Super-Weather Response

            Is climate change still controversial? Climate change means extreme weather. We just got hit by a Superstorm. Last year we had a bunch of Supertornadoes to go along with “hundred year” droughts and floods, which are now occurring every couple of years. We had 14 billion dollar disasters last year and seven so far this year. All we need is a giant lizard wreaking havoc. So we are now experiencing Super-weather. Are there capes involved? Aren’t there supposed to be Super-Heroes to protect us?

            Is “global warming” occurring? There is no doubt of it for those who observe rather than “believe”. The numbers are clear. 2012 was the warmest year since records began to be kept in 1895. Temperatures continue to rise globally every year for the past few decades. Expect coastal sea levels to rise by two feet, with storm surges averaging eight feet by 2050. By 2100, expect coastal sea levels to rise by about six feet from present, with all the accompanying challenges that will bring. More water in the atmosphere means more extreme weather patterns. So weather will get more extreme more often. Welcome to the new normal.

            If a “storm of the century” happens every few years, it becomes a new normal and business as usual. So how does business become usual again when faced with the “unusual”? How do we protect our cities and communities from extreme weather?

            Most of us have lived in the State of Denial. There is a temptation when it dawns on us that something is “going on” to rush towards the State of Over-Engineering. “We have to build our cities to withstand (insert your naughty weather event here)”. We can’t afford it and it won’t help.

            If the future (and present) doesn’t resemble the past, it is difficult to predict what we need to do to protect ourselves. We can say with certainty we have to rethink how we build and where we build. It is not difficult to see that we could over-build and over-engineer in anticipation of upcoming Super-weather events.

            I would advocate that our goal and outcome to shoot for in renewing our communities and homes is resilience, how to “bounce back” quickly from an extreme event. We should retool our infrastructures, when we bother to rebuild them, to be engineered for resilience. We should likewise consider preparing our homes and families to increase resilience. Resilience involves changing our thinking in addition to changing our engineering.

            But aren’t our cities more environmentally conscious? Many of our large cities have green initiatives to reduce heat, emissions, and save money. Resilience is not yet a factor or priority in these designs. Since the Government is accountable to the People in this country, we should direct them to make it a consideration and priority.

             What specifically should we renew for resilience? First of all, anything underground such as subways, tunnels, sewers, and water treatment plants, or anything else that shouldn’t be an aquarium. This is less about making them waterproof and more about routing water out of them if needed.

            I could drone on a list of specifics important for resilience, but the bottom line is we all have to become more aware and committed to preparing for extreme weather events. We have to hold the decision makers and purse string holders accountable to prepare for such events. We need, as a society, to become more adaptive, constantly improving our ability to respond. This is true in our homes as well as in our communities. Is all of this “renewal” expensive? Sure, but consider the alternatives. And don’t wait until solutions are “perfect” to start implementing them. That’s part of adaptation. If we fail to adapt, we will shift our budget from the Pentagon to FEMA.

            A major component of the “global warming” controversy is how much people cause and perpetuate extreme weather. Frankly, Scarlet, I don’t care. The Super-Hurricane knocking at your door also doesn’t care what you “believe”. We need to work together to reduce emissions to get at the low end of climate change projections. If our lifestyles are promoting severe weather, for our sake and the sake of our kids, we might consider changing our lifestyles. Not because we “have to” but because it’s “smart to”.

            We should essentially create social wisdom around the subject of extreme weather. Our policy makers, insurers and private sector should partner to create new risk assessments and value estimates. We can’t live like we have always lived because our climate is changing. Extreme weather was not a factor in our past decision making. It is cost prohibitive to sustain the past or thoughtlessly create the future.

            We need a strategic perspective to making ourselves safer. The conversation is not more resilient structures versus emission reduction. This is not either/or. Do I stop smoking or get off my Cheetos diet to get healthier? We change our personal health after that first heart attack. We need to change our lives and society across the board because we will continue to get our butts kicked by Mother Nature.

            It is human nature to think and plan locally. To shift our thinking, it is important to keep our conversations local. Is my community, my house, my family prepared for an extreme weather event? What is the most important or cost effective steps we can take to become better prepared?

            Disasters are good opportunities for change. Governors say they will “rebuild”. If we rebuild the past rather than the future, we do ourselves and future generations a disservice. We sow the wind and will reap the whirlwind. 

Budget Breakdown

            Anyone suffering through a Congressional budget debate on C-SPAN has had their sensibilities assaulted with lies. Polite people and lawyers call these mendacity. Here are some hard facts about the Federal budget.

            Last year, 63% of money was spent without a Congressional vote. This autopilot spending went for past obligations made by past Congresses. Few legislators have the courage to make tough choices for future spending, much less renege on such past promises.

            Our social safety net sucks up quite a bit of this money. In 1960, 9.5% of the federal budget went to health care. Currently, 25% of the federal budget goes to health care. The CBO estimates that in 10 years, healthcare costs will be 33% of the federal budget. We cannot control spending without controlling healthcare costs.

            So if around two thirds of our Congressional budget is on autopilot, why can't we just fire some of the people on those fat Federal payrolls and reduce our spending? The difference between what our government owes in what our government brings in is called a deficit. Our national deficit is currently over $1 trillion. The combined wages and benefits of all federal employees is $435 billion. We couldn’t put a dent in our $16 trillion debt by firing everybody in the Government, including the military. Rather than bankrolling a bunch of employees, the numbers indicate that most of the money Washington takes him if sent back out in benefits, contracts, and assistance to States.

            Military spending accounts for about 20% of the federal budget, around $700 billion. This amount is more than the combined spending of the next 17 largest military budgets. Feel safer yet? Do you want to continue to pay for us to be the worlds policeman?

            Look at the scope of these appropriations. Congress tells the Defense Department they have to have 11 aircraft carriers. Bear in mind that other nations have one. If you have an aircraft carrier, it has to be replaced every five years and this costs $11 billion. Do we have to have 11? $11 billion would replace 750,000 shoulder, knee and hip joints under Medicare. This is the scope of decisions made at this level.

            An additional 20% of the federal budget goes to Social Security. So three areas account for 65% of the Federal budget. The rest of the budget is for everything else. What spending would you advocate cutting, and what do you base your decision on? Sorry, Big Bird.

            The interest on the federal debt deserves a mention. The federal debt was created by Alexander Hamilton, who convinced the States to consolidate their debts into a single Federal debt. Last year the interest on the Federal debt was $220 billion. This is larger than the combined budgets of Commerce, Education, Homeland Security, Interior, Justice, and the Federal courts combined. Last year, 6% of Federal spending went towards interest on the national debt. Bear in mind that the rates of other nations charged to buy our debt is at historic lows. If the international climate changes, the rates could become much higher.

            A budget breakdown would be incomplete without mentioning revenue or taxes. The hard facts are that taxes on the middle class, the primary source of Federal revenue, have been declining for the last 30 years. This hard fact may come as a surprise to some in the middle class. In 1979 before the Reagan tax reforms, middle-class tax rates were around 19%. In 2007, before the Crash, middle-class tax rates were 14%. They have continued to decline since then.

            So where are the decisions made which divide up our $3.7 trillion national budget? Are they made in Congressional subcommittees or before the cameras of C-SPAN? Nay, Nay! They made in private meetings with lobbyists. The hard facts are that lobbyists keep legislators in their jobs, so lobbyists greatly influence how our national budget is spent. In 2011, Treasury took in $1.3 trillion in taxes. Loopholes influenced by lobbyists accounted for an additional $1.1 trillion in lost revenue.

            It is the role and responsibility of the free press and informed citizens to question the decisions made by legislators, particularly involving health care and defense. Our conversations should be less about individual beliefs and ideology and more about benefits to all Americans. I encourage you, an informed public, to make your voices heard this election day. Remember, Presidents can't spend money or create debt. That is the province of Congress. Bear this in mind when you place your hope and trust.

     
       We are on the brink of an economic cliff in December. Since Congress didn’t have the balls to make tough choices, mandatory budget cuts will go into effect, gutting 5.1% of GDP in one year. Such cuts during a struggling recovery are economic suicide. Our economic challenges are all solvable, if legislators work together to cut a deal benefiting all of us. We need a balanced bipartisan solutions. Legislators actually have to govern, not be ideological purists. If you hate a broken Congress and broken System, don’t put one in place with your vote. Current voting trends indicate an 80-90% partisan ticket. You can’t have it both ways, winning an election for “your side” and having a Congress that works. I voted for both Democrats and Republicans this election, depending on who is willing to work together. I recommend you do the same. Our economic suicide is in your hands and the message you send.

The Peaceful Warrior

          We recently saw the passing of George McGovern. Some defined McGovern in terms of a failed Presidential bid in 1971. Others define him as a commie peacenik hippie. He was, in fact, one of the most influential figures of modern politics.

          Following his combat experiences in WWII, McGovern hated war and saw it necessary only as a last resort. He vigorously opposed involvement in civil wars such as Vietnam. He opposed the recent Iraq adventure as unnecessary and immoral. Throughout his public life, McGovern served as a national conscience and moral compass. McGovern opposed sustaining a global military empire. A favorite phrase was “Bring America home”. The debate remarks of both Obama and Romney about nation building here in the US strongly reflects McGovern’s sentiments and mission. In addition to speaking out against needless foreign entanglements, McGovern dedicated his life to eliminating domestic and global hunger. McGovern leaves behind a rich legacy of peace and reason.

          There are two figures who profoundly shaped the course of modern politics, George McGovern and Barry Goldwater. Both were political philosophers, both reinvented their Parties, and both served the role of providing a national moral compass. Both were profoundly inspirational. Without McGovern, there would have been no Clinton or Obama. Without Goldwater, there could have been no Reagan.

          There is another way to define his legacy. George McGovern answered his nation’s call, leaving the fields of South Dakota at the age of 22. He piloted a B-24 through 35 harrowing combat missions. Stephen Ambrose, the Poet Laureate of American military history stated, “George McGovern was as great a patriot as I have ever known. He had the trust, confidence, and love of his crew. His acts of courage were enormous and we all owe him an enormous debt. I just want to show that you don’t have to be a hawk to be a great patriot.”

Next Weeks Elections

          Next weeks elections on November 8th promise to be exciting. It is unclear who will take the helm, but it will probably be Xi Jimping. Yes, election watchers, it’s time to break out the balloons and horns for the Chinese elections.

          China is our closest symbiotic trading partner. Our fates and fortunes are inexorably linked. So this is proving to be a historic election, the changing of the guard from old to new.

          This transition is fraught with anxiety, within the government and on the street. The new leaders will have to deal with larger and more complex problems than any of their predecessors. The people on the street are anxious because they don’t know much about their new leaders.

          They will doubtlessly be male, young, children of Party officials, highly educated within China rather than abroad, and have different sentiments and ambitions than their elders. All of these men thrived within the system. Analysts feel that because of their backgrounds, the new leadership will undertake as little reform as possible.

          Xi will probably head the Council of Seven. China doesn’t have a single leader at the top. Xi is the son of a Mao lieutenant and joined the Party in 1974.

          The main problem facing China is the erosion of the Deng Xioping Strategic Model, which has worked successfully for 30 years. This model has three planks:

1. Economic and export-centric reforms- Deng bet on demographics. He knew that China had millions of young unemployed people which he could move from the farms to the coast and put to work cheaply in factories. The social shift we took over a century to make, China made in a few decades, and experienced over 10% growth rate for the last 30 years. The major problems with this model is that most people have now moved to cities, so the cheap labor force is diminishing. The population shift is also straining urban infrastructures. In addition, standards of living are rising across China. Per capita income is over $4,000 annually, well above third world standards. The World Bank reports that China has brought 500 million people out of poverty since 1981. An additional source of tension inherent in the model is the creation of massive, profitable State-owned enterprises. Incomes for the average worker are not increasing and the gap between rich and poor is the highest since the Revolution, even greater than that of the US. China knows it needs a new economic direction, but it is unsure what that is.

 

2. Political technocracy- Decades ago, China was replete with cronyism. Deng’s vision was to create a merit and performance based society. While much of what roils beneath the surface is placidly hidden, it is clear that there is aggressive infighting and political maneuvering for power. That’s what concentration of power and big money will do. Perhaps the Chinese need to Occupy something in protest. Also evident is rampant, permeating corruption. The level of corruption in China has never been seen in modern capitalism, due to the amount of money involved. The new leaders will be challenged with getting the country through this phase of their economic development. Historically, many countries have successfully transitioned out of corruption. The post-war economies of Japan and Korea were very corrupt. The United States had rampant corruption at the turn of the 20th Century. What all these countries had that China doesn’t is the rule of law, a free judiciary and free press, and the ability for the people to throw corrupt politicians out of office.  China is also facing an expectations gap as their populace demands more and complains more. This gap is becoming very volatile and frustrating on the street.

3. Pro-Americanism- The third plank of Deng’s strategy is crumbling as anti-American sentiment currently permeates all strata of Chinese society. There is a deeply held belief that the US will attempt to contain China or limit the rise of Chinese emergence as a Superpower. Our politicians appear to be enhancing this perception. In the near future, expect many public protests and demonstrations against the United States. Bear in mind that such demonstrations not only express popular beliefs, but also are the only permissible and sanctioned expression for a frustrated population.

          China’s new leadership will have to chart a new course as their long held political strategies unravel. While the Chinese don’t have a viable ideology to rally around, there is tremendous pride in the Chinese nation and accomplishments. Expect the Chinese to rally around their flag when times are uncertain or difficult.

President of Ohio

          Our national fixation on Presidents continues as Mitt and Barrack contend to become President of Ohio. They have outlined two murky but distinct roads forward: investment (Government spending) vs. Reagan lite (tax code reform, close loopholes, deregulation). Both are newly born-again middle class populists and indistinguishable from each other on many policy points. And for Republicans, another time before the cameras is another opportunity to promote a tax cut.

          Speaking of tax cuts, who will pay for the hot fudge sundae diets these guys are proposing? Bearing the burdens to keep the country running is more than about revenue. It is about fairness. Fairness is a big portion of the mandate people give a President. It answers the question “So what Mr. Big Shot now that you’ve won?”

          There is a clear distinction made as far as fairness. The Democrats want to tax rich people. Their reasoning is that they’ve benefited in recent years when most of us suffered and they should contribute from this abundance. The Republicans are more fuzzy with their math...and equity.

          Since I have a memory, I point out that the sacred budget Ryan initially proposed gets 62% of its revenue from cutting programs to poor people. Since our working families are quickly becoming our working poor, this may be of some interest. It becomes about us and not about those other people.

          I note that the Republicans still impose no additional burden on the luckiest, the most advantaged, and the most privileged among us. I simply make the point that who will pay is a clear distinction between the Parties. The “bear any burden” sentiment of previous statesmen apparently does not apply to campaign donors.

          Social equity goes beyond an ethical imperative. As previously stated, it becomes part of a Presidential mandate. When you have mostly agreement between these guys, what does it mean when one or the other wins? What is the mandate the people are expressing and conferring? What is the mandate when the country is evenly divided?

          While we fixate on Presidents, because its easy to do so, the important race is actually for Congress. I have heard MUCH talk of debts and deficits of current and past Presidents, of bad policy choices made by one side or the other. I remind gentle readers that Presidents don’t create budgets (other than a symbolic one), spend money, don’t create debt, and don’t make laws. Congress doses.

          So while one guy is easy to blame for social ills, it is inaccurate. Presidents have very little ability to actually fix or create anything. They can influence and persuade, but they can’t order. They’re not the boss of Congress. Ask any Congressman.

          So while we Twitter about the latest Presidential “Big Bird” comment, we need to actually be focusing on fixing our broken Congress. I don’t care which candidate gets your Presidential vote. They have large made themselves indistinguishable and their job is marginal anyway. And we know they would never say one thing and do another. So vote for whomever.  

          Bottom line - We need to fix a broken Congress and need a simple clear criterion for electing Congress-folk. I have one. Can they work together? Can they reach an understanding and move forward and actually craft imperfect but actual legislation? That is the governing process our nation was founded on...pass laws and fix them later. If you can’t pass laws or fix them, if you don’t want to work together, if things gets reduced to enemies and traitors, go back to the cracker barrel, Clem. As the Donald says, “You’re fired!” (while poking with the finger).

          As a People, we need one or two clear criteria and red lines to keep or fire Congress-folk, since they work for you. I propose the desire and ability to work together. What single criteria would you recommend?

          Once we decide on a single criteria, we can start a political movement. Use the criteria to hire and fire and you will quickly put the fear of God into these career-fixated squabbles. Remember the Tea Party and their single issue of lowering the debt? They are putting the fear of God into the Republican Establishment. They are also putting the fear of their extremism into the general public. Parties with a single policy issue are myopic and largely destructive. However, people understand and got behind a single issue Party. That’s why I advocate a PROCESS rather than a policy issue as a criteria.  

          What could we call a movement based on working together? Collaborationists? Sounds very old school....maybe have a logo with a snake or something? How about the Work Together Party (WTP) or Work Together Congress (WTC)? Hmm...they sound like programs from the Great Depression. Well, you guys will think of something. Let us all know what we are called and we’ll start a national political movement using social media. We’ll have that Congress fixed in no time.  

Middle East- Current Affairs

          This blog touches on current events in the Middle East. I think foremost in many people's minds is the murder of Ambassador Stevens in Libya. Details of this event continue to emerge daily and a clear picture of the affair will emerge over time. In addition to Libya, I want to touch on Iran, Turkey, and where we stand in our ”war” with global terrorism.

 Libya

             For many people, images of Islamic riots and burning US Embassies brought to mind the revolutions and State-sponsored terrorism of the 1970s. Thousands across the Islamic world burned and pillaged in protest of an inflammatory anti-Islamic movie. In one sense, this part of the world is irrationally volatile. Islam is a religion of peace and if you say otherwise, we'll kill you.

            Unlike ourselves, our enemies recognize our “war” is not a fight for territory or body count, but rather for hearts and minds. It is a clash of beliefs and narratives. Consequently, our enemies continually scour the Internet and media for any fruits of our free speech which they can use to inflame the masses to turn hearts and minds against us. We in the West should consequently be aware of two realities: this part of the world is irrationally volatile and inflammatory things inflame. We’re continually astonished when protests and riots occur, but we should be astonished if they didn’t. If you poke a hornets nest with a stick, don't be surprised if you get stung. It may be wise not to pass around sticks rather than wishing that hornets don't sting.

             So our enemies provoke riots and utilize such riots to their own ends, as was seen in Libya. Initial announcements portrayed the storming of the US Embassy as a spontaneous action by protesters. Dude, you don't take rocket launchers to a protest. It is clear that our enemies used the anti-video rioting as cover and launched a planned attack. So is this Al Qaeda? No, but we'll get into that in a bit.

             The daily domestic wrangling concerning the killing of our Ambassador concerns who's to blame, who knew what when, and why wasn't there enough security? Have you visited many embassies, Sparky? Third world Embassies are always under-resourced and this is a really dangerous part of the world. The Benghazi Embassy was classified as “temporary” and resourced as such. Stevens was killed in a safe house guarded by Navy SEALs rather than at the Embassy. Don't be surprised if our enemies had guys on the inside. I would question the Butler.

             What is different about this incident and Islamic disruptions of the 1970s and 1980s is that governments across the Middle East are taking a public stand against such violence. Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, and Turkey all publicly denounced anti-American violence. This may not seem like much to the grieving West, but it is historically huge in the region.

             There are pros and cons to these fledgling democracies. They are authentic, though struggling, democracies who want to partner with us against extremist elements. The downside is that they are fragmented and weak compared with the autocratic States they replaced. They are much less agile and capable partners.

             So why did the Libyan people hate us? Didn’t we just help them out? They don't. Two thirds of the Libyan people support the United States and want better relations. However, the Benghazi region is particularly dangerous. This region has a long history of producing violent extremists. This region sent more fighters to Iraq than any other nation. So it's a pretty big hornets nest to camp next to.

 Iran

             The West and Israel continued to stay fixated on potential Iranian nuclear bomb-making hijinks. Since a majority of Israelis don't favor a first strike, it is likely their incendiary government will keep its saber sheathed.

             Western sanctions are ravaging the Iranian economy. The value of their currency continues to fall. The average Joe and Jane are fed up. Merchants are rioting in the streets of Tehran. The nations current political and economic course appears unsustainable. Expect major change to start with next year's elections.

 Syria

             The West still does nothing while the Syrian Civil War devolves into ethnic and sectarian violence. The Assad regime is sponsored by Iran and Russia. Iran hopes to increase his political influence in a Syrian power vacuum and promote another Shiite State.

                        Russia provides the Assad regime with weapons and military support, as well as running interference with the West. For Russia, Syria is the last of their Middle Eastern client States as well as their only Mediterranean port. Russian strategists worry about a  “Shiite underbelly “ forming and posing future threats. Putin probably views overthrow of a repressive regime as an existential threat to his own. He may well fear a “Russian Spring” around the corner.

             The loudest regional voice against the Assad regime is from Turkey. They're afraid that the raging fire in Syria will spread to consume their own house. They have recently snubbed the Russians, although they are afraid of them. Snubbing the Russians also jeopardizes the ten year growth arc the Turks have enjoyed. Cross-border military tensions may escalate, but Turkey would be isolated during a Syrian war and has little appetite for a full-blown conflict. The recent downing of a Russian passenger plane and seizure of its cargo was based on intelligence provided by NATO. Look for Turkey to play an increasing role as a surrogate for quiet Western intervention in the Syrian conflict.

 Terrorism

             So what is the status of our “war on terror”? The pros divide our enemies into three broad categories:

 (1) Al Qaeda prime-the original Al Qaeda, accept no imitations. They are hiding in Pakistan, pretty much cut to ribbons. The future chance they could cause major casualties in the United States, about zero.

 (2) Al Qaeda affiliates- the media often calls these Al Qaeda. They are not. These are extremist Islamist cells adopting the brand and franchise of Al Qaeda. They park themselves within various nation states and can be quite a nuisance. These are the guys who keep the ideological engines running, inspiring new generations of adherents. They plan minor operations against the West but don't seem particularly competence in their execution. They won't pose any threat to grandma in Terre Haute. But don't send your kid to the University of Sama’a.

 (3) Al Qaeda inspired- there are a lot of these troublemakers milling around, domestically and abroad. These are individuals and small groups inspired by a jihadist narrative. These are probably the new “normal” within the global fabric. They produce shooting sprees, suicide bombers, and bombs in backpacks. Although sowers of tragedy, they are hardly a threat to Western Civilization as we know it.

             So did Al Qaeda kill Stevens? Nope. Local extremists supported by regional affiliates did. Kind of between zone 2 and 3. That’s the current read on the inside.

             Our intelligence leadership assesses terrorism in terms of a “surface game” and a “deep game”. Our strategy for the surface game is to take out high-level bad guys and high visibility propagandists. We have done quite well in playing the surface game.

             For over a decade, the deep game has been a deep concern. This is the war for hearts and minds. This is what they call the “pipeline” that produces new enemies and new generations of enemies. For over a decade, our enemies produced as many or more followers than we killed. That’s one downside of parking US troops on Achmed’s doorstep.

             With the Arab Spring, a new regional narrative was introduced, crafted on the Arab streets. However flawed, fledgling democracies provide hope and vent frustrations that were long repressed. For the first time since 9/11, our strategic analysts are observing ground gained in the deep game.

             Extremist elements may be a fact of modern life, but they can in time wither as regional popular support for violent protest wanes. Just as the Arab Spring symbolizes new political direction, symbolic tragedies such as the murder of Ambassador Stevens or the shooting of Malala Yousafzai may serve to erode support for violent narratives within this volatile region.

Annoyed In Ohio

          Okay, I'm officially annoyed with Romney after his VMI speech concerning foreign-policy. I look for a couple of things in a candidate, distinction and detail. What would they do differently and specifically what would they do differently. I get none of that with this guy.

          The differences between his positions and Obama's appear rhetorical rather than substantial. That's annoying. I guess he's doing well with people who don't know the facts of the matter, whose memories don't extend beyond....the last speech he made.

          Take, for example, Romney's criticism of Obama's mishandling of Iran. The President hasn't set a "red line". True. Setting a redline limits your options. What red line would you set, Mitt? The Israelis want a red line at a certain percentage of uranium enrichment, which they will have to guess has been achieved. The Neoconservatives want Iran to have no nuclear capability, military or peaceful. This is against the law, which doesn't really matter much if you're above the law. So what would you do, Mitt? In previous speeches, Romney said he advocates crippling sanctions, positioning our military for action if necessary, and keeping a military option on the table. These three things are currently the policy of the Obama Administration. Just pointing it out. I certainly don't agree with all of Obama's foreign policy choices, but he did put together an international coalition to levy the most crippling sanctions in history on Iran. Last week, there were riots in the streets of Tehran because their currency has lost half its value. The candidates in next years Presidential elections pledgeD that Iran will move towards a moderate and secular stance. Sounds like something might be working.

          So lots of smoke, but I can't find fire. Romney criticized Obama for failing to reconcile Palestine and Israel. He would do better but doesn't say how. Frankly, I don't think Moses, Jesus, Mohammed and Hillary (the US seems to always be in the mix)could reconcile that lot in six party talks.  Perhaps Romney could invite Bibi for a sleepover. In May, Romney called a two state solution unthinkable. How many supporters remember that? I guess its now thinkable. That boy has gained his mind.

          Romney is very skillful at creating an impression, leading the uninformed to a certain conclusion, of stating sharp differences and personal competence when none are visible. It will all work out, trust me is not a plan, Mitt. But he knows the conclusions he draws are not true. When you know you're lying and Bubba doesn't, I have a problem with that. Let the Bubba beware.

          Romney is drawing these distinctions to win an election. I don't care who is the best campaigner. I don't care who's great at winning the popularity contests we call elections. I care who will provide effective governance and leadership.

          Another annoying example, during the debate (I point out that I have avoided the details and mudslinging at both candidates in the past, but I'm in a slinging mood), Romney implied that $90 billion was wasted when Obama picked a few pet losing investments in alternative energy. The facts are that only a small percentage of this R&D money went into the fields of solar and electric cars. For instance, $30 billion went into cleaning up a polluted nuclear site. Billions went to clean coal research, which still doesn't exist. We do need to maximize domestic energy production and minimize dependence on foreign energy. However, the main reason Obama's a loser companies failed was not because of corruption but rather competition. Solyndra failed because the Chinese make solar panels cheaper than we possibly can, plus their accounting was goofy. Tesla didn't fail and still rocks.

          We are far behind the rest of the world in green energy. We need to be the head and not the tail. We need a breakthrough in solid-state hardware and battery power and other stuff that blows the world away. We need to dominate this market rather than play catch-up.

          Another debate example, Obama took $700 billion out of Medicare. Hear that, grandma? Vote for me. I'll put $700 billion back into Medicare. It is a fact that Obama took $700 billion out of Medicare in the Affordable Care Act, but he took this money away from the insurance companies. The law then puts $700 billion back into Medicare to keep it running for eight more years, and close the doughnut hole for seniors. This makes Medicare stronger and more sustainable. Mitt apparently wants to give $700 billion back to the insurance companies. Got that, grandma?

          Now I'm not a big supporter of Obama's leadership on healthcare reform. I have a memory. Obama asked Congress for only two things he wanted included to their Bill, and didn't get either of them. So much for Obama's contribution to Obamacare. I recall that Obama abdicated leadership on healthcare to Congress and it became a liberal feeding frenzy. That's also annoying. Plus this giant omnibus pig of a law sucks. That's what happens when insurance companies write your laws.

          So Mitt's solution to this giant omnibus pig of a law, which was based on Romneycare, which was based on Clinton's model, which was based on Nixon's model, which was based on Truman's model, which goes all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt (not kidding), is to have each State create their own Romneycare. That sounds efficient.

          And don't forget that panel that's going to get between you and your doctor, that panel that decides what treatment you get. Mitt made this last point three times during the debate. Spoiler alert....the fact is that this is an advisory panel, not a governance panel. It is against the law for them to prescribe treatments. Like other advisory panels, they look at an ocean of numbers and medical outcomes, and pick out efficient "best practices", and recommend these changes to Congress, which Congress may pass the changes or tell these guys to take a hike. So the fact is that rather than having too much power, these guys have no power. That's the law. Sorry, Sarah.

          So I'm not interested in how well Romney can run a race and win an election. I'm interested in distinctions and specifics, and until I get some, I will remain annoyed.

A Simple Choice

          America is an exceptional nation. Our national heritage and character have forged a people of extraordinary potential. However, we are an exceptional people when we behave exceptionally. We can't wear “Exceptional” like an honorary title or doctorate. “Exceptional” is a standard which must be earned.....everyday.....through our actions.

          We are a People of destiny. But our national destiny must be commonly forged...by all Americans. Our exceptionalism is in our own hands. Edward R Murrow reminds us that “our future lies not in our stars but in ourselves.””

           Exceptional achievement requires common vision collective resolve, and concerted action. However, our ability to act as a nation has recently been jeopardized. Our Congress is ideologically entrenched and divided. Jesus points out that a house divided against itself cannot stand. This passage was quoted by Lincoln the last time in our history our ability to govern became intractable. Lincoln appealed for unity and the street responded with Civil War. We might need another one, a political civil war, to break the stranglehold of extremist intractability we now face.

          Much attention, energy and passion is currently focused on the Presidential race. Most Presidents are mere figureheads, with little personal ability to affect change. National solutions are not found in the Presidency.

          Presidents are blamed for many things they don’t do and have no control over. They don't create jobs, make laws, repeal laws, spend money, increase taxes, or create deficits, regardless of strident daily media contentions to the contrary. That’s Civics 101. Congress does all those things. Our focus, attention, and passion should be directed towards who is sitting in Congress.

          Our nation is in a crisis and at a crossroads. In two months, we collectively face three monumental political/economic decisions. We need legislators that can effectively govern. Our legislators currently cannot effectively govern. Regardless of who takes the White House, the creation of a functional Congress should be our top national priority. Like our national destiny, our political institutions must be collectively and intentionally forged and refined.

          We do not receive our Constitution from God, passed through Jesus, to Moses, to the Founding Fathers, to the average exceptional Joe and Jane on the streets. Our Constitution and nation was founded using bipartisanship, the ability to strongly disagree and yet craft a legislative way forward for the American People.

          Our Founding Fathers had profound ideological disagreements. While crafting the Constitution during the stifling heat of summer, they locked the windows and doors so that people in the street could not hear them screaming at each other. Their legacy shows that it is okay to disagree. It is okay to scream at each other. We are a nation of disagree-ers and screamers. Their legacy also shows that we are a nation that is willing to listen, respect, find common ground, and craft a way forward.

          Our founders did not want to create a parliament, where one side wins all. Our current national political logic leans toward capturing all political institutions for their Party. Rather, our Founders envisioned an adversarial yet productive form of governance based on the principles of discourse, respect, and bipartisanship.

          We are in a crisis and at a crossroad. We all need a collectively clear choice. Here it is. Since our form of government is based on the ability to reach across the aisle, we should view any legislator who devalues or opposes these core principles as someone opposing the fundamental tenants of our Democracy. We should fire them.

          We must guard both our liberty and our ability to govern from those who would seek to seize the reins of power and distort our political system. Some political circles hold the view that bipartisanship is considered weak and treacherous. Anyone who doesn’t agree with me is the enemy and an illegitimate un-American traitor. They are not fit to hold office, even if they are within my own Party. These enemies of bipartisanship are enemies of the American People. Their distortion of our fundamental political values must be purged.

          These intractable legislators wrap themselves in ideology, patriotism, and religion to justify their stance. We can't back down or compromise. It would be like denying my faith. Sparky, you ain't running for Pope. We need a legislature that works, however flawed. We don't need a bunch of true believers sitting around drawing a public paycheck. We need people that will work, and work together. I love it that you have immovable beliefs and values. Save them for the cracker barrel, not our national Congress.

          I want to be clear that I'm not advocating any Party, policy or position. I don't really care who's in there as long as they can work together. If they can't, fire them.

          We are in a crisis and at a crossroads. Let's make this choice real simple. We need a Congress that works .....bottom line. Creating a Congress that works is our job not their job. If we currently have people in there that can't work together or refuse to work together, it's our fault.

          Priority one, know the collaborative track record of the people on the ballot in front of you. Creating a government that works is your responsibility. Anyone who opposes bipartisanship and collaboration must be fired. So fire them.

          Firing these people will not solve our national problems, but if we can't pass legislation, we can't move forward. We stay broken. If we can't move forward, we’ll be sitting in our trenches grumbling four years from now waiting for the next offensive. Don't end up in a roadside ditch. If you want to open up the political landscape, make support for bipartisanship the sole criteria for your vote. Throw out enough of the guys who can't work together and the rest of the guys will get the message.

             So this election season, vote for whoever you want to for President and the wrong road they’re pointing down. Focus your attention on Congress, because whether Congress can function determines the future of our nation.

          
               I recall the word of Pericles, “I am less concerned about the strategies of my enemies and more concerned about my own mistakes.” It is up to us to define the 21st century, to determine what we shall become. It is up to us to get our house in order anc achieve that vision. The future is ours to determine, but that determination will require rethinking, retooling, renewal, and re-prioritizing. It will require chnging coure and making tough choices. It will require working together. 

Debate Impressions

          The first of the Presidential debates is behind us. Romney’s performance was aggressive and effective, and Obama’s was insipid and lackluster. It is strategically unclear why Obama was so reticent, but he is historically so during debates. He chooses to go for the capillaries rather than the jugular.

          This exchange was fraught with untruths, illogic, and vagaries. Romney came in as a national unknown, even though he's been campaigning for eight years. His campaign emerged energized and renewed. This is because they have a new candidate, one we have never seen before. Will the real Mitt Romney...

          Both contenders struck me as men not having a clear plan. It will all work out, trust me. That's not a plan, sorry. Romney did say with certainty that he would encourage Congress to repeal some laws, mainly Dodd-Frank and the Affordable Care Act. I remind our gentle readers that Presidents can't repeal laws. They are not a king. Congress repeals laws. Hence the first campaign promise that can't be delivered.

          Another specific was a Republican promise to cut Federal funding of PBS. So based on these two specifics, we can expect celebration on Wall Street and despair on Sesame Street.

          In some ways, Romney reminded me of George Bush, Jr. during the 2000 election. He advocated a moderate political stance, bipartisanship, compassionate conservatism, marketplace regulation, State-provided healthcare.... who is this masked man?  

          I'm told by insiders that Romney's performance more accurately reflects his authentic persona. What will the extremist legislators and media sense makers make of the new Romney? If he genuinely is a moderate, will he have the courage and integrity to push back against extremist elements?

          For gentle readers confused about the numbers and statistics posited by the candidates, don't worry about them. They’re not true. Modern politics is driven by ideology rather than facts. One is more likely to be blinded by illogic than science.

          Both sides were untruthful with facts, although Romney was more masterful in his mixture and delivery of fact and fiction. Facts were used to “give in impression”of the opponent that was not accurate.

          Rather than a contrast of clear plans forward, the Presidential race is characterized by broad ideological roads meandering in different directions. During a global recession and facing an entrenched Congress, Obama”s more of the same is unlikely to produce significant benefits, particularly in the short term. Obama wants to make a lot more strategic investments in infrastructure, education, energy, etc. If any strategic investments do make it through Congress, they will take 10 to 30 years to bear fruit. The private/public partnerships which produced world class schools and the electronics, telecommunications, computer industries in the 1970s began under Eisenhower.

          Contrasted to Obama's current business as usual is Romney's former business as usual. Broadly, Romney's direction reforms the tax code and creates many high-paying jobs. The budget is balanced not by raising taxes, but by more working Americans paying taxes and increasing revenues. Romney's economic approach sinks or swims on the creation of high-paying jobs. Romney did cite accurately the over $4000 per capita decline in household income. Every month, incomes for the average worker continue to fall and the Middle Class continues to erode. A study released last week indicated the average worker makes what they did in 1979.

          The logical disconnect is that Presidents can't make companies pay their workers more money. Obama can't and Romney can't. Congress can't make employers pay their people more money. No law or regulation can do so. American business is currently as productive as it was before the Crash, even with 12 million fewer jobs. We have learned to do more with less and we pay the less less. Corporations are sitting on over $2 trillion in cash, but wages continue to fall. Of all the vagaries of Romney's economic plans, increasing worker pay is a central tenet. I would love to see the connection between business profits and worker benefit restored. Unless Romney has a clear plan to achieve this, his smoke and mirrors are mainly smoke.

          So Romney emerged a kinder, gentler candidate and Obama just seemed weary. Following the debate, much backpedaling is occurring as Romney distances himself from these warm and fuzzy policy positions. I would love to see a Presidential candidate who trust the People enough to tell them the truth. For decades, we've done what I baseball players do. We've substituted steroids for actual muscle building.  We've injected massive amounts of credit and debt into our economic system for an extended self-gratifying binge. We are going to have to pay for that. When candidates don't trust the People with the truth, they don't receive the trust of the People 

        We need a  Presidential candidate who presents solutions and vision at the scale of the problem.  Don't tell us we can build a prosperous future painlessly, that we can get it all from rich people or pending. As it is, we have two candidates both promoting hot fudge sundae diets, promising growth and prosperity without personal discomfort and inconvenience.  Such talk makes people anxious. Without vision, the people perish.

         So what am I looking for in a candidate? We nee Wto cut spending  We have made promises to future generations we can't keep. We need to raise revenue, not just cut spending, because we need to continue to invest in the sources of our strength. I'm Looking for a candidate who comes to the American people honestly and intelligently with a clear plan that matches the scale of the problem. The plan should be fair. Everyone should pay.  The rich should pay more because they've been fortunate for the last few decades, but everyone should pay something. Finally, I look for a plan that's aspirational, inspiring the nation to greatness. I don't see our current choices offering more than talking points.   

       Romney’s moderation was not entirely unanticipated. Over the last month, he’s been retooling his public presentation into a five-point stump speech whose subjects mirror Obama’s stump speech. He talks about (1) exports, (2) domestic energy, (3) retraining programs, and (4) deficit reduction. The two diverge in their emphasis of a final point. Romney emphasizes small business and Obama emphasizes national security. Romney continues to strike me as a smart and caring man trapped in a Party that forces him to adopt extreme and impossible positions. Obama may face something far worse than a talented debater. He may be facing an authentically moderate Republican.

The Middle East- Limiting Civil Liberties

Threat to Civil Liberties

          The 9/11 plotters committed themselves to a complex and expensive plot designed to intentionally inflame and provoke US popular sentiment. Likewise, the video which sparked the current round of Mideast violence also reflected an elaborate and complex plot also intended to inflame the popular Arab populace. Readers might be astonished how much effort and how many intentional choices went into producing this inflammatory and provocative product.

          Because it is legal to produce such materials, there is national dialogue about limiting such expressions of free speech. I do not advocate limiting free speech. However, I do advocate the wise and socially responsible expression of free speech. Ultimately, production of intentionally provocative and inflammatory material becomes a moral and ethical issue rather than a legal one. Just because you can do something, should you do it?

          I would make two points. The first is acknowledging the reality of the world stage. When an inflammatory and provocative political or religious product surfaces, it spark looting, pillaging, and general destructive mayhem throughout the Arab world. This is guaranteed. This is the reality of the situation. It is not the reality of our situation. This is an important distinction.

          Intentional production of such provocative materials is an ethical issue rather than a legal issue simply because we don't have arson, murders and riots in US streets when the next offensive cartoon rolls out. If we did, it is likely we would limit civil liberties and free speech. If posting a particular video caused inner-city riots within our own country, we would classify such videos as hate speech and make them a federal crime.

          Intentional production of provocative products is hate speech. It’s just not illegal. These products are produced with the intentional foreknowledge and anticipation of generating mayhem and violence. Should such products remain legal to produce?

          The second point is that our enemies, religious and political extremists within the Arab world, scour Western media for ammunition to support their narratives. It is the goal of our enemies to generate more hate, fear, and mistrust of the “other”, i.e. the West.

          Self-righteous producers who intentionally produce provocative materials become unwitting or witting allies of our extremist enemies. In one view, they become fools or traitors. These Americans put lives, property, national interests, and the welfare of American troops in jeopardy. While we can produce such products, should we be able to? Should these be legal to produce?

          These are very complex questions. Limiting civil liberties is a very complex issue. There are many cogent points to be made concerning many aspects of the issue. I do not advocate any particular course other than social responsibility. However, I think the two points raised above should be considered in any evaluation of limiting civil liberties.

The Middle East - It's All About Us

          In the aftermath of the egregious murder of US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens in Benghazi, television screens were filled with images of burning US Consulates and violent protests across the Arab world. Many Americans remain surprised at the amount and intensity of anti-Western sentiment in the Middle East.

          Many people ask ,“Why don't they like us?” Didn't we just fight three wars to free Arab people? Aren’t we still fighting a war to free Arab people? Is all this destruction really the result of one offensive video? Consequently, many people conclude that Arab popular opinion is irrevocably and violently supportive of extremism, that Islam is at its core a religion of hate and violence, and that it may be in our best national interests to withdraw our support and efforts from that part of the world.....as long as we keep getting our oil.

          Isn't this the same why don't they like us question we asked after 9/11? Apparently many of us still don't understand why some extremist elements hated us enough to craft an extensive and elaborate plot to fly airplanes into buildings as a symbolic gesture. We still don't understand the level of popular discontent which is fomented populist revolutions across the Arab world. We still don't understand why the US and the West remains hot-button targets for hatred and blame in that region. We still don't get it.

 

It’s All About Us

          There is a myth that American power is more influential in shaping world events that it really is. There is also a myth, particularly during an election season, that US Presidents are much more influential in influencing international affairs than they really are.

          If only we had a different policy, we made a different speech, we sent a different tweet, the world would be very different. This seems to be the lens many Americans used to view international affairs. This introspective inflation of our importance misses the actual scope of our direct influence. Seeing the world exclusively from our cultural point of view also keeps us from understanding the true motives of other people around the world. After all, aren't all people really just like us?

          This myopic view is called provincialism. Since the early 1800s, Americans have been globally viewed as provincial. We focus on ourselves and assess the rest of the world through our own cultural lens. We’re not really interested in how other people think and feel. This is not an aspersion, simply an observation. A people who look at other cultures exclusively through the lens of their own culture are guaranteed to have a distorted view of others.

          Not only do we have distorted perspectives of why others do what they do, we have an over-inflated sense of importance, that we can make others do something else than what they do. The heart of the political narrative for the first decade of this century was that we can impose US perspectives and interests upon the rest of the world. We could create a world in our own image. Our foray into nation building turned out to be not as successful as we had hoped.

          Still, the old beliefs linger....that it's all about us. We don't like this globalization stuff. It takes our jobs away. Let's stop this globalization stuff. A President allowed globalization to take our jobs away. Our President should have allowed this Arab Spring business. It's causing trouble. Our President should stop this Arab Spring business. Sigh!

          US influence should not be confused with US leadership. We have changed the world through the inspiration of our values, aspirations and ideals. However, history has demonstrated that our ability to directly influence international affairs is quite limited. Authentic friends and authentic peace are unlikely to develop at the barrel of a gun. We have a lot of guns. Our two big levers of power are military and economic projection. Both of these are inadequate and insufficient to change international hearts and minds.

          So we squabble on about posture and policy, as though a tweak here and there, a good saber-rattling or exhibit of strength/weakness will greatly impact the international scene. As with all human beings, authentic understanding and friendship will emerge when we actually empathize and listen to those dang foreigners. We might have to care enough to stop our “busy” lives to listen and respect. It is unlikely that human relationships develop positively unless this occurs. This is true concerning the person down your block as well is across your oceans.