Category: Politics

Niall Ferguson Gives His Two Cents

ssegraves

Niall Ferguson, Professor of History at Harvard University and columnist for Newsweek, spoke his mind on the foreign policy decisions by the Obama administration and it seems, took the MSNBC hosts off guard. Professor Ferguson is by no means a conservative so my guess is that the MSNBC personalities were looking at the interview as being easy going. His description of the Obama administration’s attempt at foreign policy is spot on:

As far as I can see, President Obama’s strategic concept is “I’m not George W. Bush. Love me.”

If you can’t see the video, you can visit MSNBC and watch it here.

It should be noted that the one host seems a bit disgusted with the whole interview and you can hear her choke a little after Niall so bluntly states his case.

Why “Bipartisanship” Makes Me Cringe

ssegraves

“Strategery”, “nucular”, and “guesstimate” are words that make people twitch when heard. For me, my head instantly starts pounding when “bipartisanship” starts being thrown around. Both Republicans and Democrats use the word in their attempt to assuage people’s need for civility and goodness. In reality, what either side is saying is “we need to come together as long as our coming together is on our side of the issue”.

Our political disagreements is the actual bipartisanship we should strive for. Disagreement on policy is how policy making works. Having everyone sitting around in a chant circle signing “Kumbaya” and agreeing on every single thing proposed allows crud to flow through with the good stuff. Rather than bipartisanship we need people discussing, disagreeing, and reworking legislation so that it is succinct, serves a purpose, and does the most good.

I am sure tonight’s State of the Union address will have plenty of “we need to come together” lines along with “we are one so we should act like one” ovation getters. These are simply long forms of “bipartisanship”. What I wish the President would say is, “We need to hash out the details on legislation to get the economy moving. We need each side to whittle this legislation down to help as many Americans as possible”.

Agreement is great, I’m just not sure that having a Legislative Branch of yes-men is the best way to go about getting people to agree.

A Day That Will Live in Infamy

ssegraves

It is difficult to write about this day in history. So, I’ll let the President do the talking. Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s speech to Congress, given on December 8, 1941. Let us remember those who fought and died at Pearl Harbor and those who, because of the attack, would go on to fight and die in World War II.

USS Arizona - Pearl Harbor Memorial

To the Congress of the United States:
Yesterday, Dec. 7, 1941 – a date which will live in infamy – the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with the government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific.

Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in Oahu, the Japanese ambassador to the United States and his colleagues delivered to the Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. While this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or armed attack.

It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time, the Japanese government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.

The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. Very many American lives have been lost. In addition, American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.

Yesterday, the Japanese government also launched an attack against Malaya.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked Guam.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands.

Last night, the Japanese attacked Wake Island.

This morning, the Japanese attacked Midway Island.

Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.

As commander in chief of the Army and Navy, I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense.

Always will we remember the character of the onslaught against us.

No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.

I believe I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make very certain that this form of treachery shall never endanger us again.

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger.

With confidence in our armed forces – with the unbounding determination of our people – we will gain the inevitable triumph – so help us God.

I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, Dec. 7, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire.

Judge Halts Oklahoma Vote on Shariah Law Ban

ssegraves

A judge in Oklahoma has stopped the certification of a vote that keeps Shariah Law and international law from being used in Oklahoma courtrooms. The text that was presented to voters is as follows:

This measure amends the State Constitution. It changes a section that deals with the courts of this state. It would amend Article 7, Section 1. It makes courts rely on federal and state law when deciding cases. It forbids courts from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia Law.
International law is also known as the law of nations. It deals with the conduct of international organizations and independent nations, such as countries, states and tribes. It deals with their relationship with each other. It also deals with some of their relationships with persons.
The law of nations is formed by the general assent of civilized nations. Sources of international law also include international agreements, as well as treaties.
Sharia Law is Islamic law. It is based on two principal sources, the Koran and the teaching of Mohammed.

What interests me about this case is not that Shariah Law may be banned, but that the plaintiff is claiming his 1st Amendment rights would be violated if such a ban was in place. So, Shariah Law, based on religious beliefs, should be allowed to override federal and local law. This must really put people who do not want Judeo-Christian iconography on federal, state, or public land in general into a twist. You basically have someone who wants religious rights upheld while those rights violate the rights of others.

I’ll be the first to admit that I am really looking forward to reading some write-ups by people who are vehemently against religion in the public sector. I have to wonder which way they will swing on this issue. Do they back up a law that prohibits religion from interfering with federal and state law or do they say defend the 1st Amendment.

In reality, this law does nothing to prevent people from practicing their freedom of religion. It simply removes the possibility of religious or international law being used in Oklahoma courts. Basically, if you perform an honor killing (which Shariah allows for), you cannot be protected from being prosecuted. This would not be the first time that beliefs and religion have been turned down as adequate defenses.

A very interesting case is unfolding in front of us. It will be very interesting watching this play out over the next few months.

The Future of Air Travel Thanks to the TSA

ssegraves

There is no soft spot in my heart for the TSA, in fact, I have posted a lot about my disdain for their methods. After reading Jeffrey Goldberg’s latest piece on The Atlantic, I can’t say I’m holding out hope that things are going to get better any time soon.

Here’s a small excerpt from the article, though the whole thing deserves a read.

The pat-down at BWI was fairly vigorous, by the usual tame standards of the TSA, but it was nothing like the one I received the next day at T.F. Green in Providence. Apparently, I was the very first passenger to ask to opt-out of back-scatter imaging. Several TSA officers heard me choose the pat-down, and they reacted in a way meant to make the ordinary passenger feel very badly about his decision. One officer said to a colleague who was obviously going to be assigned to me, “Get new gloves, man, you’re going to need them where you’re going.”

The take-away from this single paragraph and really the whole article, is that the new pat-downs have little to do with security and a lot to do with intimidating people into using the backscatter machines. When a traveler opts-out of going through the x-ray machines, they will be subjected to a verbal demoralization as well as a pat-down that can be best described as borderline fondling.

Does any of this really increase security? After last week’s events in which explosive materials were found in ink cartridges being shipped to the United States, I would say it is all show and little substance. From what has been reported, the bomb plot was foiled thanks to information from a former Guantanamo Bay prisoner. That’s right, it wasn’t some TSA agent taking away your bottle of water while you got the frisking of a lifetime, it was information. Imagine that.

It may feel like there is not much we can do but I plan on making the TSA agents as uncomfortable as they make me in these situations. Maybe if their own employees complain enough, we’ll see some changes in these new pat-down procedures. Me, I’ll be opting-out of the backscatter every time I am at an airport that uses one. When they ask me why I opted out (had this happen the last couple of times) I am thinking about replying with an overtly sexual remark. Is that wrong? Probably. What’s worse is being groped so much that you finally submit to the backscatter machine.

In all seriousness, the TSA has the upper hand. You and I have destinations to get to and they are the gatekeepers. I have no problem taking out my laptop or taking off my shoes, but this is bordering on the ridiculous. Wait, it is ridiculous. I am sure we could do a much better job of making air travel safe by actually asking questions when people go through security and analyzing facial expressions, demeanor, etc. rather than taking naked pictures of everyone or worse, shaming them in front of others.

Let’s start sending notes to the men and women who work for us in government and ask that a serious look be taken at the procedures used at airports and oversight of the TSA. If someone in either House wants to make this their pet project, I’ll back them 100%.

For those of you who fly out of IAH, you can technically clear security at any checkpoint so long as your airline does not require you to go through a certain one (some international flights do). A number of the checkpoints do not have the backscatter machines, feel free to use those.

Get Out and Vote

ssegraves

Today is the last day of early voting in Texas. If you have early voting in your state today could also be the last day for it.

I don’t care who you vote for but get out there and vote. Read up on your state’s issues, candidates, and news and head to the polls to do your civic duty. November 2nd is election day and midterm elections are just as important as Presidential elections. Get out there and vote!

Racial Predatory Loans Fueled Housing Crisis

ssegraves

A recent study points toward predatory lending practices aimed at minorities as the main reason for the U.S. housing meltdown.

Predatory lending aimed at racially segregated minority neighborhoods led to mass foreclosures that fueled the U.S. housing crisis, according to a new study published in the American Sociological Review.

The financial institutions likely to be found in minority areas tended to be predatory — pawn shops, payday lenders and check cashing services that “charge high fees and usurious rates of interest,” they said in the study.
“By definition, segregation creates minority dominant neighborhoods, which, given the legacy of redlining and institutional discrimination, continue to be underserved by mainstream financial institutions,” the study says.

So it’s those fat cats in their suits that have caused this ruckus.

Sure, I wouldn’t doubt that there is some predatory lending going on out there and it should be severely punished, but I’d bet dollars to donuts that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had some part in this as well. Either by being passive and not informing buyers about predatory loans or by not insuring that lenders did not carry on with such practices.

Education Funding

ssegraves

A quick thought for Tuesday. A lot of the hubbub over education involves funding, or the lack thereof. The notion that education is underfunded is not supported by fact, instead, the facts point the other direction, that federal education spending has seen enormous growth since the 1960s.

Maybe we should be looking at how money is spent rather than how much money is doled out. Being in the education field I can guarantee that there is a lot to learn.

Pass the Peace Pipe Hippie

ssegraves

I’m burned out. Yep, utterly burned out. There is an incessant bickering that I thought was part of the process but it turns out it is just ignorance attempting to out-stupefy the opposite ignorance. In case you have not caught on yet, I’m talking about politics and all of the argumentative and condescending commentary that is out there right now.

There is a time for discourse and we need such discourse to keep things balanced, but as of late, the discourse has turned into a ruckus. Wait, ruckus is too nice of a word, full out brawl is better. We have Glenn Beck making some of the most random comments I’ve heard while on the left there is a general consensus that everyone on the right is a bigoted racist who wants to invade Mexico. All of the chatter is like a giant ray gun pointed at my brain. I just can’t take it anymore.

I thought I could away from it by avoiding television news. I wouldn’t have to listen to Katie Couric read us a page from her notebook or Glenn Beck ramble on about freedoms. I thought I would be able to manage my Twitter account well enough to somewhat block out the continual rants from both sides. It all still trickles in. My primary source of news has long been articles written by actual economists and political science writers but I’m relying on it even more now.

What really amazes me is that people are still ranting about Sarah Palin. Really? If she is as useless and unimportant as people claim she is then if you stop talking about her, maybe she’ll stop being so important. By ranting you’re just perpetuating the whole thing.

That brings me to the issues that currently face the country. A jobs report came out today and it was not good news. The national unemployment rate continues to stay in the 9.5-9.7% range. This is an issue that President Obama and the House and Senate should be discussing fervently. Not pushing agendas, not looking for the best opportunity to drop a sound bite, but simply talking about options. Of course, this is only one issue, there are many others and I think for all of them, realistic discussions in which political prowess does not come into the mix would be a good thing.

The other thing that has my raised my blood pressure significantly lately is all of this talk about the Constitution and people’s rights. There are two camps here, both claiming that their understanding of the Constitution is the right one. To be honest, I think they’re both wrong. One side wants you to believe that the Constitution is a completely living document, open to interpretation and meant to be applied as needed. The other believes the Constitution is a completely strict document that needs to be taken literally. Both of these views go to the extremes. The way I see it is that the Constitution is living, but not in the way most think of it. It was meant to be changed, but only by amending it. It was also meant to be interpreted but not to the extreme that we should break it down to minutia and apply to every single possible permutation of an issue. To do so would not only be time consuming, it would be next to impossible.

What we need is a true understanding of a Constitutional republic. As a nation we have become so much more complicated than when founded, it is making adaptation difficult. It makes me wonder if people still really believe in the concept of states making their own decisions when it comes to politics. If people do then a lot of the bickering seems mighty overblown. We can be positive and yet have discourse if we remember how to actually debate something rather than parrot what our favorite television personality says. We need more readers of history and less of Twitter. We need more action and less activism. We need to grow up a little.

BP Oil Spill – It Could Be Worse

ssegraves

The BP spill is bad, I think we all agree about that, but it could be much, much worse. First, a little umbrella so that people do not poop all over this site because they think I am defending BP. British Petroleum and the companies that worked for them on the Deepwater Horizon are definitely responsible for the spill and should be held accountable. Now that that is out the way I can get on with the purpose of this post.

In 1979 a well named Ixtoc I was being drilled in the Gulf of Campeche about 62 miles offshore. At some point in the operation drilling mud circulation was lost and the well experienced a blowout. The blowout preventer was, at the time, not in line with the drill collars, rendering it ineffective. The spill is almost exactly the same except for the fact that Ixtoc I was in 161 feet of water. In the end, Pemex, the national oil company of Mexico and the owner of the well, lost 3.5 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Rather than paying residents on the coast of Texas who had experienced damage or loss of livelihood, Pemex claimed sovereign immunity and spent only $100 million to clean up the spill.

Ixtoc I Spill

The Ixtoc I spill has gone on record as being the worst accidental spill in history (incidentally, the worst spill in history was Saddam Hussein burning the Kuwaiti oil fields). Until the BP leak is completely sealed up and the areas effected by it cleaned, we will not know the full extent of the damage and how it compares to Ixtoc I, but I am going to guess that Ixtoc I will still take the prize as the worst accidental spill in history.

BP could have done the cowardly thing and run away from this spill much like Pemex did in 1979 but they made a conscience decision to clean it and fix it. Sure, their handling of the issue has been less than perfect, but they could have turned tail and run, leaving the British government to decide what to do. I really wish what was reported on the news was not the same old, “worst disaster in history”, not just because it isn’t true, but because it’s sensationalism at its worst.

A lot of folks are calling for the suspension of deepwater or even offshore drilling and I think that is a poor way to go about the future. The Deepwater Horizon tragedy is the first U.S. offshore spill in 40 years. It was the first offshore spill on a rig anywhere in the world in 20 years. These incidents are few and far between and yes, while there should be more rigorous safety checks on the platforms, the idea that getting rid of offshore drilling would completely rid the world of oil disaster one-offs is absurd. Rather than blaming the oil, blame the people who caused the spill and figure out ways to keep it from happening again.