Unreined

A pattern of deception at Fox News

2011-03-03T17:04:00.005-05:00

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with Fox News as an idea. The conservative cable television station has a place, there is nothing at all wrong with news from a particular viewpoint. In Europe news sources have traditionally reported from a point of view with great success and their readers were no worse off because of it.

I am uncomfortable with Fox News calling themselves 'Fair and Balanced' when they are clearly conservative, pro-Republican and right-wing. The slogan "We report, you decide" smacks of arrogance that the relatively young news source has not yet earned.

If they keep up their recent history of convenient 'errors' that all for some reason end up favoring right-wing candidates and Republicans, they'll cease to be a source of journalism altogether.

In recent years, Fox News has inflated the numbers of people attending political rallies and book signings for conservative politicos.

There are multiple examples of Fox News broadcasting misleading and erroneous graphs that are not reflective of reality. For some reason these errors always seem to favor Republican points of view - whether disparaging President Obama's policies or inflating public response to GOP proposals.

It might not be fair to say all Fox News mistakes are because of their bias and desire to see liberal policies fail. Some are just plain ignorant.

When the network decides to reverse the results of polls to make it seem like Americans favor Republican governors' attempts to curtail collective bargaining rights for public workers, or post polling results that are utterly irrational, one begins to question their motives.

The problem with Fox is that they are now responsible for a generation of misinformed people who are willing to accept falsehoods as truth, all in the name of their political ideology. That should be a crime against the intellect. How can a democracy function if the media is telling people bald-faced lies and spinning important issues in an unethical manner to prevent honest debate? Fox is the most watched news network in the country, and its viewers are the most misinformed people in the country.

In the worst cases, Fox's editorial mistakes appear to be both racially and politically motivated.

Our neighbors to the north have prevented organizations like NewsCorp from dominating their airwaves by making it illegal to lie in a news broadcast. Perhaps we should do the same here, in the name of preserving the craft and profession of journalism and keeping it separate from entertainment.

Every time Fox writes or broadcasts an error, they damage our democracy as well as their credibility. We have a whole legion of politically motivated but terribly misinformed Fox News viewers out there who insist that they must be right because the 'mainstream media' has a liberal bias, and Fox does not. If Fox is purposefully lying to these folks, then there are dangerously ignorant people out there with the power to vote.

Charlie Sheen + Family Circus = Perfection

2011-03-03T16:53:00.002-05:00

This is the most awesome thing going right now on Blogspot.

A Matter of Choice

2011-03-03T16:25:00.003-05:00

Whether Democrats like it or not, there is always a chance that the 2012 elections will put a Republican into the White House. The GOP has a responsibility to nominate a credible candidate for President. I think Mitt Romney is the only potential Republican candidate who is prepared to lead this country.

In the past election, the choice of Senator John McCain (R-AZ) was a good one on the surface. McCain ran unsuccessfully for the nomination several times and had experience on the campaign trail. He was a political moderate known for his ability to reach across the aisle and compromise with Democrats, and he had credible foreign policy experience. McCain was also known as a shrewd, intelligent individual that approached the challenges of governing with gravitas and dignity.

John McCain went awry when he selected an utterly unqualified person like Sarah Palin as his running mate. Sarah Palin represents everything wrong with the Republican Party - willfully ignorant, politically incompetent, it seems like every time Mrs. Palin opens her mouth she does more harm than good. Sarah Palin cost Senator McCain his election and making the mistake of nominating a candidate like her would surely cost the GOP again.

When I look at the field of Republican potentials today, I don't see many individuals who live up to our standards - most candidates resemble Sarah Palin more than they resemble John McCain.

For one thing, ideologues like Ron Paul have no place in the White House. They are utterly incapable of hammering out the compromises that lead to signed legislation and strong diplomacy. Leaders make compromises that most people don't like, accept the blame for them and then present said compromises to their consituents in a manner that makes them acceptable. I can't imagine Ron Paul making a compromise, let alone presenting it to the people in an acceptable manner.

On the other hand, you have leaders like Newt Gingrich who have the intellect and gravitas to sit in the Oval Office but lack the strength of character to be head of state.

Then you have some candidates that are just unacceptable because of their views on race and religion. Southern governors like Haley Barbour (R-MS) and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee fall into this category.

The most qualified potential GOP candidate in the field is also the most popular one - which may stand as proof that the Republican Party is not the mass of hardline fools that many liberals try to portray them to be. Mitt Romney's moderate, nuanced points of view are always backed up by a torrent of logic and data. In debate he would be every bit the match for President Obama.

Romney has had the experience of being a Republican governing one of the most Democratic states in the country, Massachussetts. He successfully passed a health care reform law that mirrors Obama's own, and defended it against his critics. Not only that, Romney is also an experienced business man who can hold his own in economic discussions. If Obama must go down in defeat in Novemeber 2012, Romney is the only one who could credibly claim to be a better leader than him.

This is now a Libyan Civil War.

2011-03-02T13:23:00.005-05:00

Robert Fisk today has an eye-opening story in The Independent about the state of Libya. He speaks of near chaos on the border as 10s of thousands try to leave the country beleaguered by internal conflict for over two weeks. What authorities remain there try to keep refugees supplied with water and food. In the mean time, state media within Libya continues to repeat the assertion that the global press is lying about conditions in the North African country and that the protests were small, localized disturbances encouraged by al Qaeda and hallucinogenic drugs.

Opposition protesters have received weapons training, according to Al Jazeera English, and have volunteered to march on Tripoli. The leaders and organizers of the anti-Gaddafi forces have for the time being decided to fortify and garrison the town of Benghazi.

In the meantime, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, Libya's leader, clings to power and title in the capitol of Tripoli. Today he addressed the public with a rambling, two-hour speech in which he reiterated that the protests were encouraged by al Qaeda and claimed that he was the only barrier preventing terrorism from entering southern and western Europe.

Gaddafi forces have engaged the opposition in brutal ground assaults, briefly retaking the city of Brega before the opposition apparently took it back. Though the opposition has the arsenal and numbers to protect itself from ground attack it has no answer to the Libyan air force which has inflicted casualties on protesters in support of Colonel Gaddafi. Gaddafi is also attacking oil producing areas in order to put economic pressure on the West.

As the border system collapses and panic sweeps over some of the population, the opposition stands strong, and Colonel Gaddafi is still in denial. Gaddafi still has a military force of around 10,000 trained troops, and anti-Gaddafi forces have more numbers but less firepower. Neither side recognized the authority of the other, and neither has sovereignty over Libya at this particular moment. Therefore, I conclude that we are witnessing a civil war.

Is asking whether Obama has purposefully raised gas prices a stupid question?

2011-03-02T12:48:00.003-05:00

Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi raised eyebrows today by accusing President Barack Obama of pursuing policies that will drive up the price of oil.

Barbour was quoted in a Huffington Post article:

"This administration's policies have been designed to drive up the cost of energy in the name of reducing pollution, in the name of making very expensive alternative fuels more economically competitive," said Barbour in a speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington, DC

I'm not sure if this goes anywhere from here. The recent spike in oil prices has been caused by conflict in the Middle East. The Obama Administration has always taken great pains to frame their policies in encouraging alternative energy research and expanding public transportation as designed to ween the United States off of its dependence on Middle Eastern Oil. Barbour's accusations don't hold much water.

The more I think about it, the more I wonder where these alternative fuels that Barbour claims Obama is trying to push are. As far as I have seen, Obama has been compromising to use traditional fuels in more environmentally friendly ways. The White House has been a verbal proponent of clean coal power and exploration and cars with better fuel economy - policies that should drive down the cost of energy, not increase it.

I fail to see what political gain the Obama Administration would have for driving up the price of oil. Even if you oppose their policies, it isn't wise to assume that the administration is stupid.

Barbour claiming that Obama is purposely driving up the price of oil is like me claiming that Barbour caused Hurricane Katrina to hit his state in 2005 - purely ludicrous.

Libya may be on brink of humanitarian crisis

2011-03-01T13:12:00.004-05:00

The situation in Libya has disintegrated since my last update. The north African country's authoritarian leader, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, is under fire from the diplomatic community and literally from his own people. Diplomatic and economic sanctions have been imposed by the UN and individual member-countries after Libyan diplomats withdrew support from Gaddafi's regime.

Protests have rocked the country for two weeks, and an all out rebellion has broken out with the resistance taking control of large portions of the country.It is unclear how much of Libya Gaddafi is in control of at this point, but he remains convinced that he is still in control of his country.

Al Jazeera has carried stories about groceries in Tripoli running out of food. Throughout the country protests continue relentless pressure on Col. Gaddafi to step down, however the inflation of food prices might extract a higher toll that the violence of the regime.

Gaddafi is refusing to relinquish control. Today he sent armed mercenaries to confront the demonstrations in cities in the east of Libya. There are no credible estimates as to the number of dead. Unlike Egypt, there are very few journalists freely operating in Libya, restricting the flow of good information from the country.

In the mean time, Libyan protesters are making one thing very clear to the west: they want control of their own country on their own terms, something that would be impossible with western interference. Nevertheless, it does look like a consensus is building to create a no-fly zone. I think that combined with humanitarian aid, such a measured response would not be inappropriate.

Is demonizing unions fair?

2011-03-01T12:17:00.004-05:00

With the ongoing protests in Wisconsin against budget cuts proposed by Republican Governor Scott Walker and a law that severely curtails the right of public employees to collectively bargain for better working conditions, the value of labor unions is once again an issue before the country. It is disturbing to see the decline in support for unions in America.

Those on the right generally oppose the labor union ideal, though for what reason exactly is difficult to find. Many root their arguments in the economic freedoms of business owners, whom Republicans argue should be able to run their business without interference from the government. However, there is also a long tradition of union support for the Democratic party, which has added a very political element to the GOP's opposition to labor unions.

I find it difficult to come up with a credible argument against the formation and existence of labor unions in the United States. Their very presence is just a continuation of the democratic, liberal values of the American revolution. The revolution was about asserting an individual's political independence from the tyrannical domination of a king. In the same manner, labor organizing into unions is asserting the individual's economic independence from the domination of wealth.

Labor unions give individual working people with little influence power to join together and speak with one voice to negotiate with the owners and operators of their respective industries. We, as citizens, vote on representatives to speak for us in legislatures. In the same manner working people should be allowed to vote for representatives to speak for them at the bargaining table where labor contracts are hammered out.

There is a stereotype in the United States of labor unions as a tool to negotiate for ridiculous concessions. Union members are portrayed as lazy, overpaid and coddled. This simply isn't true. Unions, using the collective power of labor, have led to the laws that shape our culture.

If not for unions, we would not have the 40 hour work week and the 8 hour work day. We would not have laws to prevent child labor. Our workplaces would be unsafe, and there would be no restitution for work missed while sick or injured, and workers could not miss days to care for injured or ill family members. There would be no minimum wage law. No one would make overtime pay. Laborers could be forced to live on property owned by their company, and required to buy products from a company store.

Remember the sacrifices that were made for labor rights - labor leaders endured violence and the threat of murder. Laws were changed to imprison union leaders. Many of them were incorrectly labeled communists and provocateurs and blacklisted. The struggle that gave individuals the right to form groups to negotiate for better conditions in their workplace was a direct descendent of the American Revolution and an ancestor to the American Civil Rights movement.

Unions have done for working people what democracy did for voting people. To abolish unions - or even curtail their rights - would be like appointing someone president for life or denying Americans the right to vote for their legislators. It would be like going back to Jim Crow laws and repealing the 19th Amendment. Opposing labor unions is - dare I say it - the very definition of being unamerican.

Political Parties playing chicken with budget cuts, shutdown

2011-02-28T20:32:00.004-05:00

The battles over budgets continue in state capitols like Madison, Wisconsin as well as in the United States Congress in Washington D.C., where an impasse on the budget could lead to a government shutdown if no action is taken before March 4 - which is this Saturday.

Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) are trying to hammer out a stop-gap measure compromise that would fund the government for two weeks with deep budget cuts. If this compromise is passed with the deep cuts intact, the GOP will likely try continue them.

At stake right now are hundreds of thousands of jobs and the very stability of the American economy. If the budget cuts that many representatives seek are indeed passed, it would likely mean another recession for the American people. Coupled with rising gas prices, the economic well-being of our country may be at risk.

On the other hand, the current level of deficit spending is not sustainable. Efforts must be undertaken to generate more revenue and necessitate less spending. Cutting 700,000 jobs does not, on the surface, sound like the best option available to our elected representatives.

However, if both sides fail to compromise and a shutdown occurs, losses are inevitable. Border security will cease to exist. Immigration and customs officials will be furloughed, slowing legal entry into the US, even of American citizens.

A government shutdown will furlough hundreds of thousands of federal employees without pay. This will result in millions of dollars being withdrawn from the economy. In the short term, a shutdown is bad news for the whole country.

Veterans benefits will not be paid out and VA hospitals may close their doors. Our veterans will also lose their access to welfare, transportation, health care and social security programs

If a government shutdown becomes a long-term issue, social security checks may not be mailed out and the post office itself might cease to function. Money for active military personnel and military infrastructure will not be paid out, leaving our troops hungry and in the dark.

I'm not sure if many of the supporters of federal and state budget cuts have given much thought to what their tax dollars actually pay for. Teachers, roads, bridges, school buildings, traffic lights, buses, trains, ports, harbors, border crossings, health clinics, military, security, the electrical grid, the best educational programming on the planet, water safety testing and consumer safety agencies are all funded by municipal, state and federal budgets.

If we cut funding, we will inevitably lose some of these services. We can't afford to lose them, the cost to the middle class is too great, and it is ignorant to expect private industry to pick up the slack for services that our government already provides efficiently in a not-for-profit manner. One has to question why we are cutting programs and destroying jobs that help and benefit the middle and working classes just weeks after passing tax cuts that go mostly to those making over $250,000 per year.

Reid and Boehner need to stop their partisan game of chicken and come to a deal that continues current funding levels for government programs and prevents any government shutdown.

US Gov't to Gaddafi: Will You Please Go Now?

2011-02-28T17:05:00.004-05:00

Finally, after days of seeking international consensus and patiently escalating sanctions, the Obama Administration has called for Muammar Gaddafi to step down from the Libyan presidency and leave his country.

This statement may be a little late in the game as Gaddafi has already seen most of his country fall into opposition hands. The opposition movement now plans a march on the capitol, Tripoli.

The statement by Secretary of State Clinton comes after the United States failed to publically call for the end of regimes in Egypt and Tunisia. It is unclear whether the American statements will affect conditions within Libya, however it may lead to more international cooperation to increase external pressures on Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, his family and his associates.

The success of the Libyan revolution comes in the face of violent attacks from the regime upon the protesters, including air strikes, tank battles and hired thugs imported from other west-African countries to enter Libyan cities and brutalize pro-democracy groups.

The End of an Era

2011-02-28T13:05:00.003-05:00

Frank Buckles, the United States' last World War I veteran, died over the weekend at the age of 110. According to MSNBC, there are now only two of the 65 million participants in World War I alive, a 109-year-old Australian man and a 110-year-old British woman.

World War I was a major turning point in history. The rise of nationalism overturned old monarchical and dictatorial regimes and empires. The Great War saw the end of the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empire. The aftermath of the war saw Germany hit with sanctions that would become one of the leading explainers for the rise of Naziism and World War II.

Today's young people may be seeing a similar change in the world with successful revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia and revolt brewing in Bahrain, Libya and Algeria. Regimes like North Korea, Iran, Syria and Jordan also show signs of crumbling.

Just as the first 20 years of last century recast the world in a new nationalistic, post-colonial mold, the first 20 years of this century seem to be doing the same.

The best protest sign ever.

2011-02-25T19:20:00.001-05:00

If Scott Walker and Wisconsin Republicans fire scores of teachers, Pedobear will gladly lend a hand!

A Sea of People in Bahrain

2011-02-25T13:39:00.003-05:00

In Bahrain friday large numbers of pro-democracy protesters marched through the city to the Pearl Roundabout.

They mourned the killing of 7 of their fellow protesters last week, honoring them by re-naming the intersection 'Martyrs' Roundabout'

Gaddafi promises to arm counter-protesters

2011-02-25T13:10:00.003-05:00

The situation in Libya continues to be in apparent flux. It is difficult to assess from my comfortable vantage point in the United States whether the country is deteriorating or stabilizing, but one thing is clear, it is not going its beseiged leader's way.

Today Muammar Gaddafi gave another chilling address to the people of Libya at the Green Square in Tripoli, where he promised to

defeat any aggression if necessary and arm the people ... prepare to defend Libya. Prepare to defend petrol, prepare to defend dignity

The square was filled with what appeared to be supporters of Colonel Gaddafi.

In the mean time, reports have come in to BBC Arabic that Gaddafi's control in Libya has been reduced to parts of Tripoli. The list of diplomats that have defected from the regime is expanding, and the Libyan missions to the Arab League and the United Nations no longer fly the all-green flag of Gaddafi, but the red, black and green flag of the rebellion.

Recently, on Twitter, some users report that 50,000 protesters have begun a march onto Tripoli.

If these reports are true, these could be the final hours of the Gaddafi regime.

Wisconsin crank call went too far.

2011-02-25T02:04:00.004-05:00

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker was punked by a crank call from Ian Murphy, a blogger and 'new journalist' from the Buffalo Beast - details of that call can be found in a previous post.

Though many are disturbed that Governor Walker admitted to considering using violence and intimidation to end the protests, and that Walker would take phone calls from the billionaire tycoon and Tea Party founder Koch brothers but not his own state senators, I think the real issue here is the so-called journalist who used lies and deception to access governor Walker.

Ian Murphy is not a journalist. Any blogger who wishes to be called a journalist should still abide by the standards of ethics that all good journalists abide by.

The Society of Professional Journalists, in its Code of Ethics, argues that journalists should be 'honest, fair, and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting news.'

Mr. Murphy fails the honesty test. The information derived from his fake conversation with Governor Walker was drawn from deceit that makes my entire profession look bad. Publicatons like the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal would fire a reporter for stooping to such methods.

When seeking out interviews, journalists should never misrepresent their name or affiliation. If politicians or private citizens decline to speak with us, that is indeed their right, as it is our freedom to report their 'non-statements' and to continue to try to contact them.

I believe the Buffalo Beast website owes Governor Walker - and the entire profession of journalism - an apology for their dishonesty.

On the other hand, it is surprisingly easy to prank Wisconsin's governor.

Gaddafi's claims simply don't add up

2011-02-25T01:54:00.003-05:00

As reported here and elsewhere, Muammar Gaddafi is blaming al Qaeda for drugging the pro-democracy demonstrators in Libya and provoking them into revolt.

If we avoid coming to the conclusions that Colonel Gaddafi is either deranged or lying, there's still little evidence that the Libyan revolution has been orchestrated or inspired by al Qaeda.

Consider al Qaeda's disposition throughout the world - small cells of terrorists lying in wait, using the resources of their host country to create effective attacks to inspire fear in the heart of the west. Not only is Libya not part of the west, but the protests and revolt happening there involve a very large portion of the population.

Also we should look at al Qaeda's preferred method of attack - using improvised explosive devices, assault parties using small arms, and suicide bombers. When one looks at the rebels on the streets of Libyan cities, there are large masses of people - hardly evident of al Qaeda-like tactics at work.

So Colonel Gaddafi's claims do not hold water. The revolt in Libya shows none of the signs of al Qaeda sponsored or inspired violence. On the surface, it doesn't even seem to be Islamist in character.

Gas prices back to $4/gallon this summer?

2011-02-24T12:23:00.003-05:00

As parts of the Middle East struggle through democratic revolutions, oil prices have surged over $100 a barrel.

Though the countries experiencing unrest do not export large quantities of oil to the United States, gas prices have risen 12 cents a gallon over the past ten days. The democratic revolutions are occurring close to countries that export oil to the US, many of which depend on the stability of autocratic regimes who are at odds with their population over questions of legitimacy.

Countries like Libya also export oil to other areas around the world, like Europe. As the flow of oil from Libya slows to a trickle, Europe now has to seek oil from other sources. A smaller supply of oil has to accommodate increasing global demand, leading to higher prices.

Some experts are predicting that the average cost at the pump for Americans will reach $4 a gallon.

Skyrocketing fuel costs will have both an economic and a political impact on the US.

First, the prices will severely harm the budget of ordinary Americans. Middle and working class people will have less disposable income. As the cost of moving goods throughout the country increases, shelf prices for food and materials will also mushroom. As a people, Americans will spend less money on entertainment, tourism and luxury goods. While some sectors of the economy will weather the storm or even flourish, it will not offset the impact that the burden of fuel prices will have on the American consumer. In short, the fragile economic recovery is in serious risk.

Second, there will be pressure on Congress to examine measures to reduce the dependence on foreign oil. The Republican House of Representatives may find itself forced to reluctantly embrace programs promoted by the president and the Democratic party like Amtrak, High Speed Rail, and alternative fuel research.

What is clear is that this problem could be solved if Americans were encouraged to use other forms of transportation besides their cars. Some economists and politicians are floating using a $1 gas tax increase to both fund transit and rail programs and get people out of their cars and onto bicycles, sidewalks, buses and trains. Current gasoline tax levels are not enough to fund the insufficient transportation funding in the federal budget now.

Regime, Gaddafi's sanity crumble

2011-02-24T10:48:00.003-05:00

Anti-regime protesters in Libya are gaining ground against government forces that appear to be made up of the remnants of the Libyan military still loyal to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi and hired mercenaries imported into the country from outside its borders.

Earlier today the pro-democracy crowds claimed Libya's third-largest city, Misurati, giving them a high-population stronghold in the western part of the country. Reports from Al Jazeera English and CNN's Ben Wedeman have confirmed that the protesters also control the eastern border of the country shared with Egypt and that thousands of refugees have crossed over the past few days.

In the mean time, the forces of Colonel Gaddafi's regime continue to attack the once peaceful protesters, who have taken up arms in defense. The protests continue to spread and grow despite the regime's tight control over the media, communications networks and other infrastructure in the country. As the international community tries to find a consensus on how to protect or help the pro-democracy movement from the regime's forces, Gaddafi's grasp on his sanity appears to be loosening.

In his latest speech, mysteriously given by telephone, Gaddafi claims that the protesters are drugged 'children' under the influence of al Qaeda. The Colonel has been unwilling to acknowledge that the rebellion is a popularly organized movement of Libyans who no longer want his leadership. Gaddafi's statements have become more erratic and his appearance has deteriorated as he has lost control of Libya.

Middle East expert, scholar and historian Juan Cole estimates that the protesters now control 90 percent of Libya.

The GOP answers the Dems olive branch with an insult.

2011-02-24T00:44:00.004-05:00

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-AZ) proposed a compromise with the Republican party that would fund the government for 30 days. The proposal would be a stop-gap measure as current government funding will stop on March 4th. Congress has not yet passed a budget for this year as the Republican Party has been reluctant to negotiate on spending cuts.

After proposing a widely maligned revised budget that would trim $61 billion of spending over 7 months, Speaker John Boehner and the Republican majority in the House have now brought a stop-gap measure to the table. The new measures would prevent a government shut down and trim $4 billion from the federal budget.

That is $2 billion a week in savings. House Republicans have not budged an inch on their plan to reduce the federal deficit by ending federal programs. The proposed reduction and elimination of government services would help fund the Bush tax cuts, which will cost the United States an estimated $4 trillion in revenue over the next 10 years.

To Harry Reid's credit, his proposal continues the $41 billion in cuts that the two parties agreed to back in December. However, it is clear that both parties have a long way to go before even a temporary stop-gap measure is agreed upon.

If House Republicans and Senate Democrats fail to compromise before March 4th, a shutdown will occur.

UPDATE: Scott Walker Punked by crank call

2011-02-23T14:08:00.002-05:00

Though this isn't journalism, it reveals some important things about Scott Walker and what is going on behind the scenes in the Wisconsin budget/union protests. Thanks to Crooks and Liars for the info.

Here's the juicier details, thanks to HuffPo.

In essence, Walker pretty much admits he is conspiring with other GOP officials to deny Democrats their paychecks and to force the protesters into a stalemate where they'll have to give in to him on the budget matter. He also admits to contemplating planting pro-conservative individuals among the protesters.

It was recently announced that Scott Walker will address his state at 2:30 p.m. central time.

For Gaddafi, it is only a matter of time

2011-02-23T11:08:00.002-05:00

The long reign of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, ruler of Libya for 41 years, is likely coming to a close. Earlier today military officials declared their support for the people of Libya against Colonel Gaddafi, declaring him a tyrant. CNN's Ben Wedemen reports that the military is arming protesters in some cities.

Throughout the country violence continues as pro-government forces crack down on the protesters. Despite crackdowns that have included the use of tanks and bombs and have killed over 1,000 according to reports, protesters remain on the streets. Several more Libyan cities have fallen.

In the mean time, western countries are scrambling to withdraw their citizens from the north African nation and European countries are preparing to take in refugees.

Throughout the country, the green flag of the Gaddafi regime is being replaced by the red, black and green flag that flew in Libya before his coup.

In response to the crisis, the UN Security Council has called for the Libyan government to stop the use of force against protesters as a rapid increase in oil prices threatens to cripple an already weak global economy.

Is the Wisconsin battle really just a power grab?

2011-02-23T10:35:00.002-05:00

Now that the Wisconsin budget battles are in their second week, more is becoming clear as to what actually precipitated Governor Scott Walker and the state's Republican legislative caucus to propose a sweeping budget reduction coupled with elimination of collective bargaining rights for public sector employees. Chances are, it wasn't to reduce deficits or even stab at the heart of a traditional political enemy to the GOP, but it might still be about the bottom line.

According to some research into the legislation, it appears that it is designed to facilitate the sale of public utilities to subsidiaries of Koch Enterprises. The Koch brothers are the primary financiers behind the Tea Party movement, largely responsible for the election of highly conservative politicians like Scott Walker. If this research is proved true, then Scott Walker is using the budget crisis to kick back lucrative utility purchases to the Kochs in return for their support during the campaign.

Though it appears that the Democrats are winning the battles, both in the state capitol and in the hearts and minds of their constituents over the value of collective bargaining rights. A majority appears to support the protesters - however, Scott Walker and the Republican delegation the Wisconsin State Senate might be willing to scrap the collective bargaining issue in order to let their sweetheart deal for the Koch Brothers to go through.

Interesting Parallels in Wisconsin, Indiana and Ohio

2011-02-22T20:33:00.004-05:00

Tough times abound in Wisconsin, Indiana and Ohio. All three states are experiencing major budget crunches, and in all three rust belt states pro-union demonstrators have entrenched themselves in state capitols to protest bills that would strip collective bargaining rights from public workers. These workers include teachers, sanitation workers and other municipal employees.

Though other public servants like police and firefighters have been exempted from some versions of these bills, they have attended protests in solidarity with the teachers.

In Wisconsin, some of the tactics used by controversial new governor Scott Walker mirror those used by dictators in the Middle East facing pro-democracy protests. I hesitate to make these comparisons, as the demonstrators in the Middle East face existential danger and often oppose well-entrenched, ruthless dictators. I don't think Governor Walker is a bloody dictator.

Some of his tactics are questionable though.

In Madison, on the capitol grounds, protesters have been unable to access one of their organizing websites for the past 24 hours. Though it is clear that previously this site was accessable, Governor Walker's administration claims that it is standard procedure for all 'new' sites to be screened before being made available to those using the internet on capitol grounds.

Walker has also made several defiant speeches in which he shows disdain for the will of his constituents. He also refused to acknowledge the protests as a genuine movement in his own state, attributing their numbers and success to 'outside influences'.

Other members of the government have found governor Walker's policies and behavior so offensive that they have left the state. Democratic State Senators in Indiana followed suit today.

Finally, Governor Scott Walker seems completely unable to compromise to come up with a solution, instead following what seems to have become an unfortunate GOP trademark: petulant, childish stubborness.

Next up, likely budget protests of a similar sort in Michigan and New Jersey.

Muammar Gaddafi speaks defiantly

2011-02-22T11:29:00.005-05:00

Less than 30 minutes ago Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi addressed his people. In a somewhat disjointed speech marked by awkward pauses, Gaddafi promised to stay in power. He also accused the protesters in Libya of being on drugs and referred to them as rats.

According to Al Jazeera English, Gaddafi then called for his supporters to ""Get out of your homes, secure the streets, get the greasy rats out of the streets!"

This comes after a massive crackdown on protesters that many have blamed either Colonel Gaddafi or his son, Sa'if al-Islam Gaddafi, for ordering. Reports from the streets of Tripoli have claimed that those attacking Libyan demonstrators are not native to Libya, but appear to be mercenaries hired from Chad or Niger.

So unlike Egypt, where the military eventually refused to fire on its own people and turned against the regime, in Libya the regime has hired outsiders so that the ethical choice of killing ones own countrymen does not come into play.

In the mean time, Libyan diplomats continue to flee the regime. Iran has halted its oil activities in the country and is moving to withdraw its people within the next 36 hours. The anti-Gaddafi protesters have taken control of the eastern border and Libya and refugees from the conflict are now pouring into Egypt.

CNN's Ben Wedeman crossed the same border last night, becoming the only western journalist that I know of within Libya at this time.

Finally, the group Anonymous, a loose coalition of online hackers and troublemakers, have condemned the Gaddafi regime and have called for the UN to establish a no-fly zone over Libya in order to protect the protesters from government-sponsored violence.

Colonel Gaddafi has vowed to die like a martyr. His wish may yet come true.

UPDATE 1208 EST : Gaddafi closes a rambling speech that lasts over an hour by promising to lead those loyal to him in an effort to 'purify' Libya.

Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Obama's Rib

2011-02-22T10:57:00.002-05:00

Always eager to get his name in the blogs and on the 24-hour cable news networks, Rush Limbaugh took some time during his show to criticize Michelle Obama's dietary choices while skiing at Vail, Colorado. Limbaugh, a fan of hyperbole, argued that it was hypocritical for Michelle Obama to eat a rib after championing healthier eating to combat obesity, especially childhood obesity.

Regardless of how hypocritical the portly Limbaugh's criticism of Michelle Obama's dietary choice might seem, the fact remains that his criticism is wrong. Had he done some research he might have found that the First Lady's dinner at Vail wasn't unhealthy at all and was actually called for due to her activity level.

Rush Limbaugh suggesting that someone else is unhealthy and fat isn't just hypocrisy - it is delicious, delicious irony.

Wisconsin teachers outsmart the governor

2011-02-21T22:19:00.002-05:00

Tomorrow is day seven of the pro-education, anti-budget cut protests in Wisconsin. Over the weekend a small crowd of Tea Party activists attended the protests in support of Governor Scott Walker, but they were overwhelmed by the teachers and their supporters who outnumbered the conservatives by over 10 to 1.

Ghaddafi Punishes Libya

2011-02-21T19:59:00.002-05:00

It seems to be the end of the line for Muammar Ghaddafi. Cabinet members and diplomats are fleeing his administration. Demonstrations and counter-protests have rocked every population center in Libya, and the 41-year dictator is clinging to power. Around the world Libyans and leaders are calling for him to step down.

Instead of heeding the calls of his people, Ghaddafi has sent jets and tanks to attack his own people. Al Jazeera English posted this a couple of hourse ago on their live blog:

12:34am: Images of bodies gutted in the attacks are too harrowing to be shown. Our colleagues on the TV side of the newsroom have had to pixellate the bloodied bodies, where limbs have been hacked off and torsos maimed.

In the mean time, BP and other oil companies are moving to shut down their operations within Libya and move their staff out of the country, which many fear may be slipping into civil war. This will no doubt cause oil prices to surge - Libya is in the top 10 of oil producing countries and is the third largest supplier of oil to the EU. Lower oil supply will drive prices, already at 2 year highs, to new maximums.

Given the reported atrocities that Ghaddafi is incurring on the Libyan people combined with the economic impact of a new oil crunch, some western leaders are no doubt considering whether some sort of intervention is necessary to prevent a long-term conflict.

Presidential aspirations fall short on foreign policy.

2011-02-21T14:31:00.003-05:00

Potential GOP presidential frontrunners have levelled criticism towards the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama on all areas of policy. Some of this criticism is quite legitimate and should be taken seriously. It is true that, regardless of the quality of his reasons, President Obama is overseeing the largest federal budget deficit in history. However, these critics fail to acknowledge that the budget is merely proposed by the White House - it is actually crafted and passed into law by Congress.

One area where the White House does have power to shape policy is foreign affairs. The Obama Administration inherited a world thrown off balance by the pre-emptive military actions undertaken by the previous administration and by a prolonged economic downturn that has affected all corners of the globe.

This downturn has created instability in some of the emerging countries in the Middle East, including Egypt, Iran and Libya. As demonstrations spread across the region, the president's policy has become clear - urge governments not to respond to legitimate protests with violence, but do not overtly support the overthrow of established regimes. In this way Obama has walked a fine line between supporting American allies in the region and supporting what appear to be pro-democracy protests.

Obama's potential opponents, however, have not fared as well and appear incoherent on Middle Eastern policy, torn between the pro-Israel neoconservative policies of the Bush Administration and the pseudo-isolationist paleoconservative policies of Republicans in the past.

Newt Gingrich was one of the first Republicans to publically fall on the foriegn policy sword, exclaiming that the Obama administration was 'amateurish' on Egypt while also claiming that the response raises trust issues with our allies, clearly coming out in opposition to emerging democracies in the Middle East. Gingrich widely supported the previous administration that sought to spread democracy in the Middle East through unprovoked attacks on the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Then Sarah Palin got in on the fun, picking up on a meme from the 2008 Democratic Primary claiming that Obama missed an important '3 am phone call' about the disorder in the Middle East. The faulty assumption that Palin and many others made about the Egyptian protest is that they were somehow connected to the Muslim Brotherhood, and that the Muslim Brotherhood is somehow directly connected to today's terrorists that target western powers. This is what happens when you open your mouth and make a statement from a position of near-ignorance.

Tim Pawlenty and Mike Huckabee both made the same mistake as Sarah Palin, convinced through what is at best ignorance, at worst racism, that all Muslim protesters in Egypt were associated with the Muslim Brotherhood and that somehow constituted a threat to the United States. This could become a campaign issue - do we really want leaders who tilt at windmills? Does the Republican Party really want to nominate a candidate who knows so little about the Middle East and who makes inflamatory statements without checking their own facts?

The only GOP potential to respond in a remotely presidential manner on the Egypt affair was Mitt Romney, who withheld judgement and showed some diplomatic tact, even though he vaguely criticized Obama's foreign policies.

In the mean time, as a party, the GOP opposes international conflict resolution forums like the UN, opposes cooperative global nuclear disarmament and fails to present a coherent foreign policy at all - some candidates don't even grasp the basic geography of our planet - and their punditry is not improving their image.

Here come the planes.

2011-02-21T13:20:00.005-05:00

Reports coming out of Tripoli of airstrikes by the Libyan government against protesters. One activist estimates 250 killed within the last 24 hours, a total that would double the more recent 'official' estimates coming from the country.

Elsewhere, the reports of airstrikes is confirmed as two Libyan pilots refused their orders to fire on the crowds and flew to Malta declaring their intentions to defect.

UPDATE 13:50 EST now reports of doctors being shot, fires throughout Tripoli. Also, it seems that the Libyan diplomatic corps are resigning en masse and joining the dissent against Ghaddafi's government.

...and now, Libya

2011-02-21T10:53:00.004-05:00

Today the northern African nation of Libya stands on the brink of revolution after pro-democracy protests in Egypt and Tunisia succeeded in recent weeks. The revolt started with demonstrations against the 41-year dictatorship of Muammar al-Ghaddafi in the Libyan town of Benghazi. Since the protests began last week, they have grown in power and support, sweeping into the capitol of Tripoli.

Today's reports put the protest death toll estimates somewhere between 230 and 400 people. The secret police of Ghaddafi's regime have been far less hesitant to use force against the protesters. Despite the show of violence by the regime, recent reports claim military defections to the protesters' side and government buildings in the capitol on fire.

Ghaddafi's son appeared on television to try to put down the protests, claiming the country would be hurled toward civil war and that the protests were to create an Islamic emirate in Libya.

Though Libya has very high oil revenues, the country also suffers more than 20% unemployment, one of the factors that contributed to the fall of the regimes in neighboring Tunisia and Egypt.

Bahrain Explodes

2011-02-18T22:00:00.003-05:00

The small Persian Gulf country of Bahrain has witnessed anti-monarchy protests against the government of the Khalifa family there. The situation inside the key US ally escalated as the government opened fire on protesters yesterday, killing 3 and injuring many.

Today the protesters returned to the Pearl Roundabout, a location that has become their country's Tahrir Square, only to be assaulted once more by government forces. These assaults come despite requests from the United States that the Khalifa family show mercy and tolerance for the peaceful protesters. This chilling tweet from the New York Times Nicholas Kristof came amidst the chaos:

Panicked crowds running thru hospital after police attack. Drs rushing to ER. Tear gas grenades outside, wafting in.

Clearly, the United States is in another bind - support peace and democracy and lose a key ally, or support violent dictators and keep an important geostrategic foothold in the Persian Gulf?

Photo thanks to Al Jazeera English, whose excellent live blog can be found here.

Workers, citizens protest austerity measures in Wisconsin

2011-02-18T20:05:00.004-05:00

In Wisconsin, an alliance of teachers, private sector employees, and the Democratic Party have united to fight against proposed budget cuts and an anti-union bill before the Wisconsin state Senate. This might be a taste to come for possible national protests over draconian budget cuts proposed by the GOP and their TEA Party allies.

These protests echo the anti-austerity measure protests in Greece just a year ago, however the United States budgetary and fiscal situation is no where near as dire as that suffered by our European allies, despite the fact that our spending cuts are more extensive than the ones protested over there.

Also interesting is the budget battle occuring in the US House of Representatives, where the Republican Party is splitting apart over how deep their spending cuts should go. Recently, they moved NOT to cut a federal program that spent tax dollars sponsoring NASCAR drivers - but they still want to cut education, health care, and transportation.

The noted UK magazine The Economist has gone so far to call the GOP's deficit reduction efforts 'A Farce' - a political show using budget deficits as an excuse to attack the so-called enemies that stand in the face of conservative ideology - function government programs that provide a net benefit to the society the serve.

Pearl Roundabout, Manama, Bahrain before the police attacked

2011-02-17T16:03:00.002-05:00

This was a peaceful protest before the government used tear gas, clubs and bullets on its own people.

This photo is from Al Jazeera English and is published here with attribution per their creative commons copyright.

The economy is recovering, why not the people?

2011-02-17T12:19:00.002-05:00

The economy is clearly recovering and experiencing accelerating growth. GDP growth estimates are up for the year and the US Dollar is trading better on currency exchanges.

Corporate profits are up sharply, but employment is not. Nevertheless, it is clear that the US is doing better economically than in the recent past and that the relief and recovery measures signed by presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama are responsible for our gains.

With corporations raking int he cash you might ask why jobs aren't being created and why the living conditions of the working class aren't improving. With leaner governments - millions of federal, state and municipal employees have lost their jobs over the past 10 years - there are fewer jobs, less spending and smaller incentive for businesses to hire on additional workers. Corporate profit is accumulated, not trickled down. The stimulus has saved and created millions of corporate jobs at the expense of public jobs.

For those of us who are still employed, the cost of living has increased. Thanks to rising fuel prices heating and food costs have ballooned.

And now the GOP wants to cut up to a million perfectly good jobs, threatening the country with the specter of yet another recession. Such a recession would reduce government revenue even further, forcing Congress and state legislatures to cut even more programs and more jobs from ever more essential programs.

If revolutions continue to occur in the oil producing areas of the world, fuel prices will continue to rise. Combined with the spending cuts being considered today, it could squeeze the American middle class out of existence.

Police storm protesters in Bahrain, at least 2 dead

2011-02-16T22:32:00.003-05:00

Two to three hours ago police stormed the Pearl roundabout in Manama, Bahrain where peaceful demonstrators are camped out in protest of the dictatorial al-Khalifa family in power there. Al Jazeera English has the story (as usual):

This follows recent crackdowns on protesters by the regimes in Iran and Libya, which were condemned by the United States government. I would not expect such a condemnation from the Obama Administration over Bahrain, however, since the small island nation in the Persian Gulf is a key regional ally and the command base of the US 5th Naval Fleet.

Bahrain is one of the places from which the United States hopes to contain Iranian influence. Losing it as an ally would be a detriment to an already crumbling American hegemony in the region.

Social Media becomes a driver for political involvement, especially in youth

2011-02-16T13:27:00.003-05:00

In 1440 Johannes Gutenburg created the printing press. In 1999, Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet. Whether it was Al Gore or DARPA that actually invented the internet is irrelevent:

The internet has profoundly changed the world we live in by creating movements and instigating revolutions, especially among the young. You can blame the former Vice President for wanting to get a piece of THAT action, can you?

According to a Pew Internet and American Life study, 22% of the American electorate used social networking sites to connect with candidates and campaigns in the last electoral cycle. Mainstream sites like Twitter, Facebook and MySpace combined with politicians and political action groups' own pages have combined to create a new way for potential voters to interact with candidates and campaigns.

The Pew study found that in the months leading up to the 2010 elections, Republicans caught up with Democrats in participation and presence on social networking sites.

"Among social networking site users, 40% of Republican voters and 38% of Democratic voters used these sites to get involved politically."

Many of the TEA Party protests that dotted the nation during the campaign season were organized on Web sites. Perhaps bridging the social networking gap may be an explaining factor for the GOP's gains in 2010.

An earlier study in 2008 found a sharp increase in American voters who claimed to use the internet to find election news, and that 1 in 5 internet users has posted political commentary online.

Elsewhere in the world the same sites are being used to organize democratic revolutions. Both Tunisia and Egypt recently experienced successful peaceful revolutions that were organized and aided by a strong presence on social networking sites.

The studies also found that social media users tend to be younger and more educated. The demographics of many Middle Eastern countries, including Egypt, are heavily skewed toward youth, and their education levels have improved.

Jobs and the Budget

2011-02-16T10:43:00.002-05:00

The economy is adding jobs, and has been since that cold day in January 2009 where Barack Obama was sworn in as President of the United States. Clearly, throughout much of that period there has not been a net gain in jobs. However, the private sector has been hiring steadily throughout that entire period.

How do we reconcile these disparate facts? How can additional private sector jobs not lead to a net drop in unemployment? Because the public sector, made up of local, state and federal government departments, has been shedding jobs. In fact, since taking office President Obama has shrunk the size of government, there are now fewer workers on government payrolls.

Public sector employees are healthier, happier, better educated and better paid - though that may be changing as conservatives dominate state capitols. Public sector jobs are higher quality jobs than private sector jobs and in the long run they are better for our country. When we reduce public sector jobs by eliminating programs, we directly reduce the quality of life for millions of Americans, reduce consumer spending and destroy public infrastructure.

So budget cuts have led to sustained unemployment and a prolonged recession.

Why then are certain elected officials advocating further budget cuts while linking them with economic stimulus? You don't stimulate an economy by destroying livelihoods.

Let's talk honestly about the budget.

2011-02-15T13:33:00.004-05:00

Money is the lifeblood of our country. Very little happens without money, and our government accomplishes nothing without our tax dollars. If not for the electoral and fiscal involvement of the American populace, our schools stay closed, our streets are not patrolled, we have no ambulances, our roads are left to decay and our society as we know it completely ceases to exist. Businesses would fail without state and federal tax dollars going to building and maintaining infrastructure that as a whole is not profitiable. This is the very essence of politics – we choose those with talent and ideas among us to take the collected effort of society and direct it to better that society. There are many functions that the government operates more efficiently than the private sector would be able to.

A quick word on revenue. 45% of the US revenue comes from individual income taxes. An additional 34% comes from social security and medicare payroll taxes. Corporations themselves pay just 14% of our federal revenue, with a tax rate that ranges from 15% to 39% - however, so many loopholes and incentives are available to corporations that they generally end up paying very little in taxes. Capital gains, gift, estate, gas, cigarette, alcohol and other taxes are part of the remaining 7% of Federal receipts.

The GOP's bright idea about stimulating the free market into dealing with the financial crisis by cutting taxes on capital gains, for the rich and on corporations will have a negative effect on our revenue, but little positive effect on our economy – in fact, it is based on a complete misunderstanding of where the strength of our economy actually comes from – not the top class of investors and hoarders, but the middle class of investors and, most importantly, consumers. The playbook for the last 50 years of the Republican Party has been to slash revenues by either cutting income taxes for the highest echelons of earners or offering new tax loopholes for major corporations, thus forcing a budget deficit. When the deficit starts to balloon, Republicans in legislatures and Congress start to run on fiscal responsibility. After being elected as deficit hawks, they cut the programs that they oppose for ideological reasons, leaving government spending that benefits their traditional supporters in defense, security, resource extraction and energy.

From their behavior, we can posit that the GOP is not interested in smaller, more efficient government, but instead a government that benefits Republicans and their supporters. Otherwise, at least one of the many Republican Administrations in power since 1960 would have successfully reduced the size of government.

Let us return to the matter at hand and talk about the budget process – how a budget gets passed, and how the government spends your money – because although we all voluntarily give it to the government, that money, as well as the government, is ours. In the beginning the president proposes a budget to Congress asking for certain amounts of money for certain federal programs. The president himself does not come up with the specific figures cited in the budget proposal, instead suggested figures are given to the Oval Office by federal agencies – these are bundled to a plan which is given to the House of Representatives in early February.

Still with me? This stuff can get a little dry. The budget is then handed from the House leadership to budget committees, whose subcommittees then create resolutions setting spending limits for appropriations. After passing subcommittee and the budget committee as a whole, the resolutions go to appropriation committees, who then break the resolutions down to their subcommittees, which then allocate specific amounts to federal programs and agencies through appropriation bills. These bills have to pass through the subcommittees and committees before being brought before the House as a whole, generally bundled into a large package, for passage. In the process of moving from subcommittee to committee and through the larger chamber, compromises are made. It is in this part of the process that earmarks (more on those later) are attached to bills to motivate otherwise reluctant congressmen to vote for them.

The House leadership then hands the passed resolutions on to the Senate, where much of the process is repeated as the Senate considers the bills. More compromises are made, and after the Senate passes their version of bills they go to a conference committee formed between the leadership of both chambers and the appropriate committees where the resolutions originated. Further compromises are made, the leadership returns to the chamber with the new version of the bill, and if passed, they are sent to the president’s desk to be passed or vetoed. If vetoes, Congress has the ability to override with a 2/3rds majority vote.

There are several parts of the budget – and Congress does not actually get to vote on more than 50% of the budget because it is mandatory spending. 42% of federal spending goes to what are deemed mandatory entitlements, evenly divided between social security benefits and Medicaid/Medicare benefits. Social Security currently takes up 21% of our budget and is expected to grow as the baby-boomer generation retires. Currently, the Social Security program is unsustainable. It would be paid for by our Social Security payroll taxes several years into the future if the government had not borrowed out of the ‘Social Security Trust Fund’ created by a surplus of those payroll taxes. To make the program solvent and sustainable, a 1.4% tax increase or a 15% reduction in benefits will be needed.

Other mandatory appropriations make up 11% of our budget – this money goes to the everyday function of our government. The lights are kept on in the Capitol building through this portion of our budget. Members of Congress and the president also receive their salaries out of this 11%. When a party or group in the government forces a 'government shutdown', this money ceases to be spent and the government can fail to function.

Defense spending makes up 20% of our budget. One fifth of our budget goes to keeping our bases open, training our soldiers, and investing in new equipment for them. The Pentagon’s staff as well as our active and reserve duty soldiers are paid through this portion of our budget. This 20% also pays for security and upkeep for the United States’ nuclear arsenal. This portion of the budget does not, however, include monthly and quarterly emergency appropriations for foreign conflicts (more on that later). It is worth noting that many of these bases and units are vestigial remains of a wasteful Cold War military disposition and an ineffective campaign in the Middle East.

Discretionary spending is a significant portion of our budget – 18% of federal spending goes to infrastructure, support for state programs, ongoing non-mandatory federal programs, and earmarks. Earmarks as a portion of our federal budget make up 1-2% of federal spending. Republicans claim that cutting earmarks will help alleviate our national debt, however this is simply ludicrous. Furthermore, earmarks help grease the wheels of democracy – many important spending resolutions would be met with impasse if it were not for compromises made by members of Congress through amending each others’ bills with earmarks.

The other 9% of federal budgetary spending is lost to interest on our debt, which makes up 9% of the total budget.

The portion of spending I just discussed is the on-budget spending that is found in federal law, debated publicly in Congress, and is available for every American person to see online the actual passed budget is available for every American to see already, as have all federal budgets since 1997 by order of Bill Clinton. You can see for yourself right here: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/index.html

A real problem we now face is shadow spending. There are two important forms of shadow-spending that I would like to discuss. The first are emergency appropriations, which Congress has been passing an awful lot of lately (the financial sector rescue, if we choose to pass it (and we should), will be one). Emergency appropriations are just that – a release of funds from either the Social Security ‘Trust Fund’ or borrowed from foreign or domestic lenders for emergency purposes. An emergency appropriation measure was made after Hurricane Katrina to help the cleanup and relief effort after that. More concerning, however, is the use of emergency appropriations to fund foreign conflicts. As of today most of the funding for the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan has occurred off-budget through these measures. These activities have added hundreds of billions of dollars to our deficits and debt.

Believe it or not, tax cuts, tax rebates, stimulus packages, and tax incentives are another form of shadow spending. These represent lost or missing revenue which increase our budget deficit and increase our national debt. When we offer incentives to corporations we lose a portion of federal revenues and force individual working taxpayers to shoulder more of the burden. When we offer ‘stimulus packages’ to ourselves we are putting ourselves further in the red. The Bush tax cuts, if continued in this manner, will cost us more than $1.8 trillion over the next 10 years. Republican talking points claim that cutting taxes will eventually increase revenue and alleviate debt – but this is certainly untrue. Revenue would have increased without these useless tax cuts which were weighted toward the ultra rich and proposed in the name of boosting our economy. If our economy has improved due to these tax cuts, it is certainly hard to see where. Basically we have put ourselves over a trillion dollars more in debt for no discernable reason.

Spending increases are another issue often raised by the GOP. Under Clinton, the budget increased by $300 billion, from $1.6 trillion to $1.9 trillion. Under Bush and the GOP, the budget has increased by $1.2 trillon to a fiscal year 2008 budget of $3.1 trillion. Under Clinton, our national debt as a percentage of our GDP (a measure of the productivity of the American economy) decreased for the first time since the Carter administration. Under Bush, our debt skyrocketed and the financial system collapsed. The crisis was ended and rebuilding has begun under President Obama, but at a very high cost. By embracing severe cuts in spending now, we put that recovery at risk, however such cuts should be forthcoming.

Here is the bottom line: Unless we make significant cuts in entitlements and/or defense spending, or we raise taxes, the United States will go bankrupt. Economists estimate at current tax rates and spending levels it will take 75 years for our economy to grow large enough to bring the budget back into the black. Something has to give, and either way you look at it, its going to end up being us. It is an existential issue, and we have to think deeply about what kind of country this is going to be in the future, what programs we can do with out and which ones will be necessary for a sustainable future for the generations to come.

The Budget Battle - is the GOP mainstream triangulated to win?

2011-02-15T12:39:00.003-05:00

There are three major proposals for a budget before the American people today. One comes from the TEA Party favorite Rand Paul, a plan that slashes $500 billion from the federal budget immediately. Interestingly, Senator Paul is willing to cut spending on national defense and security, aid to Israel and farm subsidies, all three areas where most Republicans have been unwilling to compromise or even offer a plan for cuts. Paul's plan actually offers areas in which Democrats and the White House can negotiate.

The President's budget proposal also calls for deep budget cuts in areas traditionally of importance to Democrats. In fact, the President's plan was received with outcry from both his liberal base and the conservative opposition. The plan also calls for a repeal to tax cuts for the rich, but does not go nearly as far as the Rand Paul plan and also falls short of the spending cuts proposed by the Republican congressional mainstream.

Mainstream Republicans initially called for a measly $35 billion in budget cuts, targeting traditional GOP enemies like infrastructure upgrades, clean energy, the arts and the poor. In recent days the GOP has offered up another round of deeper cuts. Regardless of whether cutting this amount of spending is beneficial or detrimental to the country, it has become clear that the Republican party is now in an excellent position between the moderate White House and the arch-conservative TEA Party.

This position threatens to move the country further to the right as the moderate White House becomes the de-facto liberal position, while the TEA Party become the new conservative right. The conservative Republicans, once the very fringe of the right wing, are now in a place where they can call themselves moderates, whether that is a realistic description or not.

In other words, the coming budget battle threatens to redefine where we as Americans see ourselves politically.

One matter that should be more open to debate is how each of these plans will affect the country's fragile economic recovery.

Iran Protest Video

2011-02-14T14:11:00.003-05:00

People gathering in central Tehran earlier today, only to be driven back by dense clouds of tear gas.

It appears that the Mubarak script is being followed in Iran as internet, social network and cell phone access is apparently being dismantled.

Per BBC World, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has already come out praising the protesters in Iran. It is a lot easier for the Obama Administration to support protesters when they do not threaten the rule of an ally.

As Egypt winds down, will there be another?

2011-02-14T13:30:00.004-05:00

The Egyptian revolution appears to be winding down after a handoff of power from the old regime of Hosni Mubarak to the military, which has sworn to be the defender of reform and democracy in Egypt. Most of the protesters have left public areas like Tahrir square and seem to be heeding the army's calls to return to their workplaces and ordinary lives.

The masses' work in the Egyptian revolution seems to be over. So what now?

Does the thirst for democracy and the popular will to make it happen go elsewhere? At a quick glance around the region, there are many places where the people desire reform. There are also leaders in the Middle East scrambling to respond to the successful popular revolts in Egypt and Tunisia in order to prevent a similar problem in their own lands.

In Yemen, Ali Abdullah Saleh, president for 30 years, has declared that he will not run for another term in the face of potent popular protests. In my opinion, it is here that another successful pro-democratic revolt is most likely. The regime is not a strong one but faces strong domestic opposition. The economic problems in Egypt and Tunisia are echoed in Yemen, as is the status of the regime as a deeply corrupt, dictatorial US ally.

In Bahrain, another key US ally led by the Khalifa family for almost 200 years, protests call for government reforms in a "Day of Rage" echoing the Egyptian revolution. It is important to remember that the royal family is Sunni Muslim while the majority of the population is Shia. If the Khalifa family falls from power there is an increased chance that Bahrain will come under the sphere of influence of Iran.

In Palestine, President Mahmoud Abbas has accepted the resignation of the cabinet of the Palestinian Authority and has called for a new government to be formed, apparently in response to the calls for reform resulting from the Egyptian revolution.

In Tehran protesters battle with police as the 2009 Green Movement seems to have found renewed energy in the wake of Mubarak's fall. Iran resembles Egypt politically in that it has a token-democratic republic that is actually trumped by power consolidated in the hands of a few. In Egypt's case that was the Mubarak regime and his supporters, in Iran that is a council of elite clergy that have the unspoken influence to counter the Grand Ayatollah. In both cases the people see past the sham-governments and direct their grievances towards the real rulers of their countries.

Lebanon formed a new government earlier this year after officials associated with Hezbollah resigned, forcing out long-serving Saad Hariri and leading to the ascension of Najib Mikati to the post. Hariri's career appears to be far from over and he is finding new strength as an opposition leader.

In Jordan and Syria both the governments have called for reforms ahead of potential mass demonstrations and movements. Both regimes are at odds with their population, with King Abdullah in Jordan only loosely related to his own people and President Bashir al-Assad in Syria divided from most of his people by religion, wealth and a burdensome security profile.

It is unclear whether any further change will come to the Middle East, just as it is unclear whether Egypt's military will actually give up power to a new democratically elected government when the time comes this September, or try to reserve power for themselves. One thing is clear, the dictatorships that the United States has traditionally supported in the Middle East are having existential crises, and the future of the region is for once firmly in the hands of the people there.

The new Democratic propaganda

2011-02-14T11:15:00.002-05:00

The DNC came up with this video after some of the more outrageous statements at the CPAC conference, where several Republican hopefuls either helped or hurt their chances for the presidency by clearly playing to their base.

Back in September and October I advocated a positive campaign strategy that does not level ridiculous charges against candidates' opponents but draws fair contrasts between them. I believe this is an effective first salvo from the Democratic party for the 2012 election season, which apparently has already begun.

After a very intense CPAC conference, it isn't clear that the GOP is any closer to finding a good challenger for President Obama, who at this very early juncture comfortably leads all potential challengers in polls.

Off the Rails

2011-02-11T17:13:00.003-05:00

This week Republican congressmen and punditry have unleashed viscious criticism against President Barack Obama's vision for efficient, clean and convenient high speed rail in the United States.

In his State of the Union Address, the president declared a goal of extending high speed trains to 80% of the American people in an effort to make our communities more enticing to job-creating international companies and to make the United States more economically competitive.

To make good on his promise, he declared intentions to spend $53 billion over 6 years on high speed rail, starting with an $8 billion appropriation in next year's budget.

Almost immediately, the GOP came to the defense of their campaign contributors in the fossil fuel business, proposing budget cuts that would eliminate funding for high speed rail lines already under construction and dismantle the highly successful Amtrak program which has just recorded its 15th straight month of ridership increases.

As Amtrak increases in popularity and more Americans turn to the rails as their preferred travelling option, perhaps we should follow Obama's suggestion and increase our funding for passenger rail. Gas prices continue to climb to new records, and there is evidence that Saudi Arabia's oil production has peaked. It is worth noting that Saudi Arabia is the number one exporter of oil to the United States, and without their oil our automobile-based economy would crumble.

Our crumbling infrastructure damages our economy today. By being too reliant on expensive and congested roads, we are costing ourselves billions of dollars that would be better spent on high speed rail.

I would therefore argue that both political parties should step back from their budget deadlock - cutting funding for high speed rail and eliminating Amtrak would be mortgaging the future of the American economy. We could better afford cuts to our cold-war era military bases and cost-saving alterations to our entitlement programs than to ignore our opportunity to build modern transportation infrastructure at a reasonable cost today.

The People Have Toppled the Regime

2011-02-11T13:21:00.004-05:00

After 3 weeks of protest the regime of Hosni Mubarak has crumbled, fallen under the weight of a united people seeking greater freedom and prosperity for their country. This is certainly a development that will have aftershocks throughout the Middle East. No longer are Middle Eastern dictators and strongmen safe, even if they are supported by western powers.

Some pundits call this the Middle East's Berlin Wall moment. It certainly has deep consequences on the potential for democracy in the Middle East and whether the 'global war on terror' perpetrated by the West against Islam and the Arab people was necessary in the first place.

There is real fear that this revolution might be exported around the region to places with long-standing authoritarian governments like the Assad regime in Syria, the Hashemite Monarchy of Jordan and the Saudi family's control of Saudi Arabia. None of these regimes should be assumed to be safe. After all, just a few months ago the Egyptian government was thought to be one of the most stable and entrenched in the entire region, and now people are dancing in the streets of Cairo celebrating its collapse.

There is also legitimate concern that western powers may try to form a vanguard of democratic revolution from the remnants of the movements in Tunisia and Egypt. I have serious doubts as to whether such an arrangement would be possible, but I have no doubts as to the likelihood of such an plan to fail. The only way democratic movements will work in the Middle East is for the people of these countries to lead themselves to their own freedom.

After the re-establishment of the Shah in Iran in 1953 by the United States and a long history of involvement and interference in the political affairs of the region by colonial powers like Britain and France, the people won't accept revolution pushed by the United States. The most responsible and effective policy seems to be the one Barack Obama has already taken - let the people decide for themselves.

The protests continue - peacefully

2011-02-11T01:08:00.002-05:00

Opposition leaders are declaring todays protests to be peaceful ones. In addition to occupying Tahrir Square, demonstrators have blocked access to Egypt's parliament building and now occupy streets near the presidential palace and the the upscale neighborhood of Heliopolis.

If there is any violence, it appears that it will have to begin at the hands of the Mubarak regime. The ball is in their court, the sword of Damocles hangs over Egypt.

More later (time for us in EST zone to go to bed) on Egypt and a non-Egypt post. Until then, please enjoy Al Jazeera English's excellent liveblog.

What is Mubarak thinking?

2011-02-10T21:37:00.004-05:00

By now everyone has heard of Hosni Mubarak's speech to the people of Egypt. The defiant dictator refused to step down from Egypt's presidency in the face of massive protests and a crippling general strike.

What happened last night in Egypt/this morning in the US caused a great deal of confusion. Multiple leaks to the media from the military and other cabinet members insinuated that the Egyptian president would address his people and announce that he was stepping down from his post, turning the country over to Vice President Suleiman and the leaders of the military.

In response, hundreds of thousands of Egyptians made their way in celebration to Tahrir Square (Tahrir translates to 'liberation'). There they rejoiced and sang, danced and smiled with the feeling that their weeks of protest and struggle had finally come to fruition.

When Mubarak did finally speak, refused to step down and furthermore blamed foreign intervention for the deeply held feelings of his own people, he basically stuck up his middle finger at the demonstrators in Egypt. Needless to say, their response was not a happy one.

Mubarak has become a symbol of absolutism, a Sun King for the Muslim world, and Egyptians will not suffer his heavy-handed rule for much longer.

Now we are a few short hours away from sunrise on Friday. Fridays in the Middle East are kind of like Sundays in the West - people traditionally do not work on Fridays. They do, however, congregate and protest en masse before and after Friday prayers. With the anger at a tipping point after Mubarak's blatant disregard for the needs and wishes of his people, the sun could be about to rise on the final day of his regime - and his final disposition might not be one of his own choosing.

The only other possibility is that Mubarak wants his fall to be a bloody one, to go out in a blaze of glory. If that is the case, then he has revealed himself to be a violent, decietful and hateful individual that Egypt - and the US - and the whole world - might do better without.

The 10 States Suffering from Brain Drain

2011-02-09T14:09:00.002-05:00

The Huffington Post listed the 10 states having the greatest difficulty educating students to an exceptional level and keeping those students within their borders.

I think it is important to note that this list not only reveals what states have deficient education systems, but economies bad enough that their students prefer to take their education and look elsewhere for opportunities. Notice that supposed economic and growth powerhouses like Texas and Arizona make the list, but states that are supposed to be languishing under higher tax burdens actually retain their educated populace and attract new intelligent workers from these other states. Thus, we can assume that the higher tax burden in places like California, Illinois, New Jersey and New York does not repel most business, but actually attracts a higher concentration of desirable industries like tech and information businesses.

Jim Webb, we hardly knew ye

2011-02-09T13:05:00.003-05:00

Centrist Democratic Senator Jim Webb, a key Obama ally from the 'purple' state of Virginia, will retire from the Senate in 2012. Readers will remember Senator Webb as the gentleman who won a close race against Republican George "Macaca" Allen in 2006.

It is believed that former Virginia Governor Tim Kaine leads the pack of potential Democrats for the newly opened seat. Obama won Virginia in 2008 before the state elected Republican Bob McDonnell as governor in 2009.

As for Webb's future, I would think that he'd make a great replacement for Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense.

It's not as easy as it looks

2011-02-08T22:26:00.003-05:00

With a month under their belt as the controlling party in the US House of Representatives, Republicans are struggling to deal with the myriad of problems our country is faced with including debt, unemployment, poverty, health care and pollution.

What they have managed to do is promote a hodgepodge of budget cuts that do not add up to a significant portion of the deficit and endanger many of the government initiatives that actually create jobs. They also have refused to end corporate welfare to oil companies.

What the past 4 weeks have shown is a congress that shows little, if any, intention on delivering on their campaign promises, likely because they do not want to take the political risk of slashing funding for defense, medicare and social security.

Instead, the GOP is turning to their classic wedge issues. Abortion being the most obvious. Using language that not-so-subtly hides their efforts to eliminate pregnant women's access to reproductive medicine, the House Republicans are targeting funding for pre-natal services to American mothers.

They also have brought Christianity back into the government, spending lengthy debate time (time your tax money is funding) on discussing re-affirming "In God We Trust" as the United States motto.

Finally, to pay lip service to the groups that actually got them elected, a handful of legislators formed a fledgling 'Tea Party Caucus' on capitol hill in a blatant publicity stunt - whether the populist Tea Party movement wanted them to do this or not is a matter still up for debate.

I don't think it is fair to accuse the GOP of lolly-gagging or being dishonest in this case. I think they've run up against the reality that their policy positions do not really offer a solution to the problems that the United States faces right now, and that only bipartisan compromise to make tough budgetary decisions.

Happy un-birthday, Ronald Reagan.

2011-02-07T13:49:00.004-05:00

Yesterday was Ronald Regan's 100th birthday, as anyone watching cable news now knows. If there is an afterlife, and we can watch football from that afterlife, Reagan was treated to a great Super Bowl on his birthday.

I know that most of the handful of people who read my little rants and insights think I am a crazy liberal and there's no way that I can say anything nice about president Reagan. That simply isn't true.

I when I think 'presidential', the first face that comes to mind is that of Ronald Reagan. When I think of a great public speaker, the voice that comes to mind is of Reagan reassuring us that the Challenger astronauts died nobly or challenging Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall. Reagan's public presence was legendary.

It comes as no surprise that the conservative movement, 30 years after his presidency, reveres Reagan. In his speeches, he eloquently defended conservative policies and those words serve as a rallying point for today's Republicans, but they are ignoring one important thing:

Reagan's presidency was one of the worst runs in history, and his policies are very much not in line with what the modern conservative movement is asking for. He was a failure (from ThinkProgress):

1. Reagan was a serial tax raiser. As governor of California, Reagan “signed into law the largest tax increase in the history of any state up till then.” Meanwhile, state spending nearly doubled. As president, Reagan “raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office,” including four times in just two years. As former GOP Senator Alan Simpson, who called Reagan “a dear friend,” told NPR, “Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times in his administration — I was there.” “Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes,” said historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan’s memoir. Reagan the anti-tax zealot is “false mythology,” Brinkley said.

2. Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. During the Reagan years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, “roughly three times as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether.” Reagan enacted a major tax cut his first year in office and government revenue dropped off precipitously. Despite the conservative myth that tax cuts somehow increase revenue, the government went deeper into debt and Reagan had to raise taxes just a year after he enacted his tax cut. Despite ten more tax hikes on everything from gasoline to corporate income, Reagan was never able to get the deficit under control.

3. Unemployment soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts. Unemployment jumped to 10.8 percent after Reagan enacted his much-touted tax cut, and it took years for the rate to get back down to its previous level. Meanwhile, income inequality exploded. Despite the myth that Reagan presided over an era of unmatched economic boom for all Americans, Reagan disproportionately taxed the poor and middle class, but the economic growth of the 1980′s did little help them. “Since 1980, median household income has risen only 30 percent, adjusted for inflation, while average incomes at the top have tripled or quadrupled,” the New York Times’ David Leonhardt noted.

4. Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously. Reagan promised “to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending,” but federal spending “ballooned” under Reagan. He bailed out Social Security in 1983 after attempting to privatize it, and set up a progressive taxation system to keep it funded into the future. He promised to cut government agencies like the Department of Energy and Education but ended up adding one of the largest — the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, which today has a budget of nearly $90 billion and close to 300,000 employees. He also hiked defense spending by over $100 billion a year to a level not seen since the height of the Vietnam war.

5. Reagan did little to fight a woman’s right to choose. As governor of California in 1967, Reagan signed a bill to liberalize the state’s abortion laws that “resulted in more than a million abortions.” When Reagan ran for president, he advocated a constitutional amendment that would have prohibited all abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother, but once in office, he “never seriously pursued” curbing choice.

6. Reagan was a “bellicose peacenik.” He wrote in his memoirs that “[m]y dream…became a world free of nuclear weapons.” “This vision stemmed from the president’s belief that the biblical account of Armageddon prophesied nuclear war — and that apocalypse could be averted if everyone, especially the Soviets, eliminated nuclear weapons,” the Washington Monthly noted. And Reagan’s military buildup was meant to crush the Soviet Union, but “also to put the United States in a stronger position from which to establish effective arms control” for the the entire world — a vision acted out by Regean’s vice president, George H.W. Bush, when he became president.

7. Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants. Reagan signed into law a bill that made any immigrant who had entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty. The bill was sold as a crackdown, but its tough sanctions on employers who hired undocumented immigrants were removed before final passage. The bill helped 3 million people and millions more family members gain American residency. It has since become a source of major embarrassment for conservatives.

8. Reagan illegally funneled weapons to Iran. Reagan and other senior U.S. officials secretly sold arms to officials in Iran, which was subject to a an arms embargo at the time, in exchange for American hostages. Some funds from the illegal arms sales also went to fund anti-Communist rebels in Nicaragua — something Congress had already prohibited the administration from doing. When the deals went public, the Iran-Contra Affair, as it came to be know, was an enormous political scandal that forced several senior administration officials to resign.

9. Reagan vetoed a comprehensive anti-Apartheid act. which placed sanctions on South Africa and cut off all American trade with the country. Reagan’s veto was overridden by the Republican-controlled Senate. Reagan responded by saying “I deeply regret that Congress has seen fit to override my veto,” saying that the law “will not solve the serious problems that plague that country.”

10. Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. Reagan fought a proxy war with the Soviet Union by training, arming, equipping, and funding Islamist mujahidin fighters in Afghanistan. Reagan funneled billions of dollars, along with top-secret intelligence and sophisticated weaponry to these fighters through the Pakistani intelligence service. The Talbian and Osama Bin Laden — a prominent mujahidin commander — emerged from these mujahidin groups Reagan helped create, and U.S. policy towards Pakistan remains strained because of the intelligence services’ close relations to these fighters. In fact, Reagan’s decision to continue the proxy war after the Soviets were willing to retreat played a direct role in Bin Laden’s ascendancy.

I would add this:
11) By repeatedly negotiating with terrorists, Reagan put Americans overseas at undue risk, culminating in the kidnapping and imprisonment of my teacher and good friend Terry Anderson among others in the Middle East in hopes of negotiating for benefits from the United States with hostages. Ronald Reagan sold the United States out.

Name that nation contest!

2011-02-07T13:41:00.003-05:00

Southern Sudan has voted to split off from the rest of Sudan and become a new country. This should come as no surprise after Sudan's history of civil war and military coups, and considering the sharp divide between Sudan's Arabic majority Muslim north and the black-African south that is more religiously diverse.

So what should the Sudanese call their new country?

Tahrir This Morning

2011-02-04T04:15:00.002-05:00

Courtesy of Al Jazeera English's excellent live blog.

Obama in Cairo 2009

2011-02-04T03:29:00.004-05:00

Let's take a look back on President Barack Obama's once-praised speech in Cairo in June 2009.

A couple of quotes to focus on:

“No system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other. That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people."

If Mr. Obama meant this when he said it then he should deliver on it and place more vigorous support behind pro-democracy movements throughout the Middle East, like Egypt. He should also understand that in some places in the Muslim world, a government that reflects the will of the people will indeed be an Islamic one, and that does not necessarily present a threat to the United States or the ideals of freedom enshrined in its constitution.

"America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere."

Again, if Mr. Obama wants to stand by his words than he needs to stand firmly by the protesters in Tahrir Square. Right now those people are being denied the freedom to speak their minds, and the press there is denied the freedom to report on the protests. These are people who have not been given a say in their government and have endured more than half a century of the same kind of dictator, one after another. I don't think the United States can afford to support monarchies and dictatorships in the Middle East on one hand and pretend to be a fan of democracy on the other. Pick a side and stick with it.

“There are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others.”

That's right, and some western leaders preach democratic principles to their enemies and accept the repressive dictatorships and brutal monarchies of their allies. Hypocrisy is not very becoming on the leader of the free world. President Obama can't have his cake and eat it too.

Egypt's Interfaith Alliance

2011-02-04T02:12:00.002-05:00

Sorry for the bitmap, but I don't have photoshop where I am right now.

People Power

2011-02-04T01:48:00.001-05:00

Tahrir Square before being attacked by the government.

American policy, dictatorship, Israel and Islam.

2011-02-04T01:09:00.004-05:00

The latest news out of Egypt is that the United States is trying to negotiate President Hosni Mubarak's resignation, to be replaced by newly appointed Vice President Omar Suleiman.

What the United States seems to forget - or ignore - is that Suleiman was head of security under Mubarak, and oversaw the torture and mistreatment that made Mubarak's regime the object of ire across the Middle East. Replacing Mubarak with Suleiman would be like replacing Hitler with Goebbels and calling it a day. Very few Egyptians - or Arabs in general - will be satisfied with what will certainly be seen as unnecessary outside interference in Egyptian affairs.

The US certainly has its reasons for this positon, no matter how misguided it may seem. Mubarak kept his power by claiming to western powers that he was in legitimate control of Egypt, a country that he described as a powderkeg of militant Islamist extremism.

It is true that modern Islamism, which seeks to apply the principles of Islam to governance, flourished in Egypt in the 20th century. Born under British colonialism and growing under a puppet monarchy, Egyptian Islamists found themselves repressed and brutalized by the three successive dictatorships of Nasser, Sadat and Mubarak. This repression served to radicalize Islamists more than control them. In fact, it could be argued that the Egyptian dictators are responsible for the eventual birth of Islamic Jihad and al Qaeda. American support for these dictators, and for similarly repressive regimes in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the Iranian Shah also galvanized Islamic opposition US. I would argue that the United States has been, in general, an enemy of democracy in the Middle East.

And why, you might ask, has the US maintained such a policy? Two reasons: energy politics and the protection of the state of Israel.

Now, for the same reason, the US government appears to be trying to prolong the life of the Egyptian regime any way it can. By doing so, they risk further alienating the democracy-hungry people of Egypt and the rest of the Muslim world. The sad thing is, even the Islamists that the US government frantically postures against are mostly pro-democratic, capitalist and peace-loving people, but because we as a country cannot overcome our collective Islamophobia, we may never adjust our policies.

On Mubarak and Objectivity

2011-02-03T16:03:00.004-05:00

Anyone who has read my blog over the past 9 days may have noticed my words becoming increasingly critical of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, while at the same time becoming more and more supportive of the protesters in Cairo and elsewhere.

As you may know, I have aspirations to become a journalist and journalists must be objective. This means that typically we are not to take a particular side in a story, but report empirical facts and represent multiple interpretations of what those facts mean.

I can tell you that it is 28.5 degrees farenheit outside in Lexington, Kentucky right now. I can't tell you whether that is hot or cold to you, because your opinions on what temperature is cold and what temperature is hot differ from mine. I feel like 28.5 degrees is pretty comfortable - not a good temperature for a swim, but much better than the teens or the single digits.

In Egypt, on the other hand, the empirical data that is easier to parse, if more difficult to understand. Protesters are being intimidated. Journalists, Egyptian, Arab, European and American are being jailed, their cameras and recording equipment confiscated. Molitov cocktails are being thrown into crowds. Supporters of President Mubarak and hired thugs are attacking crouds with whips, machetes and clubs. The regime is cracking down and committing atrocities against innocent people.

And President Mubarak has the audacity to claim that chaos and violence would erupt after he steps down - when he is causing the chaos and violence erupting before our very eyes.

For the second day in a row clashes between mostly peaceful anti-regime protesters and the supporters of Hosni Mubarak's dictatorship rage across Egypt.

As a journalist, I do not have to give equal time to someone who commits atrocity. I would not give time to Hitler were he perpetrating the holocaust today. I would not give equal time for Fred Phelps to preach his homophobic bigotry across my blog. And I will no longer give time to a regime that systematically silences its people at best through shutting off the internet and stealing cameras, and at worst through kidnapping, imprisonment, abuse, torture and murder.

That also means that I should be more critical of my own government's lukewarm stance towards the demonstrations in Egypt, even as the Mubarak government cracks down.

Free Egypt.

Tanks and Tears in Cairo

2011-02-02T14:11:00.002-05:00

I think this is worth 1000 words.

And now some contrast.

2011-02-02T12:20:00.003-05:00

Al Jazeera's coverage in Egypt has been excellent, exceeding both the US cable networks and the BBC in the depth of their coverage and the courage of their journalists - but not everyone has enjoyed what they have to say:

In my opinion, Mr. O'Reilly is being an anti-Arab bigot in this video, and his previous support for the Mubarak regime against pro-democracy protesters has clouded his judgement on this issue. Perhaps his pro-Israeli bias has turned towards this overtly racist language. Then again, perhaps O'Reilly should turn an eye to his own network and the language and opinions of some of the guests on his show.

Clashes rage in Tahrir Square - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

2011-02-02T11:47:00.002-05:00

Clashes rage in Tahrir Square - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

Every indication on the ground is that these 'counter protesters' are actually thugs hired and paid by the government of Hosni Mubarak. Earlier today they erupted in a cavalry charge across the main protest area in Tahrir square on horseback and camel back attacking the mostly peaceful demonstrators there. Not only are they whipping and immolating protesters in Tahrir Square, but they are also throwing molitov cocktails into the museums and destroying the cultural heritage of Egypt.

Again, this is not really a segment of the population demonstrating in support of Mubarak, according to international media and protesters on the ground - these are men hired to create chaos and injury to the population of Egypt.

Reports are out that pro-Mubarak groups are paying counter-protesters as much as two weeks worth of wages to take to the streets and act against the pro-democracy rallies in Cairo, Alexandria and Suez.

Millions of Angry Egyptians, very confused American pundits.

2011-02-01T12:46:00.003-05:00

Al Jazeera is reporting that around 2 million Egyptians have taken to the streets in Cairo today as part of continuing protests against the government of President Hosni Mubarak. Once again Egypt has been cast into communications darkness by the regime which fears the power of social networking to organize and perpetuate these protests which have rocked the Mubarak regime to its very core.

In the United States, our pundits and politicians are struggling to digest and respond to the news in Egypt, and a lot of their bigotry and misunderstandings of Arab culture and the diversity of the people in the Middle East are coming out live on the air.

Fox News take on Egypt uprising, shamelessly racist:

On the more liberal side, here's Richard Cohen of the Washington Post tying the anti-tyranny uprising in Egypt to the Muslim Brotherhood, the first modern group embracing a political expression of Islam.

The only truly good coverage is coming out of Al Jazeera. Their live feed shouldn't be missed, it has been the most consistent and the most accurate coverage of the story. Why can't we get it on our televisions in the US? I'll trade both MSNBC and Fox News for Al Jazeera English right now.

Day Six, and the people still control the streets

2011-01-31T01:27:00.003-05:00

The protests and demonstrations in Egypt have stretched to last almost a week, with neither the disgruntled populace nor the entrenched dictator Hosni Mubarak willing to budge. Nobel Laureate Mohammad ElBaradei publically addressed protesters today and requested Egypt's president of 30 years to step down. It is unclear whether this crisis is close to being over one way or another.

But this amazing video did come out of Egypt today of protesters praying in the streets.

There are also reports of protesters in Tahrir square cleaning up after themselves and sharing packets of bread as they stood together today.

In the meantime, Al Jazeera official had its Egyptian press credentials revoked and its offices locked down today, severely limiting information and coverage of the crisis there.

If you still don't believe this is a crisis, then brace yourselves for this tidbit: Anderson Cooper has flown into Egypt. I don't know about you, but if I EVER see Anderson Cooper or Jim Cantore in my neighborhood, I'm leaving as fast as I can.

Another Egypt Protest Photo - the kiss

2011-01-28T15:26:00.001-05:00

Via Lefteris Pitarakis of the AP, an Egyptian protester kisses a riot police officer on Friday.

Gandhi and MLK Jr would be proud

2011-01-28T14:46:00.001-05:00

Egypt Erupts

2011-01-28T14:10:00.004-05:00

By far the biggest news of the day is the situation in Egypt which is one of massive civil unrest with relatively little violence. Though 10s of thousands are protesting the government of Hosni Mubarak, media reports 857 wounded and 3 dead there among the protesters.

This is not a civil war - it is a revolution. Whether the Egyptian government has the power to quash these revolutions is unclear. Tweets on #Egypt and #Jan25 suggest that many of the riot police and military personnel sent out to stop the protesters have taken off their uniforms. Make no mistake, Hosni Mubarak has ruled Egypt for three decades and has effectively distinguished all opposition in the past. Acts of violence have happened and continue to happen.

The protesters have broken through several attempts to blockade them away to public squares. Government buildings have been set ablaze. All of this information has leaked out of an Egypt that has been largely cut-off from the outside world. Access to social networks was lost overnight in Egypt and then the population there found that most of their internet and mobile phone access had been severed by the government.

Today, the Egyptian government has imposed a curfew on the Egyptian people that has been universally disobeyed by the protesters. The government announced that president Mubarak would make a statement to the country in the evening, but so far he has not appeared or made any statement.

The question on my mind is what the US government will do about it - do they stand by the first Arab nation to recognize and make peace with Israel, a key ally who has received billions of dollars of US aid, or do they stand by the pro-democratic protesters against an admittedly authoritarian dictatorship?

Does the Obama Administration make the decision based on foreign policy concerns or our political ideals? So far their only statements have been lukewarm at best.

The best places to monitor information coming across about Egypt are on Twitter (#Egypt #Jan25) and Al Jazeera English.

A Late Night Egypt Update

2011-01-28T01:48:00.002-05:00

Protests continue in Egypt against the government of Hosni Mubarak, a key ally of the United States and the dictatorial leader of the largest Arab country by population.

Here's some footage of a protest in Egypt and a 'Tiananmen Square' there.

It seems that today at least some Christians in Egypt have sworn to protect Muslim protesters there. Noon prayers happen in a little more than 3 hours, evening prayers less than 10. It will be interesting to see if this pans our given the heightened tensions between Egyptian Copts and the Muslim majority there over the past year.

There has beena major disruption in all internet and mobile phone access in the country, and there are tweets reporting the government setting up medieval-style fire-trap in public gathering areas. I know that they are just Twitter rumors, but when combined with the communication disruptions, I fear for my friends in Egypt right now. I am following #Egypt loyally right now.

Division in America, Unrest in Egypt

2011-01-26T13:03:00.005-05:00

First, in Egypt historic pro-democracy protests erupted yesterday only to be quashed today. It is unclear whether the popular discontent with the dictatorial government of Hosni Mubarak and a floundering economy will carry over into future protests, but many analysts tie this unrest in with the revolt in Tunisia. An amateur photographer took this spectacular shot of a protester in Cairo.

UPDATE: It appears that the protests continue despite the government crackdown.

After a State of the Union address that seemed like an olive branch last night, the pundits are alternately praising and damning President Obama. There was a lot in the speech that angered liberals - no line on gun control after the violent rampage in Tuscon. No talk about climate change, even though the speech was focused on 'Winning the Future'. Finally, Obama seems to be co-opting GOP deficit language, especially his freeze on spending.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are split between those who don't believe Obama's talk on getting serious about deficits and those who don't think his spending freeze goes far enough. Despite the fact that the president seems serious about streamlining the federal government and focusing federal spending on innovation and investment for future technology, jobs and infrastructure, many conservatives insist that these roles lie outside of the federal government's mandate.

In the end, this speech was aimed at independents in the country, who seemed to react favorably to the president last night. This is the triangulation I was talking about yesterday.

For 61 minutes of the president's speech, we all got along - there was bipartisan applause and no repeat of the Joe Williams (R-SC) "You Lie!" interjection.

Update: SOTU to push infrastructure

2011-01-25T18:20:00.003-05:00

The good folks at The Infrastructurist have the scoop that Obama will push infrastructure spending in the State of the Union address (reframing the issue as infrastructure investment) and will link infrastructure upgrades and maintenance to economic competitiveness.

Think it's cold now? Get ready for the freeze.

2011-01-25T17:50:00.002-05:00

Previews of tonight's State of the Union address have turned up evidence that President Barack Obama will propose to freeze the national budget at current levels, with exceptions for defense and security spending.

It should come as no surprise that there are already some Republicans who object to this proposal. Following the will of the Tea Party, who share some credit for GOP success in the 2010 elections, many Republicans are already calling for deep spending cuts, even in job-creating sectors like clean energy and infrastructure. Many organizations have been quick to point out that these cuts will hurt education, veterans, scientific research, cities and states.

On the surface this sounds like a sound political gambit. Obama is pulling a card from the Clinton deck - triangulation between the wishes of his base for an active and progressive government and the ambitions of his opposition to shrink government to the point where all of its functions can be devolved to the private sector.

It is a good compromise, in my opinion. Budget cuts may cost a fragile recovery the few jobs it has successfully created. However, it is a dangerous game to freeze spending. There is a need for government sponsored growth in some areas, while cuts would be more welcome in defense and security spending where the Bush-era Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Safety Administration represent the greatest extension of federal and executive power in the history of the United States.

The two wars that Obama inherited also take up billions of our tax dollars every year, more than enough to build a high speed rail system and/or provide a single payer health care system with equal benefits to the vast majority of American workers. Furthermore, despite the best efforts of Donald Rumsfeld to streamline our military, Obama also inherits armed forces still deployed throughout the world in a manner more befitting a cold war that ended 27 years ago. Perhaps the best way to save the American people some money and trim the federal budget would be to cut defense spending first.

Obama is making a smart move. He seemingly appeases the desires of his opposition without breaking another promise to his electorate. My personal belief is that his recent bump in polls will give him an opportunity to be more aggressive in his speech tonight than the GOP expects, setting up an interesting battle between the two parties as the 2012 election season looms on the horizon.

Three Stories You Have To Follow Today

2011-01-24T13:02:00.002-05:00

The big news today is the Moscow explosion that as of 1 PM killed 35 and left 130 wounded in Domodedovo airport. Russian authorities are now calling the attack a terrorist suicide bombing, but it is still unclear who exactly is responsible.

Also looming is President Barack Obama's State of the Union address Tuesday evening where the President is expected to call for vigorous federal activity to encourage businesses to hire workers while calling for more bipartisanship and conciliatory rhetoric.

Finally, thousands of leaked documents on the middle east peace process have been released by al Jazeera at a time when tensions and uncertainty in the region are coming to a climax. Among the surprises in the documents are sizable concessions on the part of the Palestinian Authority that offer Israel control over most of East Jerusalem, a move that should alienate the Palestinian government from its consituency.

A note to the 112th US Congress

2011-01-22T12:34:00.002-05:00

If you have read my blogs, you probably know that I didn't vote for the party that is currently in charge of the US House of Representatives. I can, however, respect that the people who voted them in power did so for good reasons. They weren't happy with the direction of the country and wanted to see government do more about unemployment, the budget deficit and political gridlock in Washington.

I don't think that the voters responsible for the power-shift wanted to see Congress move on issues like repealing environmental regulation, illegalizing abortion sweetheart deals for the energy lobby.

Instead, they probably wanted to see something more like this:

Bipartisanship At Last: Civility Thrown Aside

2011-01-20T12:22:00.004-05:00

After the tragedy in Tuscon many on both sides of the political aisle wanted our politicians and pundits to tone down their language. Well, so much for that idea:

Representative Steve Cohen (D-Tenn) launched an attack against House Republicans earlier this week during the debate on the repeal of the health care reform, likening their dishonesty on the issue to 'Nazi-era propaganda'. Now he drags the debate farther towards the childish flamewar level by comparing the Tea Party to the Ku Klux Klan.

Let me be clear - I think that this debate is full of hyperbole and misdirection on both sides, and the GOP's framing of health care reform as a 'government takeover' and a 'job-killer' is clearly dishonest. However, likening Republican lawmakers to Nazis and their followers to Klansmen is the worst kind of vitriol and should not be tolerated by the American electorate - and it needlessly gives ammunition to the bloodthirsty punditry.

Burning Passion

2011-01-19T14:39:00.003-05:00

It seems the revolution in Tunisia that ousted a long-standing government all started with a 26-year-old who burned himself to death in protest.

Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire on Friday, 12/17 to protest what he saw as government corruption and rampant unemployment. Bouazizi reportedly had a degree in computer science, but operated a fruit stand on the streets of Tunis. His cart was regularly upturned and confiscated by Tunisian authorities who claimed that operating such a cart was illegal.

Out of frustration, Bouazizi set himself alight, and later died on January 4th. His death not only started protests that led to the ouster of Tunisian president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, but also spurned a rash of copy-cat self-immolations in other countries in the maghreb like Algeria and Egypt.

A CNN article points out that such extreme acts of protest have happened in the past, most notably the self-immolation of Buddhist monks in Vietnam, but self-immolation also happens in places like Afghanistan where desperate women burn themselves in self-punishment rather than face the torment of strict religious laws.

I can't imagine setting myself on fire out of protest or desperation, the pain of flames consuming my flesh just because I objected to a political or economic situation. I wonder whether there is another underlying condition, whether cultural or medical, that leads to this kind of protest.

WikiLeaks is your friend.

2011-01-14T11:46:00.007-05:00

Thank goodness for WikiLeaks. Though their front-man is facing sexual assault charges and they have become a thorn in the side of the wold diplomatic community, WikiLeaks is hands-down the best thing to happen to our democracy since women's suffrage.

The site, an international non-profit organization that disseminates classified information from anonymous sources, is just one more part of the new wave of journalism surging forward in social media and digital communication. There are millions of documents on WikiLeaks that otherwise would not be available to the public eye.

In essence, WikiLeaks throws open some of the doors that our governments operate behind.

Though governments complain that they require a level of confidentiality for diplomatic reasons, we have to understand that in the new digital world, they have no choice but to be more transparent both to each other and to their constituents. There is little legal recourse against WikiLeaks and their activities, and that is only right. Speech and press should be free world-wide.

While some big media sources (the MSNBCs and FOXs of the world) are afraid of what Wikileaks could mean for the future of journalism, as a journalist myself I think it is a tool to be embraced. Yes, anyone with access to the internet could go to WikiLeaks and acquire the information for themselves, but they will still turn to big media to analyze and parse the information into a format that is easier to acquire. The average media consumer will not want to spend their time sifting through the millions of documents on WikiLeaks.

An active and independent press is necessary for Democracy to function. WikiLeaks contributes to the activity and independence of the media, itself being an independent non-profit website and organization. Therefore, the site itself aids democracy. We journalists should be rallying around WikiLeaks and the freedoms its existence represents.

We may be seeing the first WikiLeaks revolution in Tunisia as I write this entry.

WikiLeaks as it stands is a treasure-trove of news stories. If it continues to get sources it will be an invaluable boon to journalists.

Perhaps even more interesting than the government intrigues uncovered by the site will be the forthcoming corporate communiques and secrets that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has referred to.

Why I'm worried about Lebanon - but not that worried

2011-01-13T18:06:00.004-05:00

I love Lebanon. Love it. There are few cities I have enjoyed more than Beirut, and few vistas as breathtaking as looking over the Bekaa Valley from the top of Mount Lebanon. It should come as no surprise, then, that my heart sank into my stomach when news of the Lebanese government's collapse came over the airwaves.

For those who are uninformed, 10 representatives left Lebanon's ruling coaltion, forcing an election and reorganization in a country whose latest government was cobbled together with international assistance. They left after the Sunni Muslim Prime Minister, Saad Hariri, refused to stop an inquiry into the assassination of his popular brother in 2005. It was originally thought that Syria was involved in the assassination, leading to the Cedar Revolution that saw the Syrian military withdraw from Lebanese territory.

All of the members who withdrew from the government are associated with Hezbollah - in a series of speeches last summer Hezbollah General Secretary Hassan Nasrallah condemned the inquiry, and it is thought that the inquiry will implicate members of Hezbollah in the assassination.

There is indeed great reason for concern; Lebanon is only 20 years removed from one of the most intense and extensive civil conflicts the world has ever known. Lebanon is also one of the linchpins of the Arab-Israeli conflict, with both sides fighting through proxies in the small Levantine nation.

However, some commentators are taking their fearmongering to ridiculous levels, predicting a civil war or a war with Israel immediately. Their fears are largely unfounded. The collapse of the Hariri government would only be the first step to larger conflict. Though the behavior of external actors isn't helping matters, the Lebanese are still a long way from reorganizing into militias and walling themselves up in sectarian enclaves. Cooler heads will likely prevail.

For one thing, the members who withdrew from the government were all Hezbollah members. The western assumption is that all the Muslims in Lebanon support Hezbollah, but I can say from personal experience that it is not the case. The vast majority of Lebanese, Christian, Muslim and others support the militia's struggle against Israel, framing it as a national struggle against an invasive force. They do not support Hezbollah's politics. I would predict that Mr. Nasrallah has overestimated his influence and will lose this battle against Lebanon's growing civil society. When the Special Tribunal releases its indictments, and if it implicates Hezbollah, I doubt that the majority of Lebanese will support those responsible for the assassination of their beloved Rafic Hariri. They just want to work and live out their lives without senseless conflict and bloodshed, and if they are left to themselves by the likes of Israel, Iran and Syria, they might jsut get that chance.

It should come as no surprise that most of the people predicting doom and gloom in Lebanon are conservative - they have a vested religious and geopolitical interest in sewing the seeds of conflict in the Middle East. What else explains their posturing against peace in the Arab Israeli conflict? It would also come as no surprise if they ended up being wrong - as they have been wrong time and again when it comes to Arab affairs.

Here's someone who has it right.

Ted Williams and Homelessness

2011-01-13T10:55:00.004-05:00

The recent media darling, supplanting the likes of Susan Boyle, is Ted Williams, the "homeless man with the golden voice." Williams was an unemployed disc jockey found pan-handling on the streets of Columbus, Ohio. A good samaritan heard the fellow and returned with a video camera, made a recording of Williams' voice, and posted it to YouTube for the world to see. The video went viral and soon opportunities and job offers started to come in for Mr. Williams.

The media went wild for this story - because touching, feel good stories of success snatched from the jaws of despair usually garner the attention of an American public desensitized by stories of violence and a bad economy. We need these stories to temper the 24-hour news cycle.

When a private life is suddenly thrust into the public eye, there are a few halcyon days where the story appears perfect before the realities of the human being the media is fawning over come to light, and that is now happening with Mr. Williams. After a touching reunion with his 90-year-old mother was made over the weekend, reports of a domestic altercation between Williams and his daughter broke Monday evening. It turns out that Mr. Williams is struggling with alcoholism and is a former crackhead.

This brings me to my point - few people are homeless by choice, and even fewer are homeless because they are out of options. The support systems and safety-nets in this country are actually very good. Our cities abound with government programs, private charities and individual good samaritans who are more than willing to help people who are down on their luck.

The unfortunate truth is that most homeless people are struggling with mental illness and addiction. This is the very reason that many of them do not seek out the assistance that is available to them, assistance that perhaps could have prevented their homelessness. That doesn't mean they are any less-worthy of our attention and help, but it does mean that the media should not be so quick to vault them into a public spotlight that might also illuminate a darker side to their story.

Things to Take from Tuscon

2011-01-12T14:26:00.002-05:00

Before I say anything else, let me be explicit: what happened in Tuscon, Arizona over the weekend was a tragedy. Six people lost their lives for no reason whatsoever. As more information about the shooting and the would-be assassin comes to light, it becomes clear that this was not an issue of politics, but an issue of mental illness.

In fact, as one studies Jared Loughner, his past and his rants one thing becomes clear about his politics - they mirror the schizophrenia of the American system, where we want government safety nets and services to care for the most vulnerable among us, but we also want personal freedom to act and make decisions for ourselves.

Despite an unhealthy catalogue of anti-government rants that echo some of the criticisms of government programs coming from the American right, Loughner for some reason lists the Communist Manifesto among his favorite pieces of literature.

Though many of us politically passionate Americans sifted through the facts of the case looking for something, anything to pin the shooter up to one party or another - many liberals were convinced that Loughner was a Tea Party activist, while many conservatives tried to prop him up as an ultra-leftist due to the appearance of Marx and Engel's manifesto on his reading list.

As it turns out, there should be a lot of red faces on both sides of the political aisle today.

No, Loughner should be thought of as neither liberal nor conservative, Democratic nor Republican - he is insane and that is the end of it.

We can, however, gain some positive from this unspeakable tragedy by coming together as a nation should during such times, and working to rid our political dialgogue of the angry rhetoric that comes from individuals like Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and Glenn Beck. These voices and their words of hate have no place in civil society.

Question of the Day 9/16/10: After the end of Don't Ask Don't Tell

2010-09-16T20:31:00.000-04:00

A major cultural hurdle is being reached this fall as the government moves to phase out the military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy. For many reasons this policy, enacted by president Bill Clinton as a compromise to appease liberals, conservatives, and the military establishment, has been a disaster for our military.

My question today is what long-standing cultural/traditional policy should be overturned next? There are many issues to consider, from immigrants rights, right-to-work, school vouchers and busing and government housing to gay marriage and equal-pay-for-equal-work.

If you were a member of the White House staff or a member of Congress with the power to initiate change for the better, what policy would you push?

Who replaces Nancy Pelosi?

2010-09-15T16:59:00.003-04:00

Who should take Nancy Pelosi's place?

I don't mean who should be the next speaker of the house. Presumably, if the Republicans score their election victory this year House Minority Leader John Boehner will recieve the speaker's gavel and become third in line for the presidency.

I mean who should become the leader of the Democratic caucus in the US House of Representatives?

Right now the House majority leader is Steny Hoyer, a veteran congressman from Maryland. If there isn't a total change in the Democratic leadership, he might remain as the Dem's leader. Hoyer, however, is unlikely to escape unscathed should the latest poll numbers hold.

Too many people among both the Democratic base and the moderates will want the heads of the two leaders who lost a massive majority. Like the Republicans in 2006, Democrats will want to start over.

The next most senior personality in the House of Representatives is Michigan Democrat and leader of the Congressional Black Caucus, John Conyers, who currently serves as Majority Whip in the House. However, advancing Conyers to the party leadership would be a significant shift to the left for the Democrats at a time when they dominate the political center.

Rumor has it that representative Conyers is close to retirement as well.

So the next best thing we could do is consider who is most influential among House dems.

My short list, culled from the current committe chairs, is as follows:

James Oberstar has served in the US House of Representatives for 35 years representing Minnesota's 8th district. He is currently the chairman of the House Infrastructure and Transportation Committee. Since Infrastructure issues are going to dominate the appropriations debate in the House for the next 6-12 months, he is an obvious choice to lead the Democrats.

Ike Skelton is an outside choice due to his age (Skelton is in his late 70's) but as the Chairman of the House Armed Services committee, the moderate Democrat from Missouri should get a look from the House Democratic Caucus as a potential leader during their minority years.

John Conyers in addition to the qualifications listed above, Conyers represents Detroit, one of the epicenters of the economic crisis from which we are emerging.

Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, is a strong liberal presence with leadership experience in the House. His 35 years of service in the US House are augmented by a six year career in the California State Assembly. Before ascending to the chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Waxman chaired the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee during the Bush years, vigorously questioning the policies and tactics of the Bush Administration.

Rick Boucher is a long-serving congressman from southwestern Virginia. He is currently running for his 15th term in the House. Not only is he an Appalachian congressman in a swing state, but he also chairs the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet, a position of rising influence. Should the Democrats hold the House and one of the committee chairs retire, Boucher would be near the top of the list to move into a chairmanship.

I would be shocked if the next leader of the Democratic caucus does not come from one of these 5.

From the standpoint of electoral strategy, a moderate swing-state representative like Oberstar, Boucher, or Waxman would be best.

However, I like to think that the Democrats should follow the lead of the GOP and play to their base and put a firebrand like Waxman or Conyers in the driver's seat. A truly liberal Speaker of the House would be fun to watch, but such a thing has never happened in my lifetime.

9/14/10 Question of the Day

2010-09-14T19:11:00.003-04:00

Polling shows that the Democrats are poised to lose control of the House of Representatives in the upcoming midterm elections in November.

If this scenario plays out, Nancy Pelosi would no longer be Speaker of the House (that position would go to Rep. John Boehner, (R-OH what a fabulous tan)) and her position among the leadership of House Democrats would likely be up for grabs.

Who should replace Speaker Pelosi as the leader of House Democrats?

Answer: Yes, it is time to end the war in Afghanistan

2010-09-14T17:00:00.002-04:00

Yesterday I asked whether it was time for the United States to finally end its conflict in Afghanistan. I believe it is.

On October 7th, 2010 we will mark the 9th anniversary of the beginning of the conflict. Recall that major US combat operations in Vietnam, considered a costly embarassment for the United States, only lasted 8 years (1965-1973).

One problem we now have in Afghanistan is that it is not immediately clear who our soldiers are fighting anymore. Originally the Taliban was an established militia and government that was easy for our allies in the Northern Alliance to target. After toppling the Taliban and establishing a new central quasi-democratic government in Kabul, the enemy became al Qaeda.

Then the Taliban began an insurgency, and Americans began to fight a resurgent Taliban operating from Pakistan and al Qaeda, also operating from Afghanistan.

The goal all along was to desstroy the operating and training bases of al Qaeda and to capture its leadership, goals that have only partially been accomplished due to the mobility of al Qaeda as an organization. Having no particular geographic base and no centralized leadership, it is impossible to use a large scale military operation to stop al Qaeda.

What then, is our purpose in staying in Afghanistan? To establish a stable Afghani state? It has never been done! Afghanistan is so balkanized with different ethnicities and languages that it becomes difficult to decide who exactly should run the country. This is why traditionally Afghanistan has been under the control of different tribal warlords who each controlled their own portion of the geography. The only unifying element in Afghanistan is Islam, and that is why the Taliban with their potent Islamist thought was able to exercise some control over the country.

I would posit that a non-Islamist government cannot stabilize and control Afghanistan. There are no unifying institution upon which to base such a government.

Historically, Afghanistan is where empires and military campaigns go to die. Alexander, the Raj, the Safavids, and the USSR all failed within Afghanistan.

There just aren't enough institutions in Afghanistan to repeat the successes we had in Iraq there. It is time to cut our losses and end combat operations there.

Answer to 9/11 Question - We Can't Move On

2010-09-13T12:39:00.002-04:00

On Saturday, the 9th anniversary of 9/11 I asked whether Americans would ever be able to let the shared national experience of 9/11 go.

I don't think we're ready yet, and I'm not sure we'll ever be ready. To give some historical perspective, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor happened December, 2 1941 and it is an event mourned and commemorated to this day, 59 years later. Maybe in 50 years the memory of September 11, 2001 will begin to fade and life will return to normal, but even the Pearl Harbor attacks were not as traumatic to our national character as 9/11.

For one thing, 9/11 happened live before our eyes. Millions of Americans were tuned into networks like CNN and NBC when the reports of a third plane crashing in Washington, DC hit the airwaves. Many more watched as the towers fell into torrents of dust and debris. Pearl Harbor was something Americans heard about on the radio after the event happened. On 9/11 Americans watched thousands of their countrymen die in an instant. We suffer from a kind of national post-traumatic stress disorder, and our responses to the attack bear that out.

After 9/11 the United States embarked on two ill-concieved military operations in the countries of Iraq and Afghanistan. The rights of habeus corpus and due process were suspended for Americans and foreigners alike. The largest expansion of federal power in decades occurred at the hands of a government that had just two years earlier run on conservative credentials. Prisoners of war, deemed 'enemy combatants' had their rights under the Geneva Conventions stripped and were subjected to imprisonment without term, renditioning to countries that would not protect them and torture of every degree in prisons.

A prison camp was established at the military base on Guantanamo Bay, a kind of 'ultra-max' facility for suspected terrorists.

Airplanes became harder to board. Air travel now requires a time consuming boarding process that strips airplanes of some of their efficiency and most of their convenience.

Our phones are being tapped without a judge's permission. Our homes can be searched without a warrant, we can be stopped and interrogated.

Our police and security personnel are racially profiling our fellow Americans. There are those among us that are burning Qurans and mosques.

At least we've gotten to the point where people like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin can exploit 9/11's anniversary to boost their popularity.

I guess that is some progress.

Question of the day 9/13

2010-09-13T10:31:00.002-04:00

The United States has been fighting a war in Afghanistan for 9 years now with little to show for it. Originally started to take the Taliban out of power and capture al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, it is now a conflict with an unknown purpose and cloudy endgame.

Is it finally time for the US to get out of Afghanistan?

9/11 Question of the Day

2010-09-11T19:23:00.002-04:00

Here we are on the 9th Anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York City, Pennsylvania, and Washington, DC.

Our televisions are packed with tributes, memorials, documentaries and commentaries on terrorism, the attacks and the security apparatus in the US. Memorial services are being held in New York, DC, and Shanksville, PA where flight 93 crashed.

There is still a war being fought in Afghanistan.

There is still a hole in the ground in New York.

My question for anyone who cares is this: When will we finally let 9/11 go and rebuild?

Answer to 9/10 Question: The Tea Party Cannot Stand Alone

2010-09-11T17:07:00.005-04:00

Yesterday I asked whether the Tea Party could be a viable third party for the United States to break us out of our two-party political system.

I don't believe it can stand alone as the Tea Party suffers from divisiveness and decentralization that make in unsustainable as a national political movement. In other words, at some point in the coming months (likely after the election) the Tea Party will simply die.

For one thing the Tea Party is not a single movement, it is a coalition of national and regional organizations, often funded and run by conservative political action committees. Among these groups are the Nationwide Tea Party Coalition, the Tea Party Express, the Tea Party Nation, The Tea Party Patriots and the National Tea Party Federation. Though these groups often share events they don't always share opinions and leadership. Clicking on their links will show you that they lack good Web site designers and copy writers.

Another issue with the Tea Party is that because of its essential disunity, it doesn't have any clear leaders. Certainly media personalities like Glenn Beck and tabloid queen Sarah Palin hold a great amount of influence in the movement, but in reality it was born out of popular discontent and that is one of it's problems. If an angry and less rational segment of society coalesces into a potent socio-political movement, they can have strong regional political influence, hence the smattering of right-wing fringe Tea Party candidates in some congressional, gubernatorial and senatorial elections this fall.

That is another problem with the Tea Party in the long term. Its membership exists to the right of most Republicans politically. The Republican Party will not win elections if it abandons the political middle and so it has good reason to jettison the Tea Party movement. On the other hand, the Tea Party is made up of the traditional Republican base, so every effort will be made to pull these people back under the GOP tent. In the long run, the Tea Party will shrivel up like the human appendix.

The final problem that the Tea Party faces in trying to become a viable political party is disunity on issues. Tea Party protestors originally echoes their namesakes in colonial America arguing against taxation by a government (nevermind that the Boston Tea Partiers were fighting taxation by a non-representative government, while today's Tea Party is taxed by officials WE THE PEOPLE elected). Now the Tea Party is fighting Ear Marks, Cap and Trade, Health Care Reform, Immigration and wants to usurp the power of the Supreme Court and determine the constitutionality of laws from the Oval Office and the floor of Congress.

The Tea Party in essence exists as an anti-American government movement. It would be hypocritical for them to operate as members of the government they oppose.

Question of the Day 10/10

2010-09-10T21:30:00.002-04:00

In the spirit of the 'Real Americans' who call themselves the Tea Party, I would like to ask everyone if they think the Tea Party could be a real independent 3rd party should it ever be jettisoned from the GOP.

What do you think? Can the Tea Party stand on its own as a political institution?

Answer to 9/9 Question: We are better off

2010-09-10T21:19:00.002-04:00

In the spirit of Ronald Reagan I challenged everyone yesterday to consider whether the country was better off today than we were two years ago.

I think the answer is undeniably yes. There is less economic uncertainty today than there was 2 years ago. The economy is adding more jobs than it is shedding. Thanks to the Health Care Reform passed by Congress more Americans than ever before will have access to quality health care from the best doctors and hospitals in the world.

The Obama administration has suceeded in ending combat operations in Iraq. It is moving forward on civilian and military tribunals for the enemy combatants imprisoned in Guatanamo Bay and focusing our military's efforts on establishing conditions for cessation of hostilities in Afghanistan. Most significantly, Israelis and Palestinians have returned to the bargaining table.

Despite one of the loudest and angriest opposition movements in American history, the Democratic Party and Barack Obama have suceeded time and again in passing strong compromise legislation that will raise the quality of life for the majority of Americans. We are safer from terrorist attacks than ever before and a concerted effort is finally being made to improve our infrastructure so we are more safe on our highways, in our airspace and on our rails.

I'm not completely sure where the criticisms of the Obama Administration have come from. He has been a textbook moderate president reaching for compromise solutions to our most heated controversies, and he has for the most part been successful at implementing his agenda.

When you look past the noise, the country is indeed a better place since Barack Obama became president. Could we do better? Of course. As Bill Clinton once said, we must always strive for a more perfect union.

Not this again

2010-09-10T17:13:00.002-04:00

In the past few days there have been rumblings in the GOP ranks about forcing another government shut down.

Attentive readers will remember that Gingrich and the GOP congress forced a shutdown in 1995 during the successful administration of Bill Clinton. It ended up being a disaster for our country and a humiliation for the Republican Party.

I guess they didn't learn their lesson. Grim days ahead.

The Enthusiasm Gap

2010-09-10T00:08:00.002-04:00

One reason that the Democratic Party is going to be taken behind the woodshed in November is the lack of enthusiasm of Democratic voters.

It is difficult to get fired up when your party controls the White House and both chambers of Congress. It is even more difficult to get fired up when your party has not offered many concrete plans for what it would do with another two years of power. Traditionally the party that hold the presidency experiences losses of seats in congressional election. This year should be no different.

Political gridlock has also created some malaise among Democratic voters. The base was disappointed with the compromises made in passing health care reform. Liberals wanted a public option and more strong progressive legislation. Many moderate and conservative Democrats, on the other hand, would have preferred that reform not pass at all.

Democrats don't even agree on the New York City mosque issue.

The media allows the GOP to dominate the rhetoric describing Democrats. Upon close examination most congressional Dems don't appear liberal at all. They destroy the stereotype of big government, big spending, tax-raising atheists that the Republicans perpetuate.

There is no easy way to define what a Democrat looks like or what he or she believes in.

That, indeed, is the difficulty of motivating the diversity of groups and interests withing the Democratic big tent. Candidates will always make someone unhappy with their statements and decisions. The only way to truly unite Democrats is against a common enemy, whether it be Bush-era policies or the specter of the Christian Right.

At this point Obama and congress have wasted too much time doing damage control and not spent enough time formulating policy and uniting the party against Republican opposition. November will be painful indeed.

Question of the Day 9/9: Are We Better Off?

2010-09-09T17:53:00.002-04:00

In 1980 during a presidential debate, Ronald Reagan had a wonderful moment and asked a question that should define every election in our flawed 2-party system from now until we break free and open up to competition from other parties.

So the question I put to everyone today, 8 weeks before yet another key election, is are we better now than we were two years ago?

Answer to last question of the day: Rap versus Hip-hop

2010-09-09T14:39:00.002-04:00

Well, I'm back. After a very long, laborious Labor Day weekend and a day-or-two under the weather, it is time to pick up right where we left off.

I asked what the difference between hip-hop and rap was, a deviation from the normally political tone of this blog only tangentally related due to the tendency of many rappers to evoke political thought in their rhymes.

My dear friend Nick and I were discussing what this difference could be. There are acts that we associate with the term "rap" - Eminem, Jay Z, Dr. Dre, Snoop Dogg, Nas, 50 Cent, Beastie Boys, Ludacris. There are other acts that we deem "hip-hop" - Brother Ali, Jurassic 5, Blackalicious, Atmosphere, Tribe Called Quest, Wu-Tang Clan.

What is the difference between these groups of artists? Both include white and black acts. Both include lyrical styles that run the spectrum from dark and violent to concious and educated, and often blur the two. Both use a mixture of complex and minimalist production styles.

The reality is that there is no difference between rap and hip-hop as far as the musical style is concerned. We call underground rappers hip-hop artists because they are more closely tied to the hip-hop cultural movement. Rap is just one element of that movement.

The 4 original elements of hip-hop were DJing (mixing both live and in the studio), breakdancing, MCing, and graffiti. With mainstream rap, record producers strip MCing away from it's base culture and package it for mass consumption.

Underground rap feels like hip-hop because it still has a stronger connection to its urban roots, when the youth involved in the subculture still breakdanced, beatboxed and tagged graffiti.

More on Stimulus part 2

2010-09-04T22:08:00.002-04:00

So it is official, more economic stimulus is on the way but it is still unclear what exactly that will entail. The folks at The Daily Beast have a small outline and suggest that it might include tax breaks and rebates and possibly more infrastructure spending.

Tax cuts have never been shown to effectively stimulate the economy, but the Obama Administration may have specific targets in mind that would make it more beneficial than it would otherwise.

If we really want stimulus, it has to be infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure.

Answer to 9/3 Question of the Day

2010-09-04T17:25:00.008-04:00

Yesterday, in response to arguments that a double-dip recession is imminent and a tepid jobs report, I asked:

What metric should we use to determine whether the economy is recovering?

Over the last few weeks the 24-hour news mavens have quoted all sorts of statistics to engender debate over the health of the economy. An alphabet of acronyms and abbreviations dominates every news show: GDP, CPI, CCI, RoI, BoT, GNP. A viewer is bombarded with quotes of the unemployment rate, exchange rate, consumer spending, home sales, the Dow Jones Industrial Average, NASDAQ, The S&P 500, and on, and on, and on.

In reality there is only one true measure of economic output: The gross domestic product (GDP).

The GDP is the sum of the market value for all the products and services created by an economy over a period of time. The word recession actually refers to two or more consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. When we hear the word recession bandied about in the media it is more often than not misused.

I do not think that word means what you think it means!

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the government agency that measures GDP, the economy is still growing. We are no longer in a recession and the recovery is working. Anyone who says otherwise is either 'wishcasting' or making noise ahead of the November election. We won't even know if a second recession occurs until we have two more negative quarters - in other words it will be late February 2011 before we'd know if we were in a recession.

Remember also that the jobs we shed aren't going to be jobs that we get back. Like I've said before, cars and manufactured goods are not going to be where the American people butter their bread in the future. If we don't start educating ourselves and retasking to meet the demands of the new economic realities, we will be out of work, out of our homes and hungry.

Question of the Day

2010-09-04T02:50:00.002-04:00

Today I am going to buck all of my intentions and ask a new question before I've answered yesterday's question. Sue me.

One of my best friends in the history of my short life and in the expanse of the world was listening to good music with me tonight. We heard Pharcyde, Lyrics Born, Blackalicious, Eyedea and Eminem.

We engaged in the old debate of rap versus hip-hop. We all know that there are types of music that some people call RAP and other types of music that other people call HIP-HOP.

A nice conversation was had about whether rap and hip-hop, as forms of music, were actually able to be discerned from each-other. What do you think?

What is the difference between rap and hip-hop?

Yes, Glenn Beck is a liar

2010-09-03T18:13:00.002-04:00

That should be obvious to anyone with a functioning cerebral cortex.

But Keith Olbermann is a turd.

And we're no less in debt, at peace or happy than we were before Glenn Beck lied and Keith Olbermann pointed it out.

The more we let the Becks and Olbermanns set the tone of the political discourse in this country, the harder it will be to get anything done.

Question of the Day 9/3

2010-09-03T13:38:00.004-04:00

As I noted yesterday, the Obama White House seems to be considering another round of economic stimulus. While yesterday I had hoped it might come in the form of infrastructure spending and investment, it appears that if it comes to fruition it would be largely made up of tax-cuts for business owners. There are legitimate doubts if this form of stimulus will create any economic benefit.

Regardless of who you want to blame for the US's current economic misfortunes, there is a rational debate going on behind the scenes on two fronts - one, whether we are really as bad off as the media wants us to think, and two, what we can do to improve our fortunes. Whether the second dilemma is at issue depends on our answer to the first.

Today's question, then, has to do with the recovery:

What metric should we use to determine whether the economy is recovering? Jobs? GDP? The misery index? Consumer confidence?

Answer to 9/2's Question of the Day

2010-09-03T03:49:00.003-04:00

Asked Yesterday:
Can we as a population, using elementary-school economic principles, imagine a scenario in the future where renewable energy sources may be more cost effective than fossil fuel?

We should absolutely be able to fathom that for a number of good reasons, all of which revolve around the law of supply and demand.

For those of us who don't know, the law of supply and demand states that for every product there is an equilibrium price that balances supply and demand, and this equilibrium is found at the intersection of the demand curve and the supply curve.

As supply increases, the price equilibrium will decrease. As supple decreases, the price will increase. The follow illustration shows this effect:

The current argument for fossil fuels is based on supply. There is currently a plentiful (though limited) supply of fossil fuels, especially in the United States. There isn't a compelling reason to abandon them unless we imagine our supply of fossil fuels dwindling. There is also a limited supply in renewable energy right now, driving up the costs. Simply stated, it is easy to see how in the near future the cost of the decreasing supply of using fossil fuels could exceed the cost of an increasing supply of efficient renewable energy resources.

The supply of resources like coal and oil could dry up because we run out of them. We also m,ay face a peak oil or coal situation, our ability to extract and refine non-renewable resources may no longer be able to keep pace with demand. Both would increase the cost of using fossil fuels.

As time goes on human beings will discover more efficient methods of harvesting the energy potential of the sun, the wind and other forces. This will drive down the cost of using renewable energy, increasing demand for it over fossil fuels.

Taking this into consideration, even without the efforts of environmental activists, the days of the coal and oil companies are already numbered.

It is also important that we not forget the other costs of using coal and oil combustion to fuel our vehicles and our power plants. Coal and oil are very labor intensive - renewable resources are not. Fossil fuels come with major infrastructural, environmental and health liabilities that solar, wind and hydroelectric electricity generation do not share.

Someone up there must be listening

2010-09-02T19:45:00.002-04:00

I am convinced that somehow my little whinings must be making their way up the political echelons through osmosis, because after weeks of ranting about the need for a second stimulus based on economic and transportation infrastructure adjustments and research and development of new technological economic sectors, it seems like the Obama Administration got the same idea. I know exactly where they can spend it, too.

They should hire me to think of this stuff.

Question of the Day

2010-09-02T13:08:00.002-04:00

The explosion of another oil rig in the gulf made me think about the monetary cost versus the actual cost of fossil fuel production. When compared to renewable energy resources, the fossil fuel industry argues for its survival by touting the cost effectiveness of burning coal, oil and natural gas.
Today's question is an easy one:

Can we as a population, using elementary-school economic principles, imagine a scenario in the future where renewable energy sources may be more cost effective than fossil fuel?

What we have here is a failure to communicate

2010-08-31T09:59:00.003-04:00

I look at the Obama Administration and the Democratic party and shake my head. Here we have a majority party that is in the process of cratering, as John McCain would so eloquently say.

It isn't that they are bad, or that their ideas are bad - it is that they don't know how to communicate them effectively, and Democrats and the Obama administration have failed to do any damage control. Here we have a party that is being destroyed by its own open-mindedness. The kind of dissent that we have seen over the past two years in the Democratic ranks is not-so-easily tolerated within the Republican party.

As a result, the party controlling the US congress has invented its own gridlock.

Who, then, does the Obama Administration blame for the lack of progress on bills and federal appointments?

The Republican Party, of course!

Look, the Democrats blame Republicans for the current economic crisis - that is fair.
They blame Republicans for the poorly planned and executed operations in Iraq and Afghanistan - also probably fair.
They blame Republicans for the crumbling, obsolete infrastructure that hampers the development of business and industry around the US - most definitely fair.

But they can't blame the GOP for their own lack of progress. This is the Democrats' failure and they should own it.

One thing you can say about the Republicans is that their plans might drive this country into ruin, but at least they have plans and they will execute them even if it means making some creative edits to the constitution.

Americans are worried about the economy and their basic security and survival. At this time we have the Republicans giving an assured message that they will cut taxes and somehow that will fix all of our problems (never mind that cutting taxes has NEVER stimulated the economy, created jobs or fixed anything).

Can someone tell me what the Democrats are going to do?

Just stop already

2010-08-29T00:39:00.006-04:00

I am no fan of conservative policies. I detest Fox News and the right-wing talk radio crowd for their general dishonesty and failure to be balanced and rational, even while they call themselves balanced and fair. My personal allegiances should be clear to anyone who reads my blog or knows me personally.

However, the hate and negativity coming from the left wing has to stop.

Yes, I know Sarah Palin isn't going to win a Nobel Prize in Physics any time soon. I know Glenn Beck is a manipulative crybaby. And Bill O'Reilly is a bully. And Rush Limbaugh... well, he's Rush Limbaugh.

But raging on these guys because the last two years haven't panned out like we'd like is not constructive behavior.

Successful campaigns are not negative campaigns.

Yes, if you are a Democrat, you are going to lose big in November. If you aren't careful and proactive, you are going to lose control of the House of Representatives. You aren't going to curb your losses by lashing out at all things conservative.

When the Democrats won in 2006 and 2008 they ran on platforms with actual plans in them - it wasn't just anger at the failure of the Bush Administration to do much of anything. Remember the campaign of 'hope and change'?

Americans are afraid and insecure - the economy is terrible and the stimulus has not produced the results they wanted. People won't respond to tactics that stop at calling the other side stupid and wrong without offering anything in return.

You'll never defeat the Glenn Becks and Sarah Palins of the world if you stoop to their tactics.