Institute for a Better American Future

DEBT: Will the Dems Shut Down the Government?

2006-03-03T16:46:00.000-08:00

CNN is reporting that the Senate Democrats, along with some conservative Republicans, are going to block the statutory reauthorization of our poor treasury to incur MORE debt than the fast-approaching limit, $8.18 TRILLION (insert Dr. Evil voice here).
This is certainly a fight worth fighting to the bitter end.

CNN:

Senate Democrats pledge fight over debt:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- A nasty budget fight is brewing in Congress as Senate Democrats and some conservative Republicans said on Friday that they will not support efforts this month to increase U.S. borrowing authority, a move needed to avoid a government default.

Democrats, who hope to gain control of the House and Senate in this year's congressional elections, are looking for a debate on the credit limit to highlight the nation's mounting debt at a time when President Bush also is pushing to make his tax cuts permanent.

"Democrats are not going to vote to increase this debt," Reid said...

House Democrats also have warned that they would oppose a debt limit increase without also putting into place a plan to eventually balance a federal budget that could see a deficit of around $400 billion this year.

Now, THAT's what I like to hear from the Democrats. If we have to shut down the government, so be it- it's been done before. This is a good fight for many reasons:

It highlights the utter hypocracy between the GOP's small-government rhetoric and their actions. This could be the final nail in the deficit hawks' support for the GOP.
If done right, we will remind everyone of how much better the Democrats (see Bill Clinton) are better at managing the economy.
It could force Congress' hand to not renew the Bush Billionaire tax cuts.
Stopping excessive debt is the right thing to do.
It is yet another cloud in the perfect storm that is destroying any remaining faith in Bush's ability to run the country.
It can give the Democrats a chance to bludgeon Bush with one of the best new phrases I've heard lately, Bush's "baby tax."

Impeach Cheney First

2006-02-21T22:38:00.000-08:00

With much buzz being generated about the increasing house co-sponsors of Articles of Impeachment against Bush or the possibility of Rhode Island's Legislature calling on Congress to investigate claims that could warrant Bush's impeachment, I feel I have to remind everyone of something.

Do we want to make Dick Cheney (officially) President of the United States?

Now, I am aware that many of the impeachment proposals include Cheney in them. But we must remain cognizant that there is no "law" so-to-speak on impeachable crimes. Essentially, it is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives will vote on. Congress in its current composition will not impeach Bush. They just won't. Can anyone name a single republican representative who would vote for that? Of course not. But, is it possible to pick up 8 republicans who would vote to impeach Dick Cheney? PROBABLY not, but there is an outside chance. The reasons and potential benefits are as follows:

1) Dick Cheney currently has approval ratings that consistently rank about 10 points lower than Bush. While no republican in a blue/competitive district would contemplate impeaching Bush, a coordinated anti-Cheney campaign could hold their feet to the fire and maybe produce some interesting results- either in impeachment proceedings or the midterm elections.

2) Cheney is currently reeling in the public's consciousness after the events of last week.

3) It is Cheney, not Bush who is principally behind Plamegate. Not to mention just about everything else in many proposed articles of impeachment, including Iraq intelligence doctoring, the secret energy meetings, ect... It seems every time something happens, Bush is out vacationing or taking a bike ride while Cheney is classifying information or exerting executive authority in Washington. Let's be real- Bush hasn't done many (not all) of the things impeachers accuse him of doing- rather he has allowed Cheney to do them.

4) Putting Cheney in the spotlight would undermine Bush's image much more than attacking Bush himself because it would reinforce the perception that Cheney is the one really running the show. Also, it would corrode any efforts at damage control following the Whittington shooting, and allow a real investigation as to if Cheney was drunk when it happened which is very palpable in the media currently. And since only die-hard republicans like Cheney, it would be less likely to offend moderates.

5) It might actually work, and then it would create a hugely divisive fight in the GOP over whom to nominate as his replacement and sew division right at before an open presidential race. It might even create an irreperable cleft between the moderates and right-wingers in the GOP.

6) Whatever Cheney impeachment proceedings could uncover will only make a potential impeachment of Bush that much more credible.

7) It would avoid all of this undermining-the-commander-in-chief-in-a-time-of-war BS.

8) If the heat really gets turned up, he could feign health problems and resign before impeachment is actually voted on.

I'd love to hear y'all's opinions on this.

Global Warming? Free-Marketers vs. Puritains?

2006-02-09T20:43:00.000-08:00

Check out the lively discussion here.

A Real Pain in the Ham-ass

2006-01-29T21:55:00.000-08:00

Sorry- I couldn't resist a cheezy title to this post, and I actually want to discuss how Hamas' recent victory in the Palestinian Elections might not be such the worst thig ever. First, let me just say this- Hamas are a bunch of freaks and I am completely opposed to thir call for the destruction of Israel. So why is their election a good thing? I think it is good because there is no better way to discredit bad ideas in the eyes of people than actually living under rule by those bad ideas. Look at communism for example. Before the Russian Revolution, many people in Russia and Eastern Europe were drawn to the ideas of communism because they did not know what exactly living under it would be like. Once they actually got to live under communism, they realized how much it sicked and eventually overthrew the USSR. The same phenominon explains the current differences between Iran and Iraq. In Iraq, islamist shiite parties got the pluarlity of the parliamentary votes. People in Iraq are inytrigued with radical islam because it was so supressed under Saddam's rule and never got to experience actually living under it. Contrast with Afghanistan, where everyone still remembers how crappy life was under the Taliban, and the only people advocating a return to that are, well, the Taliban themselves. So my point is that perhaps letting the Palestinians experience what radical islam is actually like, with its human-rights abuses, inferior treatment of women, and incompetence at governing is a good thing, because sooner or later, they will throw the bums out and eventually there will be an elected, moderate, secular Palestinian government and the tide of radicalism will recede. Of course, a lot of this depends on Hamas continuing to respect the democratic process once it is in power, but if it does, I think a good future will occur sometime down the road.

Comments welcome.

Delayed Reaction

2005-12-18T14:10:00.000-08:00

After having lived in Paris for 3 and a half years, the recent riots in the suburbs came as no big suprise. One of the things you notice living here is how invisible people of color are in public spheres: on TV, in the movies, in politics, in hospitals and universities and courtrooms and businesses. France has reached a point where its reality as a multicultural society is not reflected at all in the functions and structures of everday French life.

A few things prevent France from accepting it's diversity and integrating its minorities. One is that diversity is not a really a value here. Unity and uniformity are considered by most French people the key to a successful French society (hence the infamous headscarf law). The ideal is that everyone who lives on French soil must become French in spirit. The problem is that "French" no longer means what it meant 100 years ago; colonialism carries consequences. Furthermore, it's hard to feel French when you can't get a job (no matter how good your qualifications are) because your last name sounds too Arab.

The essential French distaste for multiculturalism is evident in the fact that race isn't recognized here. It is illegal for the government to collect information or gather statistics that indicate people's ethnic or religious origins. The concept is understandable; the law was established after World War II, during which 77,000 French Jews were rounded up and deported because of their religion. The problem, however, lies--as is often the case in France--in the huge gap between principle and reality. The principle--that race and religion don't matter--is beautiful. The reality is that France (or any other country for that matter) cannot be trusted to disregard race and religion, to see only individual merit. The proof is in the results: as much as France talks about America's racist demons, the notion of a black CEO in France is all but unheard of. Race and religion DO matter in France, but they matter in the wrong way. In any case, what good is this principle of not keeping track or referring to race when everyone can tell that a French citizen named Mohammed is not a descendent of Napoleon?

Working at the International Herald Tribune and having to do research for NYT journalists in New York helped me understand how much of a problem this refusal to recognize in any major way the diversity of French society truly is. Journalists unfamiliar with French policy wanted me to find out how many French parliament members were of African or Arab origins, or the percentage of French prison inmates of immigrant backgrounds, etc.. I had to explain that in France these numbers don't exist; the French government prohibits such statistical analysis, so there are only very rough estimations. The noble principle of refusing to recognize difference therefore--and perhaps unwittingly--becomes a way of hiding a very bleak reality: that people of color in France almost categorically form a vast and struggling underclass for whom success is a far-off and unattainable notion.

France has always had a particularly hard time digesting its history. It was only in 1995 that a French president (Jacques Chirac) acknowledged France's share of responsibility in the deportation and extermination of French Jews. And it is only recently that France has recognized the torture and massacre of Algerians during the French-Algerian war. France is slow to evolve and reluctant to criticize itself. It's a proud country, steeped in history, with large open wounds which remain sensitive to the touch. And as much as I do love so many things about France (it's not for nothing that I've stayed here for the last 3 and a half years) it's hard to avoid the feeling that if France spent less time criticizing other countries (namely America)--the French national sport-- and more time confronting its own problems head-on, it would be in far better shape.

Iraqi elections: vote or die?

2005-12-12T15:40:00.000-08:00

reposted from my blog:

"Suspected insurgents held in U.S. or Iraqi detention who have not been convicted of an offence are eligible to vote, Iraqi officials said. Saddam - who is jailed and facing trial for the deaths of more than 140 Shiites in 1982 - also has the right to vote but it was not known whether he would." -Associated Press

Wait a minute... We're spending millions to allow, among others, Iraqi prisoners to vote, but we won't lift a finger to help restore the franchise to released felons in the US?

An exercise in democracy indeed.

Bush is no Reagan

2005-12-07T22:50:00.000-08:00

This is a repost of a comment I made on Brian's blog regarding the fiscal recklessness of our current President. I was responding to a Bush supporter who pointed out that our current defecit, when measured as a percentage of GDP is not the highest ever (not the most debt ever! Who would have ever thought a conservative would be using that as a defense 10 or even 5 years ago?!):

The debt of the 80's and the debt of today have two huge differences.

First, Ronald Reagan had a goal in mind that was attainable in borrowing all he did- the defeat of the USSR. He figured if we could just borrow enough to build our military up enough to get rid of the Soviets, America would end up being the sole superpower and we could generate enough wealth to then pay it off. He was correct. After the singular goal of defeating the Soviets was achieved, we were able to trim defense spending and reap the benefits of all these new markets behind the former iron curtain, and pay off unprecedented levels of that debt. Bush on the other hand, has no such goal. Even if we take the hugh leap of faith the Iraq will become a prosperous, stable democracy by the end of the decade, the only savings we'll have are the 100 billion/year we're currently spending there, which only covers about a third of our annual new debt. It won't open up any new markets for us because we already have huge trade with most countries in the middle east. Additionally, that will be the time where we start to face the rising threat of China's military, so we won't be able to cut defense spending anyway.

The second difference is that while Reagan borrowed more as a percentage of the GDP, he did not even come close to borrowing as much from foreign countries as Bush has. In fact, Bush has borrowed more from abroad in the last 5 years than his previous 42 predecessors combined. How can any self-respecting conservative defend that? If our relations deteriorate with China, they could simply ask for their money back and send our economy into a tailspin. Even if they don't, it's not good to be so dependent on any foreign country, especially a potential future rival like China. I just don't think all these potential dangers justify making such huge top-heavy tax cuts. Our taxation system was not broken before Bush took over- we were the richest and most powerful country in the world, and were paying off a ton of debt. Why would you want to drastically change anything about that situation? Any true conservative should be rooting for the democrats to win big in 06, whether it's on economic or military matters.

AIDS Sucks

2005-12-01T20:19:00.000-08:00

Today is World AIDS Day. I'm not going to be insultingly obvious by saying how terrible it is. But I will tell you that there is a way that you can fight AIDS at home, on your computer, without doing anything. It's a project called Fight Aids Online, made by the World Community Grid. Basically, a bunch of scientists have all this information on the HIV genome, which must be eventually decoded if a cure is to be found. The catch is that the amount of information is so immense, there is a lack of computer processing power to do whatever needs to be done. But a program on the World Community Grid lets you download a program that lets your computer process the HIV info while your computer goes to screen saver. You can get it here.

2005-11-14T14:39:00.000-08:00

Judge Alito has written:

"I believe very strongly in . . . the legitimacy of a government role in protecting traditional values."

Segregation was a traditional value in 1950!

The Revolution Has Begun

2005-11-08T18:39:00.000-08:00

On Monday, President Bush went into Virginia to stump for GOP gubernatorial candidate Jerry Kilgore, who was in a dead heat in a red state. 24 hours later, Tim Kaine, his Democratic opponent, Tim Kaine took the race with a clear margin. Meanwhile, Jon Corzine utterly destroyed GOP sleazeball Doug Forrester in the race for the New Jersey Statehouse. On top of all that, California rejected 4 ballot initiatives that Ahnold staked his political clout behind. On in local races, St. Paul voters threw out a durncoat democrat mayor who endorsed Bush last year, and the Suozzi-led Democrats had historic wins across Long Island. The message is clear- the GOP have been exposed for the corrupt, wasteful, incompetent, big-government hypocrites they are. The veil has been removed and Americans are not being fooled by the GOP smear machine anymore. Now, the democrats must put forward an agenda. If they do, and we mobilize and remove the remaining repbulican scum in New York's congressional delegation, I believe we really can take back one branch of government next year.

Bring on '06, baby!!!!

Duh...

2005-11-06T08:06:00.000-08:00

More good news...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/politics/06intel.ready.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=0d091794b0c89f27&hp&ex=1131339600&partner=homepage

Jonathan Alter, Fareed Zakaria: verbal bitch-slap against Dubya

2005-11-01T00:11:00.000-08:00

Cross post from my blog:

2 excellent articles published recently in Newsweek:

- Jonathan Alter on how Dubya's demand for staff loyalty is destroying our country.

- Fareed Zakaria on how Dubya's desire for guns and butter means we'll end up with neither.

"As the imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."

2005-10-26T16:23:00.000-07:00

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, told a group of students at an anti - Israel event today that Israel must be "wiped off the map" and that attacks by Palestinians will destroy it...

The Iranian President is a lunatic...He wants to go nuclear and blow up Israel...Good thing we are close by in Iraq...we can fuck him up if he tries anything stupid.

"The establishment of Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," Mr. Ahmadinejad said, the news agency reported. "The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of the war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land."

Mr. Ahmadinejad also called Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip a trick, and said Gaza is part of Palestinian territories and the withdrawal was aimed at convincing the Islamic states to acknowledge Israel.

"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury," Mr. Ahmadinejad said. Any Islamic leader "who recognizes the Zionist regime means he is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world."

A Great American

2005-10-25T21:20:00.000-07:00

Rosa Parks, 1913-2005.

"All I was doing was trying to get home from work. "

Right to Parenthood?

2005-10-22T09:48:00.000-07:00

County officials in Eastern Penssylvania (Schuylkill County to be exact) have taken away a woman's newborn child. Melissa WolfHawk and her husband DaiShin John Wolfhawk had their newborn baby taken from them almost immediately after Melissa's Caesarian section. The newborn's father served a decade in prison as a sex offender in New York 22 years ago, convicted in the rape and sodomy of two teenage girls.(Ms. WolfHawk had a son by a previous marriage, and Schuylkill County officials moved to take custody of him two weeks after the WolfHawks married.) Against her doctors' wishes, she left the hospital two days later to appear in court, but on Friday she lost her fight when a judge gave the boy to Schuylkill County.

"At issue, officials say, is not so much Ms. WolfHawk's fitness as a mother as her choice of mates."

Her lawyer said she had been breastfeeding the child and would deliver frozen milk to the county. "She's hoping it gets to the baby, but that obviously isn't the same as holding and breastfeeding her baby." The lawyer also said that "Ms. WolfHawk would be willing to sign an agreement to stay away from him if that would win her custody of her child."

Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, said he respected the right of agencies to take custody of endangered children, but said that the standard for removing a child had to be set "very high." "If somebody was convicted 20 years ago and has not reoffended, and the circumstances of the offense would not appear to make him a threat to young children, then this is troublesome," Mr. Allen said.

David L. Levy, the chief executive of the Children's Rights Council, a nonprofit organization based in Washington, said, "I am not aware of any case where a 20-year-old conviction, no matter how heinous, has been used to remove a child from the care of the perpetrator and from a mother who had nothing to do with that crime." "The state may think that because they're married, the only way to make the child safe from the father is to remove him from the mother," he said. "But what about her due process and constitutional rights? If they can show a present danger, I'd be the first one to support removal, but they need to show a connection between 20 years ago and now."

Thoughts???

GOP's courtship of Black Voters is a Load of Bull (Moose)

2005-09-30T11:17:00.000-07:00

Bill Bennet has just added credibility to my theory that all the GOP rhetoric about tolerance and their attempt to become more friendly towards African-Americans is just a load of bull. The following excerpt is from today's New York Times

"Mr. Bennett, who served as drug czar for the president's father, came under fire from Democratic Congressional leaders on Thursday for the comments, which were made on a his radio show, "Bill Bennett's Morning in America," earlier this week.

"I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down," Mr. Bennett said in the broadcast.

"In a radio broadcast on Thursday, Mr. Bennett called the criticism of him 'ridiculous, stupid, totally without merit.'"

In that same broadcast, Mr. Bennet did say that doing that would be "morally reprehensible," but it still doesn't disprove that his opinion on black people is that they are all criminals.

And this is not just an isolated incident. Remember that in 2002, Trent Lott had to resign his Senate leadership post because of comments that America would be better off if Strom Thurmond won the 1948 election running on a Jim Crow platform, John Roberts' opposition to the Voting RIghts Act of 1964, and a . Detroit GOP state legislator encouraging the "suppression" of the Detroit vote in last year's persidental election. (Detroit is 95% black) And let's of course not forget about Mr. Bush vetoing a hate-crimes bill as Governor of Texas passed as a response to the brutal James Byrd lynching..

Let's face it America: the GOP hasn't been the party of Lincoln since the right-wing takeover forced Teddy Roosevelt to flee the party and run as a Bull-Moose candidate in the election of 1912. The Ken Mehlmans and George Bushes of the world speak at black churches and appoint black cabinet members, but that is solely because they are concerned with the bottom line- getting black and moderate withe votes and increasing their power. But the true face of the party shows that these are just machiavellian motions that hold no resonance in the true hearts of the GOP. Minorities, beware.

Endorsements

2005-09-12T18:59:00.000-07:00

The Institute is proud to make the following endorsements in tomorrow's New York City Democratic primary:

For the Democratic nomination for Mayor:

Anthony Weiner. This decision is almost by default. We are forced to choose between Macauley Caulkin at age 35, the Abe Beame of the 2000's, a woman who is campaigning on NOT cutting taxes as a positive thing, and the smart nerdy kid who never gets laid. Because he at least seems to have an agenda, I endorse the smart nerdy kid who never gets laid.

For Public Advocate:

Andrew Rasiej. This decision is not by default. This race actually has 3 stronger candidates than the mayor's race has produced. Betsy Gotbaum's heart is in the right place, but she just hasn't achieved much in her tenure as an incumbent. Norman Siegel has an impressive resume and I think his positions on civil liberties are great- but we need him to stay where he already is, in the ACLU. Andrew Rasiej is a political outsider who has a very impressive resume of using technology for the public good. He started MOUSE.org, a nonprofit organization whose goals are to bring technology, tools, and skills to public school students, helping them to learn lifelong skills and empowering them to improve their own schools’ technologies. This program is currently supporting 89,000 students and 6,000 teachers/administrators in 100 schools while saving the city over $1.2 million per year. He is running on universal wi-fi access for the entire city and all the potential benefits if has for transforming city government into a bottom-up operation. He has good experience in leadership in both the private and public sectors and gets my endorsement. I suggest you all check out, his website.

For Comptroller:

William Thompson, deservedly running unopposed. We'd prefer to be endorsing him for Mayor, but alas, he didn't run.

Remember- it ain't a democracy if nobody votes!

Tug of War in Uzbekistan

2005-08-10T14:03:00.000-07:00

An event that got some, but not much, press last week appears to confirm some suspicions I had about Russia and China's long-term foreign policy goals. As hard as this may be to believe, I really think they want to re-start the cold war and make an attempt at world domination. To illustrate my suspicion, I beleive a brief recap of recent events is necessary. On March 29, 2004, NATO was expanded into Russia's backyard. Vladimir Putin was uncharacteristically calm compared to his past public statements. In retrospect, this might be because he decided on a plan. In September of 2004, the tragedy at Beslan happened and that gave Putin the pretext for the first part of his plan- consolidate power and destroy democracy in Russia. Then, that December,sudenly Russia and China become the best of friends and Russia agrees to support China's "one China" policy, which we all know means invading Taiwan as soon as China thinks it has a chance to succeed and continuing the brutal repression in Tibet. In April of this year, Putin asuaged any doubt about his true colors when he lamented the fall of the Soviet Union in no unclear terms. And this past week, China and Russia muscled Uzbekistan, who's own leader, Islam Karimov, has a disasterous record on democracy and human rights, into giving the US 180 days to vacate it's base there and hand it over to the Russians. Uzbekistan's leadership was swayed by 1) criticism from the US over Uzbekistan's murder of up to 750 anti-government protesters in may of this year, and 2) Pressure from a little-known alliance called the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation . I know, I know, but this really isn't 1963. This is all happening in 2005. I'm afraid that there really might be a new Cold War that is just beginning to start now. The last one wasn't pretty. The new one might turn out to be uglier than George Bush's environmental record. Comments welcome.

Apparently There's a Cosmetics, Toiletries and Fragrance Association

2005-08-04T17:08:00.000-07:00

And Bush Supreme Court nominee John Roberts was a lobbyist for it. (Can anyone say Caviar Conservative?)

That's not necessarily a reason to make someone unfit for service on our nation's highest judicial body.

But being an opponent of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is. As a young attorney in the Reagan Justice Department, Roberts supported watering down that landmark piece of Civil Rights legislation by requiring lawsuits brought under it prove intent to discriminate instead of just discriminatory effect. If these efforts were successfull, racial minorities in the US would have to basically find a smoking gun to prevail on claims of their disenfranchisement. Luckily today they don't have to, but unluckily today we just did.

John Roberts is unfit to surve on the Supreme Court of the United States. At best, he is ignorant and insensitive; at worst he's a damn racist.

To adapt an old prhase to modern realities, I guess elephant droppings don't fall too far from the elephant's ass.

I could make a few Monopoly or "Big Yellow Taxi" jokes...

2005-06-25T15:50:00.000-07:00

...but I'm not gonna. The Supreme Court has handed down its long-awaited decision in Kelo v. City of New London. And liberals are still reeling from its 1-2 punch. Not only did the decision go against homeowner Susette Kelo, who was fighting the New London city government's eminent domain power, but the majority opinion in the 5-4 decision was written by none other than Justice Stevens, the grand-daddy of the liberal jurists on the high bench. Whoa.

I'll leave it to my colleagues on this blog to further dissect the decision, & I'll come back to rejoin the discussion later.

Oh Non!

2005-05-30T10:41:00.000-07:00

Well, France has officially rejected the EU Constitution in a referendum held yesterday. Even though France was one of the leading forces in the creation of the EU, and in recent years has optimistically viewed the EU as a counterweight to US power, in the end the French decided that they were too good to possibly share a system of government with a Muslim nation (as is my suspicion). Maybe this will only be a temporary protest, as was de Gaulle's departure from NATO in the late 60's, or maybe this will permanently derail any further EU consolidation; only time will tell.

Thoughts/ comments welcome.

A response to "How we would fight China"

2005-05-07T14:21:00.000-07:00

First, go read Robert Kaplan's article "How We Would Fight China" in the June 2005 issue of the Atlantic Monthly.

Only then read this: (adapted from an e-mail exchange I had on the subject)

Good stuff. 2 immediate priorities I see are: 1) countering China's soft power propaganda & convince Asian governments that a rearmed Japan (firmly allied with the US) is not a threat but an asset, and 2) moving away from a program of new missile development & instead shoring up our conventional forces.

First, China has a viable second strike capability and will increase its arsenal if they see us doing the same, so a missile war can put us in a MAD (or near-MAD) showdown. Not to mention the fact that as horrific as a Chinese strike on a US population center would be, a US strike on a Chinese population center could be at least twice as deadly. Example: Chicago city proper, with a population of ± 3 million, is the 3rd largest city in the US. Chongqing city proper, with a population of ± 3.5 million, is only the *10th* largest city in China. We didn't hear much about Iraqi casualties during the "major combat" phase of OIF, but China's media machine is much, much more sophisticated and will doubtlessly play up the numbers. Any war with China has to stay conventional.

Second, no thanks to past Japanese aggression, China has been able to play victim and sell to Asian powers the line that its own military expansion is benign while anything Tokyo (or even Washington) does is aggressive. This remains our biggest soft power sticking point. Just as France has outgrown its fear of Germany, so too must the Pacific Rim outgrow its fear of Japan. Unfortunately, the only way I see this happening is for Japan to radically outspend the Chinese at their own game. In addition to business and humanitarian investment, Japan needs to prove that its military will be used for good - interdiction of pirates, joint counter-terrorism training, etc. (An adept Japanese PM will be able to sell this domestically by stressing the need to safeguard Japan's oil supply line.)

Tokyo has 1 more ace up its sleeve - its elite universities. Offer the best & brightest college bound Muslim student in, say, Indonesia the choice between no aid (& no mosque) at Xinhua or Peking U. vs. a full ride (& constitutional religious freedom) to Tokyo U. & see which one the kid picks. Australia, NZ, & Singapore can do the same to further dilute the appeal of China. Plus, there is high blowback risk but we could keep repeating the name "East Turkistan" in the Indonesian and Malaysian media.

On the subject of US power projection, specifically with PACCOM, I agree with Kaplan that the Navy needs to expand beyond Hawaii, Guam, & Japan. We should not overlook the fact that Australia & NZ have Oceanic territories as well. While there is the risk of a Turkey-style denial of use if the Navy relies on a Kiwi base in, say, Niue, I think there are also political advantages by confusing China as to the nature & identity of a Niuean target.

I do have a caveat about going down the Bismarckian approach, which is that the very system Bismarck set up, either because of inherent weak points in the system or later incompetent management, or both, directly led to World War I. Agreed, a Bismarckian approach is more feasible with long-term strategic planning by career military officers instead of civilians who may change with every administration. But ultimately control rests with the civilians - SecDef, the President, and Congress. Here, a consistent foreign/national security policy that withstands changes in administrations is critical.

I think Kaplan paints a rosier picture of US/European cooperation in Asia than I would. The arms embargo issue is still unresolved, and is part of a larger issue. So far the Bush administration has not been too enthusiastic about the EU's rapid-reaction force. But this is precisely the kind of major military expenditure that would boost declining defense/technology industries in Europe (in turn lowering unemployment, perhaps Europe's 2nd biggest threat to stability, next to terrorism) - providing them an alternative to selling to China. Though the US role in physically creating such a force is minimal, politically the US can lay the groundwork to hand over to the EU force our current commitments in the Balkans (as well as augment the UN/AU forces in Cote d'Ivoire, Darfur, & Congo). The work of modernizing (& democratizing) the forces of the former Soviet bloc is & should continue to be the work of the OSCE. Meanwhile, I think NATO should reconceptualize itself as a forum for joint US/European missions on a global scale - Afghanistan, Iraq, the tsunami, etc. This arrangement, I believe, would give everyone a role that does not overlap and would prevent the kind of strategic competition between the US and an EU military force that Kaplan fears.

As for China itself, I don't know if I'm an optimist or pessimist. Best case scenario that I can see, within the next 10 years, is the bursting of China's economic bubble. Beijing has so far been very good at reacting to potential economic crisis, but what it's doing is like the carnival game of hitting pop-up bunnies with a rubber mallet. Jiang Zemin struggled to define a market-friendly socialist ideology for the next century, and all he could come up with was the nearly incomprehensible "3 Represents". I don't think it can be done. There's just so much unsustainability due to the lack of transparent business & governmental auditing, open civil society lobbying, and judicial independence (not to mention still-endemic levels of rural poverty). An all out economic crisis will be messy (which is what the CCP doesn't want), but so is chemo - and some economic chemo is what China needs.

Most, if not all, of the US' (and Taiwan's) geo-strategic pickles in east Asia would be solved by some kind regime change in China that breaks the CCP's chokehold on power. We can start by buying back that (growing) portion of the national debt held by Chinese banks. We can start by passing legislation (in the spirit of SOX) requiring US companies investing in China to demand more transparent auditing from their Chinese partners (or better yet, use the WTO to do this). By switching domestically to alternative fuels, any rise in oil prices due to Chinese demand will serve to cool them off instead of dampening us. But I'm afraid these are 3 things that the Bush administration lacks the vision and the courage to do.

Call me a constructivist, but I've never believed in discrete spheres of domestic & foreign policy. What we need is a unified strategy toward China, instead of the schizophrenic mess we've got now. We want them to pull their own weight on UN peacekeeping, but we're worried about their expanding blue water navy. We want them to bully North Korea into disarming but we sit back and let Koizumi & Singh dream big about Security Council seats. We rap their knuckles in State Department human rights reports but we give them permanent MFN status. We talk of limiting outsourcing but Wal-Mart still buys billions in imports. None of this can end well, it can only end less badly.

Comments/corrections welcome.

It's Getting Hot in Here (and I don't like Nelly)

2005-04-27T20:18:00.000-07:00

Global warming is the greatest threat facing the world today. Despite President Bush's belief that "the jury is still out" on global warming, the jury has definetly returned a verdict. It's happening.

The Union of Concerned Scientists has published the following facts:

-Since the beginning of the 20th century, Earth's mean surface temperature has increased by about 1.1°F (0.6°C).

-Over the last 40 years, which is the period with the most reliable data, the temperature increased by about 0.5°F (0.2-0.3°C).

-Warming in the 20th century is greater than at any time during the past 400 to 600 years.

-Seven of the 10 warmest years in the 20th century occurred in the 1990s. In fact, the hottest year since reliable instrumental temperature measurements began was 1998, when global temperatures spiked due to one of the strongest El Niños on record.

Unfortunately, Mr. Bush has viewed these facts and decided on a policy of benign neglect, that includes initiatives such as backing out of the international Kyoto Protocal to reduce global warming, ultimately signed by over 160 nations, given tax breaks to businesses to purchase SUV's, redirected federal mass transportation funds to build highways, and is now trying to pass an energy bill that while throwing a few bones like a modest ethanol proposal and research money for fuel cells that won't be on the mass market for at least 20 years, seeks to deal with high gas prices by increasing oil refining capacity rather than any serious commitments to hybrid cars, mass transportation, or wind power.

So, in an attempt to send the White House a message, please take the time to participate in stopglobalarming.org 's virtual march on Washington, at my personal march page, www.stopglobalwarming.org/campaigns/sgw/impact/992340e1328dfb6e7bf955cadbc0a86e/ .

And for practible solutions that wil curb global warming and create the jobs of the future, i highly reccomend www.apolloalliance.org .

"The Greatest Geopolitical Catastrophe" of the 20th Century? Oh Really, Mr. Putin?

2005-04-25T21:05:00.000-07:00

Today in his state-of-the-dictatorship speech, ex-KGB officer and current Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the fall of the USSR was the greatest "geopolitical catastrophe" of the 20th century.

This follows three days after Mr. Putin met with the President of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko, who has ruled since 1994 in a country commonly known as the last dictatorship of Europe, that routienly violates the human rights of its citizens. In that meeting, Mr. Lukashenko thanked Mr. Putin for his support, saying "I want to thank you... for the huge support you are giving us at a difficult time for us in our history as a sovereign and independent nation," meaning support during a time of fierce criticism from Secretary Rice, western nations and human rights groups.

Over the past few years, Mr. Putin has destroyed all non-state-owned media in Russia, eliminated popular voting for regional governors in exchange for appointment by him, jailed Yukos oil tycoon Mikhail Khordokovsky on pretextual charges for his financing of Mr. putin's political opposition, and is now moving to change the parlimentary election system to virtually eliminate minor parties.

Well, one thing is sure- you have to give credit to President Bush's judgement of character:

"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue.
I was able to get a sense of his soul." -President Bush on 6/16/2001

Hmmmm... maybe if we didn't import 270,000 barrels of oil per DAY from Russia, we might have some more leverage to convince Mr. Putin of a different course.

Did I forget to mention that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives defeated a bill to raise the automobile mile-per-gallon standard to 33 mpg by 2015 up from 27 mpg the day before Earth Day, mostly along party lines.

Continue your crusade for democracy, GOP.

Never Again

2005-04-20T21:04:00.000-07:00

60 years ago this week, Allied troops liberated the Bergen-Belsen death camp in Nazi Germany. Hundreds of thousands of Jews were murdered by Nazi war criminals there (including Anne Frank), while Hitler's opponents mostly turned a blind eye. I feel I cannot adequately portray the horrors in words, so I suggest everyone look at the camp's memorial's official website, http://www.bergenbelsen.de/en/ .

After the Holocaust, the civilized world said that never, ever, could this be allowed to happen again. To some extent it hasn't- the efficient, mechanized, economized, beaurocratic killing of a single immutable group has never been repeated on nearly such a scale, but that could be because Nazi Germany was the last industrialized nation to participate in genocide (Stalin's purges notwithstanding, because they were more political, not racist/religionist, in nature). After the Holocaust, the newly-created United Nations adopted the International Declaration of Human Rights and the International Convention on Genocide, as well as creating new precedent in international law with the prosecution of Nazis at the Nuremberg trials. It seemed as if the post-war era had ushered in a new age of international oversight on human-rights violations, or at least, genocide. Then there was Cambodia. And Rwanda. And East Timor. And the Balkans. While none of these genocides equaled the Holocaust in terms of numbers and the mechanized nature of the killing, they were genocides nonetheless, and the west was painfully slow in responding the each of them. Now there is Sudan. Current estimates project at least 300,000 people murdered. To put that in perspective, that's roughly the population of Cleveland, in a country with a population of about twice the New York Metro Area. The victims are eliminated solely because they are of a minority religion within the country. This has been happening for about the last two years. Our Air Force could easily make mincemeat out of the militia primarily responsible for the murder, the Janjaweed, and the regime that supports them. Yet, we do nothing.

Again.