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.

"The Future Starts Today, not Tomorrow." Pope John Paul II 1920-2005

2005-04-03T11:15:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, Pope John Paul II passed away, a survivor of Nazism, a crusader against Communism, and a worldwide champion of peace and human rights.

“You are priests, not social or political leaders. Let us not be under the illusion that we are serving the Gospel through an exaggerated interest in the wide field of temporal problems.”

“Man always travels along precipices. His truest obligation is to keep his balance.”

“The Holy Land needs bridges, not walls.”

“Violence and arms can never resolve the problems of men.”

"The truth is not always the same as the majority decision."

"Stupidity is also a gift of God, but one mustn't misuse it"

"Anything done for another is done for oneself."

"Be not afraid."

"I have a sweet tooth for song and music. This is my Polish sin."

"An excuse is worse and more terrible than a lie, for an excuse is a lie guarded."

“Humanity should question itself, once more, about the absurd and always unfair phenomenon of war, on whose stage of death and pain only remain standing the negotiating table that could and should have prevented it."

“Young people are threatened... by the evil use of advertising techniques that stimulate the natural inclination to avoid hard work by promising the immediate satisfaction of every desire.”

“When freedom does not have a purpose, when it does not wish to know anything about the rule of law engraved in the hearts of men and women, when it does not listen to the voice of conscience, it turns against humanity and society.”

“The historical experience of socialist countries has sadly demonstrated that collectivism does not do away with alienation but rather increases it, adding to it a lack of basic necessities and economic inefficiency.”

“Modern Society will find no solution to the ecological problem unless it takes a serious look at its lifestyles.”

“It is unbecoming for a cardinal to ski badly.”

“Radical changes in world politics leave America with a heightened responsibility to be, for the world, an example of a genuinely free, democratic, just and humane society.”

Should we be Pak-ing Heat in South Asia?

2005-03-30T21:50:00.000-08:00

No.

This week, the Bush Administration announced it would clear the way for sales of F-16 fighters to Pakistan. The only rationale for this I can think of is that this is Mr. Bush making good on a past promise he made to Pakistan’s President, General Pervez Musharraf in exchange for Mr. Musharraf using his army to hunt the remnants of the Taliban along the Afghan-Pakistan border. While the missions of the Pakistani army have been very helpful in that area, I find it hard to believe that there wasn’t anything better we could have offered Mr. Musharraf in exchange for his help because supplying Pakistan with F-16’s has many drawbacks that far outweigh the interests of giving Mr. Musharraf this particular reward. Here are the main ones:

1) INDIA. What are we thinking even risking the alienation of the world’s biggest democracy, an emerging economic powerhouse, and a strategic regional counterbalance to China??? India is an amazing country which is a beacon for democratic and capitalistic values in the region, and likely the world. This is a country we should be embracing on par with members of NATO. We should not be antagonizing it by supplying its nuclear rival and neighbor with aircraft that could decimate its entire airforce. We should have the closest relations possible with this country, irrespective of any short-term cooperation we receive from Pakistan. After all, Pakistan was one of the main forces helping create and buttress the Taliban regime before 9/11/2001.

2) This is detrimental to fighting terrorism in the long run. There is a very disturbing trend in the Muslim world: most citizens of Muslim countries have the opposite opinion of America as the official stances of their governments. Let me illustrate- America has technically good diplomatic relations with most Muslim nations, yet the closer our governments are, the more the people on the street hate us- i.e. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, PAKISTAN, Morocco, ect… Conversely, in the few nations we have hostile relations with, the people actually like America. See: Iran. The reason for this is because most governments in the Muslim world stink, and when we embrace them, their people hate us for it. Pakistan is certainly no exception, essentially a corrupt dictatorship that routinely violates human rights where most of the population lives in desperate poverty. Our embrace of Musharraf does not help our image in the Muslim world. It actually does serious damage.

3) Supplying Pakistan with F-16’s only makes these problems worse. Pakistan needs to return to civilian rule and the last thing it needs is a larger military apparatus. Instead of aircraft, how about expanding free trade between the countries? We’ve already liberalized trade with Pakistan’s textile industry to some extent to reward Musharraf for his help, and it has caused a boom in that sector of the economy. The only problem is that that is a sector where the wealth has been distributed disproportionally to the top of the economic ladder, doing little to alleviate the poverty that contributes at least partially to the potent extremism of many Pakistanis. Instead of F-16’s, how about a free trade agreement in agriculture and some development aid for education and public works (perhaps in exchange for some democratic reforms to boot)? That would make a far more serious dent in extremism in Central Asia than a couple of F-16’s would.

4) You can’t use F-16’s to fight terrorists! Pakistan already has a more than adequate army and air force to take on the Taliban near its border. Give them some predator drones- one might actually find bin Laden!- not F-16’s. There is only one reason F-16’s mean anything to Pervez Musharraf, and that reason is India (see point #1).

Again this is an example of Mr. Bush drawing the wrong inferences from the lessons of the Cold War. Here, supplying sketchy strategic allies with arms will not really help us (at least this type of arms- if we gave Pakistan some Predator drones and some technology for their intelligence services, it would be different). And Mr. Bush is not learning from what helped us and is currently helping us in the real fall of the iron curtain taking place right now (see Georgia, Ukrane, Kyrgyzstan, and maybe Belarus (keep your fingers crossed!)), which is LEADERSHIP BY EXAMPLE.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: this is why Mr. Bush is truly weak on terror.

Is Radical Islam Caused by Poverty or Oppression? Yes.

2005-03-26T21:05:00.000-08:00

It would be stating the obvious to say that the West has been unfortunately divided in its execution of the war on terror. But I am not talking about the obvious, the rift caused by the invasion of Iraq. What exists is a much deeper-rooted disagreement as to the causes of radical Islamic terrorism between the United States and Europe. America, at least during the Bush years, has taken the approach that people become terrorists because they live under oppressive regimes. Europe, by contrast, believes that poverty is the main root cause of terrorism; addressing the recent World Economic Forum in Switerland by phone, French President Jacques Chirac called on wealthy nations to funnel billions of dollars to the world's poorest areas as a way prevent "extremism." George Bush also advocates spending billions of dollars to fight terrorism, but in the form of funding the US military to spread democracy by force.

What both Europe and the Bush Administration unfortunately forget are some of the most important lessons of history, that either poverty or oppression alone are each sufficient to lead a populace to extremism. The only way to guarantee extremism does not take root is to ensure that both are eradicated. Freedom alone does not prevent extremism- exhibit A, the Weimar Republic. Nor does wealth alone- Exhibit B, Iran under the Shah. It is tragic that the US an Europe are split on this issue, when working together their strategies cover all bases- the US spares no expense creating and maintaining the most awesome military might the world has ever known, and Europe is much less adverse to spending large sums on development aid to the developing world. Working in concert, these two pillars of democracy and prosperity could ensure that no potential terroism breeding grounds are ever again created in our time. But this potential is not being fulfilled, and the future of the world cannot wait forever for this rift to heal.

What I propose is a global project of NATO based loosly on the International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF) currently working with success in Afghanistan. Generally, NATO is building pseudo-bases in the remote areas of Afghanistan, which allow for the deployment of troops to hunt the reminants of the Taliban. But the operations are not military only. The ISAF takes on a number of civillian projects, namely helping rural villages rebuild infrastructure and schools, and helping the Afghan government build a functioning system of justice. This approach is decimating the root causes of terrorism so well in the Afghan countryside, that Taliban remnants are taking advantage of an amnesty program to return to civil society because they have so little remaining popular and logistical support to continue their activities. And this is being accomplished with truly half-assed monetary and troop commitments by the US. Imagine what something like this could do on a global scale when given a significant portion of the NATO countries' financial and military resources.

Every day this is not undertaken is another lost opportunity to rid this earth from the cancer of terrorism.

by Rich Boatti

Not Putting Their Money Where Terri Schiavo's Mouth Is

2005-03-21T17:06:00.000-08:00

With last night's hasty congressional vote accompanied by President Bush's interrupting his vacation (SPRING BREAK CRAWFORD!!!- since when did presidents get a spring vacation anyway?) to sign a law that would bring the Terri Schiavo case into federal court, Terri Schiavo has become the official cause celebre for the right-to-life movement. Although the thought of starving someone in a vegetative state to death is shocking and gruesome, this is basically what the so-called pro-life agenda's party, the GOP, is advocating on a much broader scale. While Christian conservatives keep round-the-clock vigils outside Ms. Schiavo's hospice and twist congressional arms to do whatever possible to re-insert her feeding tube, including passing a law that is an unprecedented federal intrusion into the rights of states, it seems as if no one has noticed where the money to pay for Ms. Schiavo's intravenous substinance is coming from. Well, I'll tell you. Terri Schiavo's medicine for the past two years has been paid for that lynchpin of the US welfare state, Medicaid. For those who aren't aware, Medicaid has been in the crosshairs of the Bush Administration for the past two years, and Bush's proposed cuts would come cause 1.2 million cildren to lose Medicaid coverage over the next five years if aproved by congress (as reported in the Christian Science Monitor). The rest of Ms. Schiavo's medical expenses are covered by the Hospice (which provides free service) and two malpractice lawsuits Ms. Schiavo won in 1990 totaling arond $1 million. Again, the irony cannot be more tragic. The Bush administration has also been pushing to limit medical liability lawsuit recoveries for people just like Ms. Schiavo, who have been permanently damaged by bad doctors. In the typical twisted-but-brilliant political manuvering of the Republican party, again the Democrats have turned out looking like heartless death-mongerers, while the Republicans have been portrayed as compassionate souls defending a sick woman, while in reality if the republicans have their way, thousands of Terri Schiavos will starve to death in the hospices, hospitals, and streets of America for years to come.

US Slips in Technology Rankings

2005-03-18T11:14:00.000-08:00

A few days ago, I read a disturbing article on CNN:

The United States is no longer No. 1 in making the best use of information and communications technologies (ICT), a
new study says. It dropped to fifth place this year and Singapore is now on top.

Singapore's ranking in the so-called "Networked Readiness Index" was based on several factors, including quality of
math and science education and low prices for telephone and Internet services, said the World Economic Forum report.

"Singapore's remarkable performance is a consequence of the government's consistent and continuous efforts" to foster
the technology, the report said...

The United States' drop from first place last year "is less due to actual erosion in performance" than to the
improvement of other countries, the report said.

Amid this backdrop, Bush is making budget cuts in Technology. Kos reports:

the Bush budget calls for drastically underfunding science and technology. Bush's science and technology budget
would drop from an estimated $61.7 billion in fiscal year 2005 to $60.8 billion in 2006. The science and technology
budget includes programs such as space exploration, renewable energy, and agricultural research, as well as
technology-related research and development at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

Things like this are just incomprehensible to me. Throughout human history, the dominant societies have always been the most technologically advanced. Yet Bush thinks that giving a tax cut to those who don't need it is more important than the US remaining at the top of the technological world, a fall that will, over the next few decades, will hurt our entire society, including those for whom bush is cutting taxes.

At a time like this, America needs a rural electrification-type program to bring high speed internet to every region of the country, a massive investment in high-speed rail, intracity rail, research, renewable energy and EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION. By not doing this we are just inviting the decline and end of the American glory days and a global power vacumn that has a good chance of being filled by an authoritan government, AKA China. Is this a good long-term strategy for America? I don't think so.

How to be a Good Republican

2005-03-14T22:06:00.000-08:00

Think that true patriots dodge drafts while America-haters serve in our Armed Forces

Think that cutting funding for police that takes 4,000 cops off of New York City streets to finance a tax cut for the wealthy is a good way to fight terrorism

Think that the president who presided over the greatest national security failure in American history is the best one to keep America safe

Think that the president who opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security before 9/11/01 is the best one to keep America safe

Violate federal law by trading with Nazi Germany during World War 2

Claim a foreign policy based on democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, for all countries, yet maintain good relations with countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, China, Colombia, and Egypt

Pretend to believe in small government but increase discretionary spending by 4% annually every year and think that government needs to regulate what goes on in people’s bedrooms and women’s wombs.

Think that America getting half of its oil and 1/6 of its federal budget from abroad are good trends that should be encouraged and increased.

Think that taxpayers instead of polluters should pay to clean sites polluted by those polluters.

Think that work should be taxed more than wealth

Think having fewer soldiers hunting bin Laden than there are police officers in New York City is a winning formula for the war on terrorism

Believe that lying about personal sexual relations warrants a congressional investigation, but going to war on bad intelligence and giving no-bid contracts politically connected companies do not.

Blame the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01 on feminists, secularists, and liberals.

Believe cutting funding from the Transportation Safety Administration is a good way to fight terrorism.

Claim to be a free-market capitalist but advocate downright socialism in the context of the drug industry, agriculture, airlines, automobiles, and defense contractors.

Think that trees cause more pollution than automobiles

Claim to be Christian but ignore 3,000 Bible verses on poverty

Believe that “compassionate conservatism” embodies cutting 300,000 kids out of after school programs

Believe that AIDS can be transmitted through sweat.

Think that the last glory days of America were in 1932.

Accuse democrats of being “gay,” while owning and posing nude on websites called Hotmilitarystud.com, Militaryescorts.com, and Militaryescortsm4m.com

Constantly rail against "Hollywood ELites", unless those elites are Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, or John Wayne, and cut the "Hollywood Elites'" taxes in the process.

Believe that the military alliance that won World War 2 and the Cold War is irrelevant

Believe that 10 stories missing from the UN would make no difference, and then be nominated to be the ambassador to the same UN

Have your human rights record lead to your presidential endorsement by Iran's Chief of the Supreme National Security Council, Hasan Rowhani

Think the following is a good way to cut taxes:
The 257,000 taxpayers making fore than $1 million per year got a bigger cut than than the 85 million taxpayers at the bottom 60% of the population. For every $100 you got back in tax cuts, $40 was borrowed from foreigners, $20 was borrowed from Americans, and $40 was taken from Social Security.

Turn a $127 billion budget surplus into $450 billion budget deficit and talk about fiscal responsibility with a straight face

Nominate a judge who believes wives should be subordinate to their husbands and compares abotrion rights activists to Nazis to the federal bench

Veto hate-crime legislation after the brutal lynching of James Bird while you're Governor of Texas

Make SUV purchases up to $75,000 tax deductable for businesses

Say the presidential candidate who proposes adding 2 batallitons to the active forces, totaling 40 thousand additional soldiers, is weak on defense, then refuse to take any similar, necessary actions while America is fighting 2 wars

Allow the number of Americans living in poverty to increase by 3 million in 3 years, and then try to lock these people out of the free market by gutting a rule requiring banks to make loans in economically depressed areas, (the federal Community Reinvestment Act)

As an ex-Secretary of State, have your law firm represent the Saudi Royal Family in their defense against the lawsuit brought by families of the victims of Sept. 11

Please add anything I missed!

RB

Republicans are Gay

2005-02-19T13:20:00.000-08:00

Some events of this week have seemingly confirmed a suspicion that I have long thought to be true: republicans are gay. Not ALL republicans- just the severly homophobic Alan Keyes/ Jerry Fallwell types. When I hear republicans complain that gay couples living in their comminity are affecting marriage, I feel like shouting at them "You're basically saying that the thought of two men having sex is ruining your relationship with your wife? There's only one word for people like you: 'Homo.'" There was yet another example of the nonexistant line between homophobia/homosexuality that finally got some media traction this week when Jeff Glannon aka James Guckert, a "reporter" for the right-wing mouthpiece, Talon News, was exposed for being a fake reporter that somehow landed a White House press pass. As details of his life petered out, it was found that he actually owns and was featured on gay dating sites like Hotmilitarystud.com, Militaryescorts.com, and Militaryescortsm4m.com. Perhaps not ironically, this "staunch heterosexual" derided John Kerry during the campaign as the man who could be "America's first gay president."

I hope the GOP doesn't get disapointed when they find out our plans to f*** them up are only in the metaphorical/political sense.

An Energy Policy for the Future

2005-02-11T19:16:00.000-08:00

Energy continues to be the vital ingredient that, all puns aside, fuels the machinery of a modern economy. As Americans, we are by far the largest consumers of energy per-capita in the world, requiring enormous quantities of energy to fuel our economy and maintain the high standard of living we have grown to expect. America’s future prospects will continue to depend upon the secure supply of affordable and sustainable energy that can fuel our continued growth and prosperity. However, the growing dependence on foreign oil, unprecedented energy failures, and mounting evidence of accelerating environmental problems are clear warning signs that America’s current policies cannot be sustained. It is therefore crucial that we now push forward with an energy policy that properly reflects the significance this precious commodity represents by instituting a series of policies that stress efficiency, conservation and sustainability for us now and in the future.

An efficient, progressive energy policy is one that can proficiently meet the objectives of providing sustainable energy to a population, enabling the nation to flourish economically without compromising the integrity of the environment and the public’s overall well-being. In order to accomplish these goals, our first priority must be to drastically reduce our dependency on fossil fuels as our primary source of energy.

Our reliance on foreign oil supply has resulted in the formation of relationships with autocratic regimes, compromising the integrity and safety of the country. By refusing to rein in U.S. consumption of foreign petroleum, the Bush team is not only depriving itself of the most effective lever for promoting internally-driven reform in the Middle East, it is also depriving itself of many effective international policies. As Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, points out, given today's tight oil market and current U.S. consumption patterns, any kind of U.S. strike on Iran, one of the world's major oil producers, would send the price of oil through the roof, causing real problems for our economy. "Our own energy policy has tied our hands," Mr. Haass said. The inconsistencies within our policy scream to the be questioned when we are seen refusing to open relations with communist nations like Cuba because we feel the government abuses human rights, yet are seen welcoming known autocratic regimes like our good oil-rich friends in Saudi Arabia who continue to this day to oppress the rights of minorities and women within their own borders.

The biggest losers in our current energy system are the America consumers. Gas prices have continued to escalate at home, a $0.27/gallon increase in the last year alone, as OPEC countries continue to strangle the American drivers’ blind dependency on oil. The average price of a barrel of oil is at historic levels, yet rest assure knowing that the vested interests of executives at oil companies ConocoPhillips or Exxon-Mobil, whose supply comes from oil-rich Middle Eastern countries, are being met. Meanwhile, large energy companies have blundered away in the wake of the 1996 deregulation of the utility market, leaving the past 5 years mired in scandal and controversy. While the fat cats in big energy were busy padding their pockets, it was again the American consumer that suffered through contrived energy shortages and pricing hikes. The deregulated energy market allowed companies such as Enron to cheat consumers while placing states like California in what Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham warned to be the "most serious shortage" since the 1970s.

Its not just our purses that suffer from our current policy. We are destroying our natural environment and jeopardizing our health. The carbon emissions that are the bi-product of burning fossil fuels are the leading known proponent of global warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that in the next century there will be a rise in global temperatures between 1.8 and 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit due to the greenhouse effect, and those ramifications could be disastrous. The US is the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and, with the world's largest economy, remains the world's largest single source of anthropogenic (human-caused) greenhouse gas emissions. Current projections indicate that U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide, which is released into the atmosphere when fossil fuels are burned, will reach 5,985 million metric tons in 2005, an increase of 1,083 million metric tons from the 4,902 million metric tons emitted in 1990, and around one-fourth of total world energy-related carbon emissions. The bi-products of the burning fossil fuel emissions have resulted in the pollution of our waters and air by depositing mercury and other toxins in the ground and atmosphere. Health concerns are also triggered as pollutants emitted into the atmosphere find their way to the water we drink and the air we breathe.

The solutions to the litany of problems that we’ve created from our fossil fuel consumption should not be centered on developing more fossil fuel supplies domestically. The Department of Energy’s National Energy Policy currently has recommended that in order to alleviate our burden of foreign reliance, we should expand exploration of domestic oil reserves and begin drilling in remote, ecologically sensitive, and pristine areas like the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge, and to slightly moderate the practices of coal and oil burning to mitigate the impact. However, the department shows a dangerous lack of foresight with such a prescription, and makes it painfully obvious what effect the over $380 million oil and gas companies have spent since 1998 lobbying our elected officials has had. Fossil fuel development is not a part of the solution, nor is the advancement of nuclear energy projects that pose catastrophic environmental and safety risks as seen in the former Soviet Union.

An energy policy that considers the total cost of society of its energy choices would greatly encourage the deployment of renewable energy technologies. Our nation’s leaders need to grasp the realization that clean energy is the next great infrastructure for job creation and growth, and mobilize public and private investment in clean energy technologies such as solar and wind power, hydrogen fuel cells and highly efficient American made cars. While creating a new generation of high wage manufacturing and construction jobs, this will also reduce our dependence on foreign oil imports, create a resilient energy system, strengthen our cities and rural communities, bolster national security, and clean up our environment.

Even with a radical sudden large scale shift to renewable energy sources will not address all of the problems that have been erected from past follies. Legislatures and representatives must be firm and emphasize the value of conservation by placing strict regulations on industries to generate more efficient products that use and pollute less. Stronger regulations need to be enforced to limit CO2, SO2 and mercury emissions from the old dirty coal power plants that continue to operate ignoring the great environmental accomplishments from the 1970’s, like the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. Regulations must also be placed on the auto industry to require more fuel efficient vehicles that get better gas mileage, such as hybrid cars.

American prosperity has been built on our nation’s innovative leadership and our ability to adopt cutting-edge technologies to propagate industry and technology. Now, as various parts of the world have acknowledged the benefits of transitioning toward technologies that allow for sustainable growth, the US must stop lagging behind the global community in the critical green markets of the future. At the same time that the United States is watching literally millions of jobs go abroad, we are losing our technological and competitive edge and our market share to foreign companies. Japan alone now controls 43% of the solar power market, an industry invented in America, European countries control 90% of wind turbine production, and the United States is importing fuel cells from Canada. These are encouraging signs of things to come, and investing now in these new markets will create jobs for US workers and pave the way for future sustainability.

We must insist that America accepts its role as a global leader and introduce the infrastructure for renewable technologies and industries. The future prosperity of the US is critically dependent upon its capacity to support forthcoming generations, and that will ultimately be determined by a sustainable and reliable energy policy.

by Dave Krieger

A Democratic Strategy Toward Asia

2005-02-01T09:40:00.000-08:00

Though we are only a few years into the 21st Century, it is evident that American foreign policy will be more strongly influenced by events in Asia than at any other time in American history. From the Indian Ocean tsunami to North Korea’s nuclear weapons, from China’s ascendancy to Australia’s commitment in the “War on Terror,” the politics of Asia are increasingly becoming the politics of America as well. This turn of events calls for not only a recommitment to the alliances of the past, but also a realignment of policies that will allow for greater cooperation in the future.

I. China

China remains the 800-pound gorilla in East Asian politics and is perhaps the single most important determinant of success or failure of American policy in that region. A pragmatic China policy treats the Middle Kingdom neither as a “strategic competitor” nor as an unqualified “strategic partner.” Such labels have a danger of forcing a situation that arises between the US and China to fit the pre-defined policy, instead of shaping the policy to fit the situation, as is required of a robust American strategy. Bilateral trade and China’s internal politics are outside the scope of this paper.

Terrorism
In the aftermath of 9/11, China was seen as an ally in the struggle against Islamist extremism. Though there may have been real successes in combating al Qaeda with Chinese cooperation, we must not lose sight of the fact that Beijing can, and has, very easily turned our “War on Terror” into its own campaign against the Muslim Uighur population in Xinjiang. Just as Muslim-American groups have complained about discriminatory treatment post-9/11 in the US, so have Uighur groups in China, except there they are not so lucky to have a First Amendment shield. Therefore, we must be careful to accurately assess China’s enthusiasm for prosecuting the “War on Terror,” taking pains to make sure that Beijing’s zeal to contain the Uighurs, who thus far have little ties to al Qaeda, does not further stoke the nascent fires of Muslim extremism.

Taiwan
On the issue of Taiwan, China’s growing military and economic power will dictate that the US continue to treat the island as a poison pill that we must swallow in order to maintain nominal relations with the mainland. No American President can allow Taiwan, a democratic capitalist ally, to be invaded by China. At the same time, no American President can afford to let either the American, Chinese, or Taiwanese sides upset the status quo. Progress on this issue must come organically from both sides of the Taiwan Strait. The US must be unequivocal in its support for Taiwanese democracy, but within the current paradigm of Taiwanese autonomy without full independence. American diplomats and policymakers should be advised to carefully vet all remarks about Taiwan for reaction on both sides of the Strait.

There is, however, a small window of opportunity in that Taiwan should be allowed to play a larger role on the world stage by being accredited observer status in international organizations such as the World Health Organization or (in the case of the nine tribal groups recognized by Taiwan’s government) the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Peoples. The US may also be able to support symbolic gestures such as having a portion of the 2008 Olympic torch relay pass through Taipei, Kinmen, or Matsu. The upshot of the recent New Year’s direct flights between China and Taiwan may be a willingness by Beijing to even have certain Olympic events held in Taiwan. In any event, the US must make it clear to the Taiwanese administration that though we are sympathetic to the “name rectification” campaign, the US cannot lend its public or diplomatic support.

Military Affairs
The US should leverage economic incentives with the EU, Israel, and Russia in order to stem the flow of high-tech weapons to China. While China’s current rate of military spending is unsustainable in the long run, given the more pressing problems of its domestic development, Beijing still hungers for a military status worthy of a “great power.” The US must convince the EU, and by extension Israel and Russia, to deny China the option of simply buying its way to great power status. Recent efforts by the EU to lift its arms embargo against China should be kept within an economic framework and the US should show willingness to compromise on certain issues such as greater access to the Chinese market for EU firms with regard to certain dual use technologies. This would preserve the arms embargo while satisfying EU concerns about Euro-Chinese market share. Similar deals should be struck with Israel and Russia, China’s major arms suppliers. The US should especially leverage its influence with Israel to dissuade it from making any new arms deals with China.

Maintaining the arms embargo, imposed in the aftermath of the Tiananmen Square protests, is not inconsistent with other US policy objectives toward China. The embargo does not impact other avenues of trade and investment, but it does send a signal that the US will not accept unchecked Chinese obstructionism in international affairs, especially as it relates to Taiwan. First, while China has historically maintained an isolationist policy, the current regime has a more internationalist approach. Witness the recent joint military exercises with India and Russia, as well as the push to create the Shanghai Cooperation Organization as an augmentation of ASEAN. Second, it is axiomatic that any and all military capability China acquires can, and most likely would, be used against Taiwan. The US should soften or lift the embargo only contingent upon both an end to Chinese obstructionism, especially in the UN Security Council, and positive steps toward reconciliation with Taiwan.

II. Korea

The Bush Administration’s focus on the Iraq situation has had the definite effect of taking away attention from the deteriorating US-South Korean relationship as well as the events in North Korea. While the US was successful in leveraging China to bring North Korea into the six-party talks, these negotiations have, so far, been a failure. They did not deter North Korea from further developing its nuclear weapons program, nor did they result in a replacement for the 1994 Agreed Framework. However, despite the substantive failure of the six-party talks, they should not be abandoned altogether because the outcome would be to further isolate the North at a time when greater engagement is critical.

Rather than continue to isolate North Korea, the US should encourage South Korea’s “sunshine policy” of limited familial and tourist contacts with the North. Dealing with the problem of North Korea’s embryonic nuclear capability will require more radical measures. One method is to simply buy off the North. This approach would in practice be more like the Iraq-style “oil-for-food” program than the old Agreed Framework. Similar to the EU approach to Iran, a buyout approach would either entail a pledge from North Korea to comply with inspections or to sell its enriched uranium stocks to the US, in exchange for economic benefits like food aid or non-military technology. There is, of course, a chance that Kim Jong-Il will refuse such an offer, but the offer must still be made.

III. Japan

In a national security context, Japan shares with the US a fear of a nuclear North Korea and a China that is willing to flex its military muscle. This shared threat assessment makes it logical for the US to support Japan’s planned constitutional changes to allow for a restructuring of the Japanese military. However, such steps must be taken with extreme caution because Japan’s motives, in light of its historical aggression, are suspect especially in China and the Koreas. The US should not take any overt steps to assist Japan in implementing its rearmament beyond the terms of our treaty with Japan. Nor should the US shift its defense posture in any way that might signal a withdrawal from Japan (which may be interpreted by China and the Koreas as Japan attaining military self-sufficiency).

IV. Regional security and development – Oceania

In light of the recent Indian Ocean tsunami, and continuing concerns about global warming, the island countries of the Pacific Ocean have made their very existence their highest priority. As part of an overall US re-thinking and rapprochement with the Kyoto Protocol, we should take into account the needs of the Pacific Ocean island states even if they currently have little geo-strategic value. As these and other states around the world grow desperate for cash, some might allow passport selling, money laundering, and other activities that can and has been tied to terrorism. In the worst case scenario, a catastrophic collapse of the economies of one of these island states may send a deluge of refugees to Australia, New Zealand, or even Hawaii. The US ignores such “quiet” areas of the world at its own peril.

V. Regional security and development – Southeast Asia

Given time, the economies of Southeast Asia have the potential to achieve the same kind of growth and prosperity as the “tiger” economies did in the 1980’s and 1990’s. The US should seek to rapidly upgrade its relationship with ASEAN beyond free trade agreements to a level comparable to that of the EU. Though ASEAN is hardly as institutionally or politically unified as the EU, a status upgrade is nevertheless in the American interest. Not only would it signal the importance of the ASEAN bloc in matters not limited to trade, but it would also serve to counterweigh China’s growing influence in the region.

While Australia has taken up a significant share of the aid burden in Southeast Asia, there is plenty of room for the US to play a role as well. This is not altruism, but rather integrated into the calculus of checking terrorism. East Timor, Papua New Guinea, and the Solomon Islands could easily slide into failed statehood if they do not continue to receive international support. Additionally, the threat of Islamist extremism breeding terrorism should still greatly concern the US vis-à-vis Aceh, Malaysia, and the southern Philippines.

VI. Australia and New Zealand

The paradigm of American relations with Australia and New Zealand has for decades been the ANZUS security pact. The US should use ANZUS as the foundation for other security arrangements in East Asia, particularly with countries like the Philippines or Taiwan. Due to their geographic proximity, both Australia and New Zealand will be directly affected in the fallout of either a terrorist attack or economic collapse anywhere in Southeast Asia or Oceania. The Bali bombings and the situations in East Timor, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, and Nauru all prove this point. As such, it is in America’s interest to build on our relationship with both Australia and New Zealand on issues such as joint aid coordination and burden sharing.

by William Lim

Letter from Westchester, NY: Education, Healthcare, Security

2005-01-26T10:11:00.000-08:00

Westchester County has many of the same issues facing New York City such as traffic congestion, expensive health insurance choices, social security fears, increasing public transportation costs, illegal immigrant, and elderly citizen concerns. However, the three largest concerns to the majority of Westchester residents are failing school systems, a regional hospital with a huge deficit and declining staff, and a nuclear power plant that seems to extend an invitation to terrorists to attack.
“We kids are the future. That is what everyone keeps telling me, but I don’t feel that the future is going to be as good as I might want it to be.” That is what an eighth grader from a Yonkers school had to say in late 2004. Those students have a bleak future to look forward to because they are lacking the fundamental building blocks of art, music, and sports? Many also lack the help of guidance counselors with whom they could discuss their future options. The desegregation of the Yonkers school system in the early 1980’s was supposed to give all children in Yonkers equal educational opportunities, yet now these students are at a disadvantage against students from such neighboring towns as Scarsdale and Bronxville who do not lack what Yonkers does. In 2004 alone about 574 jobs, one in seven teaching positions, were cut due to a $26 million deficit. After-school activities and interscholastic sports were eliminated, with cuts targeting music, art, language teachers, guidance counselors, librarians, psychologists, and social workers. Students will not have learned the basic essential skills like teamwork, which can be learned through sports, and is an asset in the working world. The Federal Government should give aid to those school districts in Westchester that are at a disadvantage, to create a level playing field amongst all residents. The Yonkers district has been promised $6.1 million from the state legislature to fill 574 positions and for restoration of some programs. Yet, what happens the next time money promised to the city is not delivered and more positions must be cut? More children will suffer. Without sports or music how are these children supposed to receive scholarships to college? Without guidance counselors, who will fill out the paperwork for college? The Government recently highlighted the need to do more to prepare our high school students for the future. Their education proposals would ensure that every high school student graduates with the skills needed to succeed in college and in the workforce. Yonkers students, and many other students throughout Westchester will not have the skills to succeed in college and the workforce. The Federal Government proposes an increase in funding for programs for reading, math, and science of about $470 million. The Government should also direct the funds necessary for schools most in need, like Yonkers, so that they can achieve their goal of preparing all students with the skills necessary for the future.
Westchester Medical Center serves not only Westchester but also many of the surrounding counties. Outside of New York City hospitals it is the largest in the area serving thousands of children and adults. However, it is working at a substantial deficit. The hospital was expected to lose $41 million in 2004, following losses of $83 million in 2003, $69.7 million in 2002 and $6 million in 2001. Since April 2004, Pitts Management Associates of Baton Rouge, LA, a turnaround consultancy have run the medical center. They may slowly be improving the situation but more needs to be done. Since 2003 more than 300 jobs have been eliminated. Since March 2003 192 full time Registered Nurses’ were cut, almost 15% of the medical center’s RN workforce, with 220 employees out of work in late 2003 and 110 positions cut in March 2004, that time to save $8.1 million. Previous cuts did not touch staff caring directly for patients but subsequent ones did. People should feel secure in their health providers but understaffing due to budget cuts leads people to feel insecure in those they are supposed to rely on during the most serious of emergencies. One unnamed RN characterized it: “This place is ready to implode. Do they want patients to die? Medical centers are supposed to improve business by improving patient care. But that’s not where we’re headed now.” Reports of unsafe patient care conditions have increased dramatically during the past several months. New York State has provided minimal funding to keep the hospital up and running. The Federal Government needs to either take over management of the hospital or give substantial funding to allow for adequate staffing. Citizens should not be made to suffer inadequate care due to the mismanagement of this regional medical center.
Indian Point, located in Buchanan, is of serious concern, not only to Westchester residents but much of the surrounding area as well. 20 million people live within 50 miles of Indian Point. It is in close proximity to major financial centers in New York City, as well as to reservoirs which supply and store nearly all of Westchester County’s and most of NYC’s drinking water and to major sea, air, rail and highway transportation systems. Also the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, which graduates more than 900 new officers annually, representing approximately 25% of the new lieutenants required by the Army each year, is directly across the river. Residents see this nuclear power plant as an easy target for a terrorist attack and it must be protected. We urge (1) that substantial funds be provided for research into safer alternatives to nuclear energy, (2) that Indian Point be decommissioned, and if decommissioning is not a possibility in the near future then (3) an increase in protection of Indian Point through federal guards and better training. $1 million has already been obtained to study energy alternatives to Indian Point but more is needed. President Bush signed into law Project BioShield, an unprecedented $5.6 billion effort to develop vaccines and other medical responses to biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological weapons. If $5.6 billion can be designated for the development of responses in the event that chemical, nuclear, biological, and radiological weapons are used, should not funds also be used to prevent those possibilities from occurring? Funds should be used not only for research into alternatives to nuclear energy but also for protecting Indian Point until it is made safe and for the development of an adequate evacuation plan just in case an attack occurs. Security personnel are not required to be trained to confront the following threats: more than three intruders; more than one team of attackers using coordinated tactics; more than one insider; weapons greater than hand-held automatic weapons; attack by boat or plane; or any attack by “enemies of the US,” whether governments or individuals. How safe would that make you feel? Federally trained guards should patrol and protect Indian Point. A no-fly zone should be put in place over Indian Point. If Disney World and Disneyland can have no-fly zones protecting Mickey Mouse, Indian Point should have a no-fly zone to protect nuclear material and 20 million residents. Government studies report that the radioactive material released from Indian Point can kill and injure tens of thousands of people living within 500 miles and render large regions uninhabitable for long periods. The truth is, according to www.Riverkeeper.org, even if Indian Point were shut down tomorrow there would be adequate electricity generation to power New York City, Westchester County, and much of New York State. The Government should make it a top priority to protect not just Westchester’s nuclear facilities but also those facilities across the nation as well.
The struggle to achieve Westchester’s top goals will not be easy. The funds need to be found and those politicians with the power to make changes to protect and support Westchester residents need to step up and do the right thing for the betterment of the entire Westchester community.

by Kim Savino

TRANSPORTATION/ URBAN ISSUES PLATFORM

2005-01-12T15:04:00.000-08:00

A Return to Civic Responsibility and Civic Pride

This American generation must achieve a major reconfiguration of the American landscape. This is a necessity for environmental, social, economic and spiritual reasons. It is also essential to our national security.
America accounts for 4 percent of the world’s population but uses 24 percent of the petroleum consumed every year. This unsupportable addiction has left us dependent on massive petroleum importation from volatile regions. It has drawn us into regional conflicts in Africa, the Middle East and South America. Often the U.S. has been unable to confront dictatorial, human-rights-violating, and terrorist-finacing regimes because we need them to keep the oil flowing, even as they shovel protection money to the terrorists who seek to do us harm.
This massive outflow of American income to foreign nations has also amounted to a regressive tax on our economy. Poor people suffer the most when gasoline prices rise, and economic activity is slowed. Finally, and most importantly, our massive annual carbon emissions contribute to global warming and atmospheric pollution that threatens to flood our cities and devastate our farms with the effects of global climate change.
The suburban lifestyle that this profligate use of oil allows is also detrimental to our social, environmental and spiritual well-being. Low-density development gobbles up valuable land. So natural land is deforested, swamps are drained and deserts are paved. The result is physical and environmental deprivation: American farmers are forced off their land by rising property values, threatening the continued existence of American rural and small-town lifestyles, endangered species deprived of their habitats, and future generations deprived of the natural beauty and biodiversity that is one of our greatest national assets.
Furthermore, the conformity, segregation and loss of a public sphere had a deleterious effect on American social life and democracy. The physical layout of the suburbs eliminates an important public sphere: sidewalks. In so doing it inhibits the creative energy that infuses urban culture, often leading residents of American suburbs to feel spiritually and culturally bereft. Further the lifestyle of driving everywhere and never walking has spawned an epidemic of obesity whose health, economic and social costs we are only beginning to measure. There is no reason for us to continue subsidizing this environmentally unsustainable lifestyle.
The American addiction to gasoline is not a matter of choice. It is the product of government policies that have forced the population to live and travel in low-density neighborhoods, even though millions suffer depression and withdraw from society (see Putnam’s “Bowling Alone”) as a result. The outcome has been to tear our cities apart under massive highway construction, to segregate our society along socio-economic and racial line and to devour our national landscape for construction and oil drilling. We oppose drilling in ANWR. But we recognize that we cannot do so in a vacuum. We must also seek to change the underlying circumstances that have created our oil dependence in the first place.
To reconstruct our landscape in a manner that will be economically and environmentally sustainable does not require innovative solutions. It merely requires undoing the damaging governmental policies of the last fifty years and reversing them. Those policies include but are not limited to: our massive subsidy of auto travel through the federal highway program, local zoning codes that require a minimum amount of parking for homes and businesses, setbacks from the street and segregation of uses, our disinvestments in mass transit, our failure to raise fuel efficiency standards to keep pace with improving technology, our failure to raise gasoline taxes to an appropriate level, the federal government’s policy of federally insuring home buying loans but not loans for renovating old homes, thus encouraging people to buy newly constructed homes in even farther flung suburbs rather than higher quality more socially valuable and ecologically efficient urban homes in need of renovation, the federal tax policy that makes mortgage interest payments tax deductible but not rent, thus favoring home owners (suburbanites) over apartment dwellers (urbanites).
We oppose all of President Bush’s proposals to make these problems worse, including his proposal to revoke the status of state and local taxes as exempt from federal income tax as that will create yet another incentive for people to move from the cities to the suburbs because cities tend to have higher income taxes.
We also advocate the following alternatives:
An immediate and permanent decrease in federal and state highway subsidies, to be replaced with a public-private initiative to return privately-operated high-speed passenger rail to the American landscape. This framework will copy what has been instituted with the Airline Industry. AMTRAK will be relieved of operating passenger trains, and only remain to maintain track and the stations. That will be the federal investment in the system. Private companies practicing free market competition will conduct actual rail service, but with regulations to ensure that coach-class tickets remain affordable and adequate service will be provided to corridors that might be less profitable. With AMTRAK relieved of the burdens of rail operation, it will do a much better job of maintaining and straightening track that is necessary for high-speed rail, and probably save government money in the process. This will bring a great boon to the American manufacturing sector, revitalize older urban cores, reduce traffic, and increase inter-city travel efficiency, making inter-city travel possible at speeds of 180 miles per hour instead of the 60 mph that highway travel is constrained by. It will also reduce fuel dependency and make the nation less vulnerable to the after-effects of another airplane-based terrorist attack. A program like this will especially serve as a revitalization strategy for the older industrial cities of the Great Lakes, and the midwestern agricultural towns that have been in a decline parallel with that of American passenger rail.
An immediate increase in federal fuel-efficiency standards for cars to 40 miles per gallon.
Immediately closing the loophole that allows SUVs to be classified as light trucks instead of cars; from now on they should have to meet the same fuel efficiency standards as cars.
A revision of the tax code, making money spent on renovating pre 1945 dwellings tax-deductible for individuals and businesses and creating a new federal program to guarantee loans to renovate older homes.
Creating federal guidelines for large tax-deductions, to be implemented on the state and local level, by following a loose framework of new zoning codes for every community. These would be in accordance with the principles of new urbanism, chiefly: mixed income housing, mixed use housing (commercial and residential together), all streets must have ample sidewalks, street-side parking, and follow a logical, efficient grid whenever possible, buildings must be built out to the property line or close to it, buildings must be close together, parking garages will not be allowed, or will only be allowed behind houses rather than in front of them, business districts will not have surface parking lots, rather, they will have constructed or underground garages; businesses and residential developments shall not be required to have a minimum number of parking spaces, but they will be allowed no more than a certain maximum number; streets will have strict maximum widths, in accordance with the height of the buildings that line them, of no more than 1:1. Also where possible: bike lanes shall be created, sidewalks shall be lined with trees, and wherever possible highways remodeled in the style of a Parisian boulevard (exterior buffers and lanes added).
We also advocate a federal grant program to plant trees on sidewalks in depressed urban areas.
We also advocate a program where the federal government will pay the entire cost if a city or state government decides to replace a highway or portion of a highway with commuter or light rail.
We call on state governments to create regional governments so that suburbs can no longer continue to plunder the wealth of cities while starving urban school districts and other needs. Rather, entire metropolitan regions should be governed together, even when they cross state boundaries. These new regional governments will have integrated school systems, so that children in the suburbs and cities will get an equal education. In addition to the obvious benefits, this will have the added effect of reducing the incentive for families to move to the suburbs.

We recognize that this will not be an entirely easy sale politically. What we hope is that the Democratic Party will find politicians brave enough to tell the American people that they must make some changes in the way they live for the good of the country and the planet.

by Ben Adler and Rich Boatti