it. You'll see anti-second amendment circuses from Hollywood trying to take our guns. So much success!
Part 4: To stay successful, we must resist enslavement to big and central government. Big government destroys freedom. No one will work hard anymore, and the economy will crash. And it makes us less free. Washington D.C. is destroying Alaska! Government "can't make you healthy or wealthy or wise. What can? The wisdom of the people".
Part 5: Alaska is a contributor and securer of America. The pressing issue of our time is energy independence, and Alaska will lead with energy. "Alaska is the gatekeeper of the continent".
Part 6: Why I made a decision to chart a new course for the state. "It is because I love Alaska this much, sir, that I feel it is my duty to avoid the typical, unproductive, business as usual, lame duck session in one's last year in office. How does that benefit you?" [umm...how about staying in office and not being a lame duck]. "Now with this decision, I will be able to fight even harder for you". [she might actually believe this]. Tod, Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper, Trig...[quote from earlier, "mean liberal media - don't be mean to my family (even though I drag them into this)"]
I was 99% certain I would hear, "you won't have old Sarah Palin to kick around anymore", a la Richard Nixon.
And don't forget, support our troops.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Americans pull out of Iraqi cities
''While certainly there will be challenges -- there are many difficult political issues, social issues, governmental development issues -- we feel confident in the Iraqi security forces continuing the process of taking over the security tasks in their own country,'' - Gen. David Petraeus after meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Cairo.
We've (ok, I've) been focused on Iran, but something's happening in Iraq. Too early to tell what will come of it, but perhaps most imporantly, the United States is meetings its commitment to leave Iraqi cities at the end of June. We're not quite the Western imperial power that we're made out to be. Is it possible that we've won this war?
We've (ok, I've) been focused on Iran, but something's happening in Iraq. Too early to tell what will come of it, but perhaps most imporantly, the United States is meetings its commitment to leave Iraqi cities at the end of June. We're not quite the Western imperial power that we're made out to be. Is it possible that we've won this war?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
