Well, one hope and one nice quote.
1st the Hope, Thomas Friedman visited Saudi Arabia and I am reminded how much I miss my being able to travel around the world. Only by visiting countries and hearing what is going on there from people who live there do you really find out the truth and have insights into where things may be going.
Anyway, there are some good things going on in Saudi Arabia and maybe, just maybe, they will overwhelm the bad things coming out of Saudi Arabia feeding ISIS.
Link to Thomas Friedman's column from Saudi Arabia
Douglas North, a Noble Prize winning economist died. His speciality was the interaction of society on the economy. The key quote is: “Economic history has taught us that the world is an evolving complex system, always changing,” he said.
And my take away is that is why politicians cannot use rigid rule based policies as political economic policy. Forces will change and policy must respond.
Something Saudi Arabia is hopefully learning.
Wednesday, November 25, 2015
Monday, November 23, 2015
Sunday, November 22, 2015
Sunday Musings 11/22/15: Ross Douthat endorses Hillary sort of & 6 year Presidential Terms
Well, Ross Douthat complemented Hillary in a backhanded manner, while wising the GOP would find a rational anti-terrortist policy to run on.
His key line is: "We don't face a single Soviet-style threat or a convenient "axis" of allied evils. We can't defeat ISIS and contain Iran and push back Russia and contain China all at once. So we need a President who can see the strategic chessboard whole, who can instill fear in our rivals but also negotiate boldly in situations where the opportunity presents itself."
Don't worry my right wing readers, he is really praising Richard Nixon and postulating that Hillary may possess some of Nixon's weaknesses, but being adamant that none of the GOP candidates offer a rational anti-terrorist policy.
Link to Ross Douthat column
Meanwhile Frank Bruni wrote a column about How ISIS is winning, while losing, and the need for a nuanced respectful political process. He is disappointed that President Obama cannot try to unite the country on this front because it undermines the good that the President can do. I refer people to my blog written sometime ago bemoaning his executive action on immigration because just as in Roe v Wade, some social issues are better decided by the legislative process because that finalizes them, while court decision/executive actions simple decide them and leave the anger festering with the hope of overturning that decision eventually.
Bruni's column got me thinking. The last 2 years of a term limited Presidency have not turned out well since Eisenhower. Neither Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter or Bush I got there. Reagan did and I don't have much memory of what happened there other than black Monday because I was a young father and it was a long time ago. But Clinton had the Lewinsky incident and all that led to. Bush II had the collapse of the financial system from the nonexistent regulation of the mortgage market. And Obama is not getting much accomplished because I think he has lost the mental energy to negotiate with the GOP and fight back against the most liberal elements of the Democratic party.
For my right wing readers, remember that within the both the ACA and Dodd-Frank there were negotiations with the GOP and what came out of this was arguably GOP style policy. Democrats would have instituted a Single Payer Medicare For All, and would have broken up the Big Banks, no matter how idiotic that would be. Instead, we got Heritage Foundation designed Health Insurance, and once must remember why the Heritage Foundation deemed it worthy to look at Health Insurance. Heath Care costs had risen to 20% of GDP with no expectation of a decline in sight.
So I share some of Bruni's disappointment with President's Obama statements this past week, and wonder if the U.S. wouldn't be better off with one 6 year term, like Mexico does. The experience of most of my life is year's 7 & 8 don't turn out too well. Just a thought.
Link to Frank Bruni column
His key line is: "We don't face a single Soviet-style threat or a convenient "axis" of allied evils. We can't defeat ISIS and contain Iran and push back Russia and contain China all at once. So we need a President who can see the strategic chessboard whole, who can instill fear in our rivals but also negotiate boldly in situations where the opportunity presents itself."
Don't worry my right wing readers, he is really praising Richard Nixon and postulating that Hillary may possess some of Nixon's weaknesses, but being adamant that none of the GOP candidates offer a rational anti-terrorist policy.
Link to Ross Douthat column
Meanwhile Frank Bruni wrote a column about How ISIS is winning, while losing, and the need for a nuanced respectful political process. He is disappointed that President Obama cannot try to unite the country on this front because it undermines the good that the President can do. I refer people to my blog written sometime ago bemoaning his executive action on immigration because just as in Roe v Wade, some social issues are better decided by the legislative process because that finalizes them, while court decision/executive actions simple decide them and leave the anger festering with the hope of overturning that decision eventually.
Bruni's column got me thinking. The last 2 years of a term limited Presidency have not turned out well since Eisenhower. Neither Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter or Bush I got there. Reagan did and I don't have much memory of what happened there other than black Monday because I was a young father and it was a long time ago. But Clinton had the Lewinsky incident and all that led to. Bush II had the collapse of the financial system from the nonexistent regulation of the mortgage market. And Obama is not getting much accomplished because I think he has lost the mental energy to negotiate with the GOP and fight back against the most liberal elements of the Democratic party.
For my right wing readers, remember that within the both the ACA and Dodd-Frank there were negotiations with the GOP and what came out of this was arguably GOP style policy. Democrats would have instituted a Single Payer Medicare For All, and would have broken up the Big Banks, no matter how idiotic that would be. Instead, we got Heritage Foundation designed Health Insurance, and once must remember why the Heritage Foundation deemed it worthy to look at Health Insurance. Heath Care costs had risen to 20% of GDP with no expectation of a decline in sight.
So I share some of Bruni's disappointment with President's Obama statements this past week, and wonder if the U.S. wouldn't be better off with one 6 year term, like Mexico does. The experience of most of my life is year's 7 & 8 don't turn out too well. Just a thought.
Link to Frank Bruni column
Friday, November 20, 2015
Hillary Connects the Dots of The Rat's Nest
At a speech yesterday at the Council on Foreign Relations, Hillary laid out her vision for a possible solution to Syria. Only if you get Russia and Iran to agree to regime change and Assad leaves, will the Sunni's rise up and oppose Sunni ISIS.
So how do you get Russia and Iran to do that. Russia is perhaps easier, although as she pointed out nothing is easy with Russia these days. Russia is legitimately concerned about the prospect of Islamic terrorism hitting within Russia and wants to eliminate ISIS. But they are playing tough with their support of Assad and probably want some concession in the Ukraine as the price for Assad. But I remind you and I hope the U.S. government remembers, it was Putin's provision of the latest in anti-airplane technology that resulted in the Malaysian 747 civilian airliner being shot down. Those boys in the Ukrainian separatist movement just couldn't resist firing off their toy. And Putin is responsible for that and cannot be allowed to simply have his way in Eastern Ukraine. Of which I last read, is suffering terrible economically because neither Russia nor the Ukraine is running the local government there and the bad boy separatists who are don't know how to manage an economy or apparently a military force either since I doubt they really wanted to kill a bunch of Dutch or Malaysians, but murder should have consequences, regardless of intentions.
Anyway, Hillary, unlike the GOP Presidential candidates, understands this is war on Islamic terrorists, not Islam. If you make it the latter, Muslims in Indonesia, Malaysia, India and numerous other countries who are not anti-American might well become anti-American. After all, all the Paris Islamic terrorists have been either French or Belgian and could have flown right into the U.S. without a Visa. And then they could have bought numerous guns without any background checks, legally.
And if the GOP thinks we can wall off the U.S. from 1.6 billion people without some economic consequence, they need to rethink this. 1.6 billion people is 25% of the world's population. (I mean these are the same people who want to do nothing about Climate Change because of the perceived economic costs). These same people want to deport 11 million people and reduce the U.S. labor force by 3% and our consumption by 3%. How will trickle down economics work if there is shrinkage in demand? That is a negative feed back loop. Not to mention what is the cost of a National Police Force to find the undocumented workers in every nook and cranny of the U.S. including farms in the middle of no where coast to coast border to border because the Caucasian farmer children fled that work to live in cities.
Anyway, Hillary knows that it took Sunni's to defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq and it will take Sunni's to end ISIS. And the only path to ending Hezbollah and Hamas is getting Iran to end its messing around. That is the most difficult path and requires a unified front including the E.U., Russia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Pakistan and the U.S.
And everyone tries to ignore the mess in Africa with Al Shabab and Boko Haram and who knows what they call themselves in Mali, but bad things keep happening in Africa. The U.S. military cannot police the world everywhere, and these nations need to clean up their corrupt governments and bring some order to themselves.
So how do you get Russia and Iran to do that. Russia is perhaps easier, although as she pointed out nothing is easy with Russia these days. Russia is legitimately concerned about the prospect of Islamic terrorism hitting within Russia and wants to eliminate ISIS. But they are playing tough with their support of Assad and probably want some concession in the Ukraine as the price for Assad. But I remind you and I hope the U.S. government remembers, it was Putin's provision of the latest in anti-airplane technology that resulted in the Malaysian 747 civilian airliner being shot down. Those boys in the Ukrainian separatist movement just couldn't resist firing off their toy. And Putin is responsible for that and cannot be allowed to simply have his way in Eastern Ukraine. Of which I last read, is suffering terrible economically because neither Russia nor the Ukraine is running the local government there and the bad boy separatists who are don't know how to manage an economy or apparently a military force either since I doubt they really wanted to kill a bunch of Dutch or Malaysians, but murder should have consequences, regardless of intentions.
Anyway, Hillary, unlike the GOP Presidential candidates, understands this is war on Islamic terrorists, not Islam. If you make it the latter, Muslims in Indonesia, Malaysia, India and numerous other countries who are not anti-American might well become anti-American. After all, all the Paris Islamic terrorists have been either French or Belgian and could have flown right into the U.S. without a Visa. And then they could have bought numerous guns without any background checks, legally.
And if the GOP thinks we can wall off the U.S. from 1.6 billion people without some economic consequence, they need to rethink this. 1.6 billion people is 25% of the world's population. (I mean these are the same people who want to do nothing about Climate Change because of the perceived economic costs). These same people want to deport 11 million people and reduce the U.S. labor force by 3% and our consumption by 3%. How will trickle down economics work if there is shrinkage in demand? That is a negative feed back loop. Not to mention what is the cost of a National Police Force to find the undocumented workers in every nook and cranny of the U.S. including farms in the middle of no where coast to coast border to border because the Caucasian farmer children fled that work to live in cities.
Anyway, Hillary knows that it took Sunni's to defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq and it will take Sunni's to end ISIS. And the only path to ending Hezbollah and Hamas is getting Iran to end its messing around. That is the most difficult path and requires a unified front including the E.U., Russia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Pakistan and the U.S.
And everyone tries to ignore the mess in Africa with Al Shabab and Boko Haram and who knows what they call themselves in Mali, but bad things keep happening in Africa. The U.S. military cannot police the world everywhere, and these nations need to clean up their corrupt governments and bring some order to themselves.
Wednesday, November 18, 2015
Even one terrorist is too much, but the NRA doesn't agree
This insanity is based upon a hatred of our President who is trying to find the balance we need as a nation to prevent it from another failure to recognize good citizens arrive without regard to their race: I refer of course to the U.S. sending Jews, fleeing Europe before WWII, back to Europe, the slow recognition that Japanese Americans were loyal to the U.S., the continuous delay in recognizing the lack of gun control has led to a war on all African Americans (there was a story today about 18 Santa Monica policeman showing up with guns drawn to investigate a Hispanic locksmith helping an African American Dartmouth M.B.A. get into the apartment which she locked herself out of), and now this completely valid concern about terrorists morphing into an indictment of people fleeing that very same terrorism because they cannot stand living within it anymore.
Nicholas Krisfoff agrees: "If Republican governors are concerned about security risks, maybe they should vet who can buy guns. People on terrorism watch lists are legally allowed to buy guns in the United States, and more than 2,000 have done so since 2004. The National Rifle Association has opposed legislation to rectify this."
I wish the GOP would listen to themselves once in a while and look to correct the many inconsistencies within what they say.
Tuesday, November 17, 2015
Book Review: World Order by Henry Kissinger
There can be no question that Henry Kissinger has a mind that is able to synthesize and explain coherently truisms that exist in the complex world of societal development through the centuries; and then extrapolate what is the best path for a nation to take today in its need to deal diplomatically with other countries.
The unfortunate truth that is understated in the book is that sometimes there are no good choices, there are only less bad choices, and sometimes a national leadership will make a poor choice with dire consequences for their citizens (i.e. Napoleon, Hitler, Mao) and people in nearby countries.
But what Kissinger presents better here than in any other book I have read is a comprehensive review of how nations have interacted with each other diplomatically since nation states were formed. Kissinger believes that the 1st real event is the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 "because the elements set in place were as uncomplicated as they were sweeping. The state, not the empire, dynasty, or regions orientation, was affirmed as the building block of European order."
The book reviews the dynamics that alternately produced peace and war on the Europe continent for the next 300 years. The one constant that was necessary for a lasting peace was diplomacy and an understanding of the need for balance so each countries' needs are met, when those needs are reasonable and universal. Kissinger then analyzes the E.U.'s current position which has followed the global economy into an economic union that transcends the political construction and outlines the challenges that creates for the E.U.'s contribution to World Order.
Kissinger then moves onto the Middle East and illustrates how "Every form of domestic and international order has existed, and been rejected, at one time or the other and there is no settled concept of international order in the region." As a result, the region will remain pulled alternately toward joining the world community and struggling against it."
Islam throughout history has use conquest as the means for expanding its dominance as a religion. The only comparable conquest were the Huns, but they had no religion to leave behind as an influence. Further complicating the Middle East was the Westphalian based establishment of colonization which combined Sunni Shia peoples and put European or Turkish military force on top of their disagreements, and then spun out independent countries when the military force was withdrawn. These countries then became subject to the Cold War alignment between Russia and the U.S. and the complicated issues that have arisen since Russia's Communist leadership disbanded.
The issues present today for both Saudi and Iranian leadership are very complex. Kissinger outlines them without presenting a solution. Suffice it to say both countries have serious domestic issues which affect their international diplomacy both regionally and globally. Kissinger important contribution to non-Middle Eastern policies is to remember "the American attitude toward Iran and Saudi Arabia cannot be simply a balance-of-power calculation or a democratization issue; it must be shaped in the context of what is above all a religious struggle, already lasting a millennium, between the two wings of Islam....There is a delicate latticework of relationships underpinning Saudi Arabia at its heart....and to Saudi Arabia, the conflict with Iran is existential, involving the survival of the monarchy, the legitimacy of the State and the future of Islam."
Needless to say in a book about World Order, Kissinger highlights the danger of states not being governed in their entirety and how technology and modern weapons make such lack of governance more dangerous to the rest of the World because criminal militarily inclined people take advantage of such a void to build a base to take their ambitions elsewhere.
I think, he says it in a fairly oblique manner, that Kissinger's answer for the state of Syria is to support Assad as the opposition to him has tilted in such an extreme direction, and then use diplomacy to bring Assad back from his association with Iran and Hezbollah. The book predates the migration of 25% of Syria's population, so I don't know how that would effect his views.
The important thing to remember about the Middle East and our failure to construct a balanced Sunni/Shia/Kurdish political situation in Iraq, is that "Achieving an American style democracy through military occupation in a part of the world where they had no historical roots and to expect fundamental change in a politically relevant period of time - the standard set by many supporters and critics of the Iraq effort alike - proved beyond what the American public would support and what Iraqi society could accommodate."
Kissinger goes to review the history of Asia with its basis in alternately Confucianism and a"Sinocentric" tribute system. This "organization of Asia is thus an inherent challenge for world order. Major countries' perception and pursuit of their national interests, rather than the balance of power as a system, have shaped the mechanisms that have developed." The important take away is not all the world sees the nature of the world in an identical manner and Asian culture has been developing longer that Western culture.
Kissinger than reviews how the United States has played a decisive role in shaping contemporary world order while at the same time professing great ambivalence about doing so. We alternately attempt to spread our values in the believe that all other peoples aspire to replicate them vs recognizing that not every culture wants to replicate them.
The book has much interesting discussion of the influence of Woodrow Wilson on the U.S. framework for world order because he promoted the tradition of American exceptionalism which both the Republican and Democrats have adapted as their basic framework for foreign policy.
There is an extensive review of 20th Century history and U.S. foreign policy successes, failures and outcomes in-between.
The book concludes with an amazing review of the issues for world order that technology presents. Technology works in many different directions simultaneously. And while technology has improved many things, it also opens the door to vigorous challenges to world order. If the book was just this chapter, it would be well worth reading.
All societies face the need to find a balance between (i) achieving foreign policy goals that protect their society, (ii) setting objectives that we will work towards , even if not supported by a multilateral effort, (iii) setting objectives we will work towards only if supported by a multilateral effort and (iv) determining what we will not engage in even if urged to do so by a multilateral effort. Societies need to define their values and how they will apply them internationally.
"For the United States, the quest of world order functions on two levels: the celebration of universal principles needs to be paired with a recognition of the reality of other regions' histories and cultures."
"America - as the modern world's decisive articulation of the human quest for freedom, and an indispensable geopolitical force for the vindication of humane values - must maintain its sense of direction."
The unfortunate truth that is understated in the book is that sometimes there are no good choices, there are only less bad choices, and sometimes a national leadership will make a poor choice with dire consequences for their citizens (i.e. Napoleon, Hitler, Mao) and people in nearby countries.
But what Kissinger presents better here than in any other book I have read is a comprehensive review of how nations have interacted with each other diplomatically since nation states were formed. Kissinger believes that the 1st real event is the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 "because the elements set in place were as uncomplicated as they were sweeping. The state, not the empire, dynasty, or regions orientation, was affirmed as the building block of European order."
The book reviews the dynamics that alternately produced peace and war on the Europe continent for the next 300 years. The one constant that was necessary for a lasting peace was diplomacy and an understanding of the need for balance so each countries' needs are met, when those needs are reasonable and universal. Kissinger then analyzes the E.U.'s current position which has followed the global economy into an economic union that transcends the political construction and outlines the challenges that creates for the E.U.'s contribution to World Order.
Kissinger then moves onto the Middle East and illustrates how "Every form of domestic and international order has existed, and been rejected, at one time or the other and there is no settled concept of international order in the region." As a result, the region will remain pulled alternately toward joining the world community and struggling against it."
Islam throughout history has use conquest as the means for expanding its dominance as a religion. The only comparable conquest were the Huns, but they had no religion to leave behind as an influence. Further complicating the Middle East was the Westphalian based establishment of colonization which combined Sunni Shia peoples and put European or Turkish military force on top of their disagreements, and then spun out independent countries when the military force was withdrawn. These countries then became subject to the Cold War alignment between Russia and the U.S. and the complicated issues that have arisen since Russia's Communist leadership disbanded.
The issues present today for both Saudi and Iranian leadership are very complex. Kissinger outlines them without presenting a solution. Suffice it to say both countries have serious domestic issues which affect their international diplomacy both regionally and globally. Kissinger important contribution to non-Middle Eastern policies is to remember "the American attitude toward Iran and Saudi Arabia cannot be simply a balance-of-power calculation or a democratization issue; it must be shaped in the context of what is above all a religious struggle, already lasting a millennium, between the two wings of Islam....There is a delicate latticework of relationships underpinning Saudi Arabia at its heart....and to Saudi Arabia, the conflict with Iran is existential, involving the survival of the monarchy, the legitimacy of the State and the future of Islam."
Needless to say in a book about World Order, Kissinger highlights the danger of states not being governed in their entirety and how technology and modern weapons make such lack of governance more dangerous to the rest of the World because criminal militarily inclined people take advantage of such a void to build a base to take their ambitions elsewhere.
I think, he says it in a fairly oblique manner, that Kissinger's answer for the state of Syria is to support Assad as the opposition to him has tilted in such an extreme direction, and then use diplomacy to bring Assad back from his association with Iran and Hezbollah. The book predates the migration of 25% of Syria's population, so I don't know how that would effect his views.
The important thing to remember about the Middle East and our failure to construct a balanced Sunni/Shia/Kurdish political situation in Iraq, is that "Achieving an American style democracy through military occupation in a part of the world where they had no historical roots and to expect fundamental change in a politically relevant period of time - the standard set by many supporters and critics of the Iraq effort alike - proved beyond what the American public would support and what Iraqi society could accommodate."
Kissinger goes to review the history of Asia with its basis in alternately Confucianism and a"Sinocentric" tribute system. This "organization of Asia is thus an inherent challenge for world order. Major countries' perception and pursuit of their national interests, rather than the balance of power as a system, have shaped the mechanisms that have developed." The important take away is not all the world sees the nature of the world in an identical manner and Asian culture has been developing longer that Western culture.
Kissinger than reviews how the United States has played a decisive role in shaping contemporary world order while at the same time professing great ambivalence about doing so. We alternately attempt to spread our values in the believe that all other peoples aspire to replicate them vs recognizing that not every culture wants to replicate them.
The book has much interesting discussion of the influence of Woodrow Wilson on the U.S. framework for world order because he promoted the tradition of American exceptionalism which both the Republican and Democrats have adapted as their basic framework for foreign policy.
There is an extensive review of 20th Century history and U.S. foreign policy successes, failures and outcomes in-between.
The book concludes with an amazing review of the issues for world order that technology presents. Technology works in many different directions simultaneously. And while technology has improved many things, it also opens the door to vigorous challenges to world order. If the book was just this chapter, it would be well worth reading.
All societies face the need to find a balance between (i) achieving foreign policy goals that protect their society, (ii) setting objectives that we will work towards , even if not supported by a multilateral effort, (iii) setting objectives we will work towards only if supported by a multilateral effort and (iv) determining what we will not engage in even if urged to do so by a multilateral effort. Societies need to define their values and how they will apply them internationally.
"For the United States, the quest of world order functions on two levels: the celebration of universal principles needs to be paired with a recognition of the reality of other regions' histories and cultures."
"America - as the modern world's decisive articulation of the human quest for freedom, and an indispensable geopolitical force for the vindication of humane values - must maintain its sense of direction."
Military Force and Religion are the Only Long Term Solutions
for Islamic Terrorism. The key political issue is whose military force and in what form, and how do we convince Saudi Arabia and Iran and Turkey and Egypt and Pakistan to use Religion to defeat Jihadism.
As usual, David Brooks says it better than me, Link
And Michael Gerson dives into the discussion with similar thoughts.
Link to Gerson Column
As usual, David Brooks says it better than me, Link
And Michael Gerson dives into the discussion with similar thoughts.
Link to Gerson Column
Monday, November 16, 2015
A Thoughtful Piece that reinforces my view on Islamic Terrorism Responses
which is we need Iran, Saudi Arabia & Turkey to stop the Sunni Shia War and the funding of Terrorist Groups.
Link to Column by Counter Terrorist Expert
And Mitt Romney Agrees with me too.
Link to Mitt Romney Column
And just why did Mitt write this so quickly, is he thinking about running for President again? All I know is after reading about how Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal and Mike Huckabee willingly spoke at a conference promoted by and featuring a radical pastor who wants to exterminate gay people if they don't convert to Evangelical Christianity, Mitt would be a welcome alternative to them, Trump and Carson.
Link to Column by Counter Terrorist Expert
And Mitt Romney Agrees with me too.
Link to Mitt Romney Column
And just why did Mitt write this so quickly, is he thinking about running for President again? All I know is after reading about how Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal and Mike Huckabee willingly spoke at a conference promoted by and featuring a radical pastor who wants to exterminate gay people if they don't convert to Evangelical Christianity, Mitt would be a welcome alternative to them, Trump and Carson.
Saturday, November 14, 2015
Terrorism
This is a complex topic with no easy answer. I suppose it is good that most populations expect their government to protect them from terrorism even when it is an unrealistic expectation that a government can protect 100% of the people from 100% of the terrorism. With that expectation, governments must work hard to achieve that and realize that there is a price to be paid for failure, and by working hard to achieve 100% they will achieve a higher percentage than they would have if they were not trying to achieve 100%.
But in a free society, how do you protect the people? Well, for one thing, you have to access the best in technology to try and uncover communications that will lead you to hidden terrorists, whether they are home grown or externally grown. I am not bothered that the NSA can access phone numbers I dial or emails I write or read this blog. This is where I disagree with libertarian types who fear the government's access to this type of stuff. If you are plotting something, you give up your right to privacy.
And the world has to have effective governments in every place so there is order in every place. Bad things happen when there is disorder. But maintaining order cannot be the sole responsibility of the U.S.A. It is a responsibility of the U.S.A. and every other government. So when there is an area of land that is ungoverned, every responsible government has an obligation to work diplomatically (and militarily if diplomacy fails) to insure that ungoverned land is governed, because only with governance do you get order.
The unfortunate truth is that anarchists/terrorists have some screw lose in their head that all they want to do is make a statement and murder people in order to make that statement. And if they are determined and don't make a mistake, there is not one government out there that can protect 100% of its citizens 100% of the time.
Given the turmoil in this world and the anger in the fringe elements of so many societies including the U.S.A., I am pleasantly surprised that there is not more terrorism.
Now what can be done.
Well, domestically, the GOP types that feed on saying Democrats are evil and Democrats who feed on saying the GOP is evil, need to realize that we are all on the same side and just want to live in a free prosperous country. ObamaCare is not socialism and robbing people of freedom. It was designed by The Heritage Foundation. Acknowledging the right of people to practice whatever religion they choose is the core of this nation, as is immigration, and managing issues surrounding that is what we have a Congress and a Judicial system to do. Disagreement in an orderly civilized nation should not be a reason to commit violent acts or use language that incites violence.
Globally, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, Kuwait, the U.A.E., and Egypt need to have a serious discussion about how they are going to clean up the mess they have made reigniting the Sunni/Shia discord that has been 1000 years in the making. The U.S. cannot do that for them. ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, and Al Shabab cannot exist if some state is not funding them. And Israel needs to be ready to accept an overture from those Islamic nations that if they curb their funding to Hezbollah and Hamas, if Israel will leave the West Bank and let the Palestinians govern themselves.
And the rest of the world including China, India, Japan, the E.U., Russia and the Americas need to keep the financial pressure on the Islamic Nations to find a solution for this mess. The only issue these non-Democratic Arab nations understand is the power of the purse. Their domestic agendas require enormous sums of money flowing from oil. That is why Saudi Arabia is trying to bury the fracking and tar sand oil business by pushing the price of oil below their breakevens. But the Developed World now has enough energy that we don't need the oil from the Middle East and now is the time to pressure those governments to cease funding and supporting these Islamic terrorist organizations.
The Developed World needs to unite and get on the same page. Iran in particular is a master at exploiting division. That will require diplomacy and not a knee jerk neoconservative let's just have the U.S. fix it. For the U.S. to fix it, we would have to colonize the entire Islamic Middle East and govern it effectively until the Sunni and Shia's decided to get along. And before they did that, they would unite to kill Americans soldiers. The power of the purse is the only path to getting the Islamic Middle East to try and end the Sunni/Shia divide.
I know there is no evidence that my suggested path would work, but there has also not been a sustained real effort to move along such a path.
But in a free society, how do you protect the people? Well, for one thing, you have to access the best in technology to try and uncover communications that will lead you to hidden terrorists, whether they are home grown or externally grown. I am not bothered that the NSA can access phone numbers I dial or emails I write or read this blog. This is where I disagree with libertarian types who fear the government's access to this type of stuff. If you are plotting something, you give up your right to privacy.
And the world has to have effective governments in every place so there is order in every place. Bad things happen when there is disorder. But maintaining order cannot be the sole responsibility of the U.S.A. It is a responsibility of the U.S.A. and every other government. So when there is an area of land that is ungoverned, every responsible government has an obligation to work diplomatically (and militarily if diplomacy fails) to insure that ungoverned land is governed, because only with governance do you get order.
The unfortunate truth is that anarchists/terrorists have some screw lose in their head that all they want to do is make a statement and murder people in order to make that statement. And if they are determined and don't make a mistake, there is not one government out there that can protect 100% of its citizens 100% of the time.
Given the turmoil in this world and the anger in the fringe elements of so many societies including the U.S.A., I am pleasantly surprised that there is not more terrorism.
Now what can be done.
Well, domestically, the GOP types that feed on saying Democrats are evil and Democrats who feed on saying the GOP is evil, need to realize that we are all on the same side and just want to live in a free prosperous country. ObamaCare is not socialism and robbing people of freedom. It was designed by The Heritage Foundation. Acknowledging the right of people to practice whatever religion they choose is the core of this nation, as is immigration, and managing issues surrounding that is what we have a Congress and a Judicial system to do. Disagreement in an orderly civilized nation should not be a reason to commit violent acts or use language that incites violence.
Globally, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, Kuwait, the U.A.E., and Egypt need to have a serious discussion about how they are going to clean up the mess they have made reigniting the Sunni/Shia discord that has been 1000 years in the making. The U.S. cannot do that for them. ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, and Al Shabab cannot exist if some state is not funding them. And Israel needs to be ready to accept an overture from those Islamic nations that if they curb their funding to Hezbollah and Hamas, if Israel will leave the West Bank and let the Palestinians govern themselves.
And the rest of the world including China, India, Japan, the E.U., Russia and the Americas need to keep the financial pressure on the Islamic Nations to find a solution for this mess. The only issue these non-Democratic Arab nations understand is the power of the purse. Their domestic agendas require enormous sums of money flowing from oil. That is why Saudi Arabia is trying to bury the fracking and tar sand oil business by pushing the price of oil below their breakevens. But the Developed World now has enough energy that we don't need the oil from the Middle East and now is the time to pressure those governments to cease funding and supporting these Islamic terrorist organizations.
The Developed World needs to unite and get on the same page. Iran in particular is a master at exploiting division. That will require diplomacy and not a knee jerk neoconservative let's just have the U.S. fix it. For the U.S. to fix it, we would have to colonize the entire Islamic Middle East and govern it effectively until the Sunni and Shia's decided to get along. And before they did that, they would unite to kill Americans soldiers. The power of the purse is the only path to getting the Islamic Middle East to try and end the Sunni/Shia divide.
I know there is no evidence that my suggested path would work, but there has also not been a sustained real effort to move along such a path.
Friday, November 13, 2015
The 1st & 2nd of Many Reasons to not vote for the GOP: National Defense and Economic Policy
I am reading Henry Kissinger's book World Order and it is a staggering recitation of the base fact that building a Democratic Nation in the Islamic Middle East was doomed to failure, but he likes Bush II and refused to be even remotely critical of his Iraq choices preferring to highlight another base fact that the American electorate is conflicted between idealism and realism and swings between the two.
And that is why I am no longer a neoconservative. While I believe in a strong national defense, we have to use it wisely and only when their is a clear path to a goal. We cannot get caught in quagmires and put troops into places from which they cannot extricate themselves. And we cannot be in a position of forcing them to determine which civilian is a civilian and which civilian is a terrorist or armed combatant. That will inevitably lead to mistakes, turn the population further against us, and increase the instability and the violence our troops face.
So we while we need to contain Jihadists, we need to do it with the world and we need the Islamic World to be part of the solution. And today I read that U.S. jets are bombing Syrian oil fields because ISIS is still exporting oil. To whom? Assad? Turkey? There are no other choices and why are they buying oil from ISIS.
But believe it or not I set out today to write about economic policy, so I will change the heading to 1st and 2nd.
If you deport 2% or 3% of the labor force you will send the economy into a recession. Just as when you shrink the pool of capital, you create a recession. This is because economic activity is the creation of capital and labor. To grow, you need increasing capital, and at a minimum, growing productivity of labor, and if that is not happening, a growing pool of labor. If you shrink the labor force by deporting 11 mm people, you will shrink the labor force by at least 5 mm people. There are 122 mm full time workers and I estimate another 20 mm part-time workers. So deporting 5 mm workers shrinks the labor force by 3.5%. And consumption will go down by 3.5% (11 mm/319 mm residents).
So if you shrink the labor force by 3.5% and consumption goes down by 3.5%, and millions of homes are suddenly vacant without rent being paid, you will create a negative economic feedback loop and a recession is guaranteed.
And meanwhile, the GOP conservatives all want to balance the budget and create a hard money anti-infaltionary central bank focus. But they will cut taxes and government spending to balance the budget. They ignore another basic economic fact, the way to prevent a recession from becoming a depression is fiscal stimulus and loose monetary policy because if there is no increase in demand, there is no inflation and there is no economic growth.
As far as I can tell, the GOP candidates want to emulate Herbert Hoover's policies and send the economy into a tail spin not seen since 1928.
And if you shrink the labor force, you reduce the income being taxed for Social Security and Medicare exacerbating their funding shortfalls and putting retirees income and well being at risk. So the GOP are not proposing a set of polices that will enhance retiree entitlements.
So, both National Defense and Economic Policy are reasons to vote against the GOP and for whomever the Democrats nominate no matter what their flaws because this incoherent set of GOP policies must be stopped.
And that is why I am no longer a neoconservative. While I believe in a strong national defense, we have to use it wisely and only when their is a clear path to a goal. We cannot get caught in quagmires and put troops into places from which they cannot extricate themselves. And we cannot be in a position of forcing them to determine which civilian is a civilian and which civilian is a terrorist or armed combatant. That will inevitably lead to mistakes, turn the population further against us, and increase the instability and the violence our troops face.
So we while we need to contain Jihadists, we need to do it with the world and we need the Islamic World to be part of the solution. And today I read that U.S. jets are bombing Syrian oil fields because ISIS is still exporting oil. To whom? Assad? Turkey? There are no other choices and why are they buying oil from ISIS.
But believe it or not I set out today to write about economic policy, so I will change the heading to 1st and 2nd.
If you deport 2% or 3% of the labor force you will send the economy into a recession. Just as when you shrink the pool of capital, you create a recession. This is because economic activity is the creation of capital and labor. To grow, you need increasing capital, and at a minimum, growing productivity of labor, and if that is not happening, a growing pool of labor. If you shrink the labor force by deporting 11 mm people, you will shrink the labor force by at least 5 mm people. There are 122 mm full time workers and I estimate another 20 mm part-time workers. So deporting 5 mm workers shrinks the labor force by 3.5%. And consumption will go down by 3.5% (11 mm/319 mm residents).
So if you shrink the labor force by 3.5% and consumption goes down by 3.5%, and millions of homes are suddenly vacant without rent being paid, you will create a negative economic feedback loop and a recession is guaranteed.
And meanwhile, the GOP conservatives all want to balance the budget and create a hard money anti-infaltionary central bank focus. But they will cut taxes and government spending to balance the budget. They ignore another basic economic fact, the way to prevent a recession from becoming a depression is fiscal stimulus and loose monetary policy because if there is no increase in demand, there is no inflation and there is no economic growth.
As far as I can tell, the GOP candidates want to emulate Herbert Hoover's policies and send the economy into a tail spin not seen since 1928.
And if you shrink the labor force, you reduce the income being taxed for Social Security and Medicare exacerbating their funding shortfalls and putting retirees income and well being at risk. So the GOP are not proposing a set of polices that will enhance retiree entitlements.
So, both National Defense and Economic Policy are reasons to vote against the GOP and for whomever the Democrats nominate no matter what their flaws because this incoherent set of GOP policies must be stopped.
Wednesday, November 11, 2015
The GOP Presidential Campaign
I don't watch the debates, getting my information from the various newspapers on what happens at them, but I discern a trend.
Bush III, Kasich, and Christie are in danger of being labeled RINO's by the primary voters. Now they certainly don't govern like even a conservative Democrat would, so they are not Democrats in my view, but they don't seem to have a sufficient home in the GOP to be a contender to be nominated and they are the only candidates left that have actually governed.
That means the GOP wants to nominate someone who has little to none experience in governing, and this after criticizing Obama for only being a Senator and attributing some of his shortfalls to that lack of experience in managing the government.
Anyway, Mark Shields and David Brooks don't seem all that worried if Marco Rubio is nominated, stating that he cares about the details of policy, but I have yet to see that side of him out there on the campaign trail, and I pretty much lump him in there with Cruz, Trump and Carson.
Meanwhile, Jeb Bush (Bush III) put forth his replacement plan for ObamaCare and basically says people with pre-exisitng conditions will be able to find affordable health insurance with competition, whole care payments, and tax credits. That sounds like a plan that is put forth by someone who has never experienced pre-existing conditions and how the insurance companies run away from people like that if they can.
Bush III, Kasich, and Christie are in danger of being labeled RINO's by the primary voters. Now they certainly don't govern like even a conservative Democrat would, so they are not Democrats in my view, but they don't seem to have a sufficient home in the GOP to be a contender to be nominated and they are the only candidates left that have actually governed.
That means the GOP wants to nominate someone who has little to none experience in governing, and this after criticizing Obama for only being a Senator and attributing some of his shortfalls to that lack of experience in managing the government.
Anyway, Mark Shields and David Brooks don't seem all that worried if Marco Rubio is nominated, stating that he cares about the details of policy, but I have yet to see that side of him out there on the campaign trail, and I pretty much lump him in there with Cruz, Trump and Carson.
Meanwhile, Jeb Bush (Bush III) put forth his replacement plan for ObamaCare and basically says people with pre-exisitng conditions will be able to find affordable health insurance with competition, whole care payments, and tax credits. That sounds like a plan that is put forth by someone who has never experienced pre-existing conditions and how the insurance companies run away from people like that if they can.
Wednesday, November 4, 2015
I am a Blue Dog Democrat
and I don't really have a political party that represents me because the centrist policies are gone.
While I would like to blame the Congressional Politicians, primary voters nominate people and voters sent people to Washington. So I have to blame the voters for not respecting balance views in the middle that acknowledge both parties have good points and, in their partisanship, horrible disastrous points.
Excessive income redistribution is just as bad as excessive tax cutting.
Excessive safety nets is just as bad as inadequate safety nets.
Excessive isolation is just as bad as excessive intervention.
I am not looking forward to next years election. The stakes are too high and the campaigns are not going to be really discussing the issues.
While I would like to blame the Congressional Politicians, primary voters nominate people and voters sent people to Washington. So I have to blame the voters for not respecting balance views in the middle that acknowledge both parties have good points and, in their partisanship, horrible disastrous points.
Excessive income redistribution is just as bad as excessive tax cutting.
Excessive safety nets is just as bad as inadequate safety nets.
Excessive isolation is just as bad as excessive intervention.
I am not looking forward to next years election. The stakes are too high and the campaigns are not going to be really discussing the issues.
Monday, November 2, 2015
Fred Thompson
Reading and listening to tributes I have come to a realization, running for President requires a level of drive that I know I do not have, and wonder if we should trust anyone with that level of drive.
By all accounts, Fred Thompson, a Tennessee Republican Senator, was a decent human being who believed in good government. He ran for President in 2008 and fairly rapidly left the race with doubts about his drive to be a candidate.
His obituary cites that race as one where no matter what ever other qualities he had, doubts about that drive caused his failure as a candidate.
C'est la vie Fred, I loved you in Law & Order, respect your work on the Watergate Committee and salute you for being a decent human being.
By all accounts, Fred Thompson, a Tennessee Republican Senator, was a decent human being who believed in good government. He ran for President in 2008 and fairly rapidly left the race with doubts about his drive to be a candidate.
His obituary cites that race as one where no matter what ever other qualities he had, doubts about that drive caused his failure as a candidate.
C'est la vie Fred, I loved you in Law & Order, respect your work on the Watergate Committee and salute you for being a decent human being.
My 2015 (for 2016) Health Insurance Experience
Well, thanks to the GOP not funding certain aspects of Medical Insurance Competition for the Co-op Insurance companies, I found out this weekend that not only is Health Republic Insurance Company of New York not going to be in business in 2016, they are not going to be in business in December of 2015.
So onto the websites I went looking to see which plans include all my Doctors. Interestingly, all my specialists are covered by everyone, but my Primary Care Physician is not and even when he is, he is not covered by every plan they offer and I might buy. And when I went shopping for a new PCP, not every one is accepting new patients. This is a hassle to say the least.
So what did I end up with.
A plan RedStateVT would love: $431 per month premium with a max-out-of-pocket/deductible of $5,900. And this is called a Silver Plan. The only good news is generic drugs have a zero co-pay.
But I don't blame ObamaCare for this. All of this is better than paying Empire or Aetna $1,600 a month with zero deductible and some level of max out of pocket that I don't recall from before Obamacare. And I am very glad that 10,000,000 uninsured have health insurance now. You would have thought the co-op managements would have priced their product to survive on the funding they knew they would get, not what they hoped they would get. They didn't cover their overhead sufficiently, as far as I can tell.
So onto the websites I went looking to see which plans include all my Doctors. Interestingly, all my specialists are covered by everyone, but my Primary Care Physician is not and even when he is, he is not covered by every plan they offer and I might buy. And when I went shopping for a new PCP, not every one is accepting new patients. This is a hassle to say the least.
So what did I end up with.
A plan RedStateVT would love: $431 per month premium with a max-out-of-pocket/deductible of $5,900. And this is called a Silver Plan. The only good news is generic drugs have a zero co-pay.
But I don't blame ObamaCare for this. All of this is better than paying Empire or Aetna $1,600 a month with zero deductible and some level of max out of pocket that I don't recall from before Obamacare. And I am very glad that 10,000,000 uninsured have health insurance now. You would have thought the co-op managements would have priced their product to survive on the funding they knew they would get, not what they hoped they would get. They didn't cover their overhead sufficiently, as far as I can tell.
Sunday, November 1, 2015
Ben Carson
My conclusion on Ben Carson is that he is definitely a nice guy and a living demonstration of the power of the family to uplift a young person. But he is also untrustworthy because on the one hand he can say that his family survived in his youth because of food stamps, yet he advocates a policy that would end them for families like his in the future.
His mother worked two menial jobs while keeping control over her kids. Yet, she still qualified and needed food stamps to feed them. Where would Dr. Carson be today if he didn't have that nutrition? Where would he be if he didn't have a public school with a counselor who took an interest in him and got him some glasses so he could see and be successful in school.
Probably not running for President nor a successful Dr. And he would not have a platform for some of the other kooky things he says.
His mother worked two menial jobs while keeping control over her kids. Yet, she still qualified and needed food stamps to feed them. Where would Dr. Carson be today if he didn't have that nutrition? Where would he be if he didn't have a public school with a counselor who took an interest in him and got him some glasses so he could see and be successful in school.
Probably not running for President nor a successful Dr. And he would not have a platform for some of the other kooky things he says.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)