Monday, December 20, 2010

Mitch McConnell and START Political Posturing

START is the new nuclear weapons reduction treaty signed by President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. Here is what Senate Minority leader, Mitch McConnell (R-KY) had to say about trying to put it to vote in the Senate:

“No senator should be forced to make decisions like this so we can tick off another item on someone's political check list before the end of the year”

I'm sorry, but this takes the cake. Political check list?!?!? I'm sorry, wasn't it you and your party that was checking off its "political checklist" when it made a policy to oppose everything the administration offered? Wasn't it your party who opposed unemployment benefits, an energy bill, healthcare bill, independent contract oversight, rape prevention clauses in contractor agreements, financial overhaul in the worst recession and a whole host of other issues so you could score political points for November?

When was this treaty signed? I think it was....APRIL! So your party has had over 8 months to read over this treaty. You could have offered amendments, points of contention, concerns or any other comment you wanted. But...you chose to wait, filibuster, block, obfuscate, dilly-dally, kick-the-can and sit back on your laurels until the last minute. Then, without taking responsibility for being an obstructionist imbecile, you complain that it is fact...the last minute. Arms reductions treaties have always been bipartisan ideas. Wasn't it your party that has daily prayer sessions to the almighty Ronald Reagan? Yah...that same Reagan who went to Iceland to have arms reductions talks with Russian Premiere Gorbachev? Where do you get the idea that arms reductions are political posturing?!?!

These weapons are tools of a bygone era. This was an era of gunboat diplomacy, brinkmanship, secrecy, containment and war by proxy. Now, we strive for transparency and negotiation over saber rattling. But, this kind of political posturing gets us nowhere. And, I've had enough of the retrogressive politics of the last 2 years.

This should be your new quote, Mitch McConnell. It would make much more sense:

"No senator should be forced to make decisions"

Thursday, December 9, 2010

Compromise

In order to understand national politics, you have to divorce yourself from reality. Politics is a game. This is why we study political science. But, those who don't understand the dynamics of national politics might feel a bit disenfranchised.

It is very understandable to be angry when middle class citizens are having trouble putting food on the table or getting necessary medication when well-off Congressman make seething diatribes, polemics and jeremiads about the principles of fiscal responsibility. Or, when 99ers (those who have exhausted their 99 weeks of unemployment) hear about cutting services to reduce the deficit when they can barely afford to eat. Or maybe when Congressman from states with less people than livestock block much needed money for those who are starving because of their financial principles. For them, damning the ship is fine, if they're already on a lifeboat. There is a definite disconnect between the Hill and the reality in the valley below.

Current national politics are anathema to progress. They have been for the last 1-2 years. For most, this elicited anger towards the Administration and the government. Obama came into office in the Hope that he would Change the course of Washington, as most have tried. He compromised, accommodated, appeased and adjusted. He gave, and they took. And, in November, 2010, they took even more.

Now, what will the Administration do? Do what it does best: Compromise. Republicans took the most vulnerable as hostages by threatening to vote down any unemployment extension, and Obama paid the ransom. Keep the ship afloat if it means negotiating with the pirates. So, he crafted a very Clintonian proposal to cut taxes for those who are making over $250,000/yr for two years, keeping a permanent tax cut for those who are making less than $250,000/yr and increasing the limit on the estate tax from $1 million to $5 million. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) says that most Republicans will fall in line in support of the tax cut. Even the senior fellow at the ultra-conservative American Enterprise Institute has supported the measure. The price-tag: $900 billion over 2 years, of which $300 billion is offset by the stimulus.

In 1996, President Clinton won a second term in a near landslide. He had lost the House and Senate to a Republican insurgency in 1994, led by Newt Gingrich. He cut services, reformed welfare, deregulated the housing industry and compromised to show that he valued progress over principle. Obama is searching for his inner-Clinton.

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Oh No.....its...THE DEFICIT!!!!

It sneaks in when nobody notices and steals your house, your job, your money, and...your dog (no....not Scruffy!). It will plague your children, kill your retirement and persuade us elect optometrists from Kansas to the Senate! Its...its...The DEFICIT!!!! (cue 1950s sci-fi music)

Well...maybe its not that bad. One this is for certain: we need to reduce it. Polls have shown that a small amount of people can represent the entire country. And, the general consensus in Congress is that people prefer spending cuts over tax increases. But, (as the article says) there is a lingering problem: which programs do we cut? And, will those cuts even affect our ballooning deficit? Here are some ideas that have been floated, and some suggestions that I think might work to cut down on this multi-trillion pound Gorilla:

1. Cut Major Entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, etc) - Political non-starter. With high unemployment and an aging baby-boom generation, the need for entitlements is higher than ever. And, remember those TEA party signs: Take your government hands off my Medicare. Idiocy aside, this shows that even the perception of cutting/rationing entitlements is the wrong thing to do. The only problem is that Social Security is running out of money. The Millennial Generation should care about this, if you can get them to.
Alternative(s): Cut waste in the system. Raise retirement age to 70.

2. Cut Earmarks - Had some support in Congress. But, earmarks represent less than 1% of the budget deficit. So, it would amount to a symbolic gesture...a very BAD symbolic gesture. Some of the small businesses and contract firms in states like California (unemployment at 12.4%) will lose funding and will be forced to lay off workers. Unless you like retrogressive economies, then you would be in favor of keeping earmarks. And, Senators and Reps are like to boast about the projects and jobs they have brought to their states through earmarks. Well...not John McCain (see "hypocrite" in the dictionary). Maybe he should take a hard look at the Central Arizona Project, the huge government funded infrastructure scheme that brings water from the Colorado River to Arizona. Nevermind.
Alternatives: Luckily this didn't pass the Senate.

3. Freeze Government Workers Pay - This idea of a 2-yr salary freeze for government workers has been floated by the administration. This would save about $5 billion. The current budget deficit is $1.3 trillion, and is expected to rise. With some calculations...that is about .385% of the current deficit or about 1/260. But, it is politically favorable. The idea that the government is willing to cut its spending on workers gives the impression that they are on their way to cutting their overall spending. I approve.

4. Bush Tax Cuts (this has subsections...ooohhhh)
a. Keep the tax cuts for all - Will add about $4 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years. But, according to Republicans and some moderate Democrats, it will give businesses financial certainty, allowing them to start hiring. Once hiring picks up, the economy will recover more rapidly and more taxes will flow back to the government to cut down on the debt.
b. Keep for tax cuts for all...for 2 years - This might give businesses certainty about finances, while not adding significant amounts to the deficit. I approve.
c. Keep the tax cuts only for those making less than $250,000/yr - Will add $700 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years. But, it does not give an incentive for big companies to begin hiring. And, rich people will complain about their taxes (not like they don't already). But, it will help those hit hardest by the recession: the middle class. Individual and family incomes won't see a tax increase, and the tax increase to those making over $250,000 will add money to the coffers of the government, thereby possibly reducing some of the deficit effect.
d. Let them expire - Will avoid a substantial increase in the deficit. But, it will increase taxes across the income spectrum. This might create financial uncertainty for businesses, which might result in less hiring. This represents a longer term solution for debt reduction. But, it could possibly harm the fledgling recovery in the short term. The only reason I consider approval of this plan is because it sends a signal to the rest of the world that the U.S. is ready to get serious about debt reduction. This could give international investors more certainty and help the US economy recover in the long run.

5. Wild Card: Invest in Clean Energy and Domestic Energy Exploration - Currently, we send $2 billion/day (~$700 billion/yr) to regimes in South America and the Middle East for oil. Because we have no oversight over the funding, some of the money is invariably funneled to organizations that support terrorism. We also have no control over price, as the major oil supplier OPEC, is a cartel. So, if we were to invest in domestic energy sources like solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, hydro and nuclear (possibly not cost effective) we can offset OPEC oil demand. In the short term, we can use environmentally sound drilling methods to extract Natural Gas to replace oil. This will cut down on pollution, encourage the growth of the renewable energy sector, create jobs and significantly reduce the deficit. Win, win, win.

6. Cut Defense/Security Spending - There are aspects of this plan that are political "non-starters." These include: cutting pay of combat soldiers, cutting the pay of non-combat soldiers, cutting Homeland Security's budget, cutting counter-terrorism/intelligence and cutting equipment, recovery and/or personnel funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But, do we need military bases all over the world? If we were to close non-essential military bases in places like Okinawa and Germany, we could have extra personnel on reserve and could cut costs. Although it is political poison, if the country is willing to get serious about debt reduction, it has to go through the defense budget with a fine tooth comb and take out the waste. This also should include reassessing the performance of, and instituting more oversight on, military contractors.

The main concerns of the Administration should be to reduce spending and create jobs. If Congress can rise above partisanship to complete these essential tasks, then the recovery, and our financial future will be less unstable. And, we will send a signal to the rest of the world that we are serious about debt reduction.

Monday, November 15, 2010

CA: No Way To Govern

The "Progressive Era" in U.S. history created a series of government reforms that were designed the cut down on corruption and make the process more transparent and democratic. These were the popular referendum, the initiative and the recall. California became the model state for the implementation of these policies. That was around 1900...

Now...the system has proven that a mixture of uninformed voters, limitless (and anonymous) campaign contributions and a state run by referendum lead to contradictory results. On Nov 2nd, the voters of California, a state practically run by popular referendum, voted on two seemingly contradictory propositions. Prop 23, which was rejected, sought to postpone California's Global Warming Initiative (AB32) until unemployment was at 5.5% for more than four quarters (practically impossible, even in a healthy CA economy). At the same time, they passed Prop 26, which would make any tax defined as a "tax" and not a "fee," which means that it needs a super-majority to pass.

Here is the contradiction (article): AB32 penalizes heavy polluters by levying a fee, which is used to support cleaner forms of electricity and conservation. California approves of environmental measures. But, Prop 26 makes it nearly impossible for the regulating body (California Air Resources Board) to implement those fees. Conclusion: People like the idea of cleaner technology, but they want to make it impossible to implement it.

And, they want to make it even more impossible to govern California. Some of the waste management and toxic substance prevention groups in the CA government are supported by fees from polluters. Important measures like the Oil Spill prevention fund is supported by a fee. The transportation tax money swap that supposed to inject $1 billion into the CA economy must now be subject to a 2/3 vote. A "green chemistry" initiative to keep toxic substances from labs out of landfills needs a 2/3 vote. Offshore drilling fees, alcohol fees, cigarette surcharges, pollution prevention fees - all need 2/3 vote. Now, the supporters of Prop 26 want it implemented at the local level. Its not surprising that some of those supporters include Chevron, Phillip Morris, Anheuser-Busch and the Chamber of Commerce.

What does this create? Legal and fiscal uncertainty. The CA budget shortfall was recently projected at a high $24.5 billion, prompting the governor to hold an emergency budget session.

This is what happens when you run a government by popular referendum. Its an excuse for the legislature to not do its job, and get paid for it. Its the result of people wanting a change, but not willing to do the work to make that change. My solutions: have a part time, unpaid legislature or rewrite the California Constitution.

I have a friend who voted against ALL propositions on the ballot this year because she adamantly believes that this is no way to run a government. I'm starting to agree with her...

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Christine O'Donnell and Constitutional Interpretation

You might know Christine O'Donnell as the Republican nominee for Senate in Delaware. She is running against Chris Coons.

Recently, she challenged Coons to ask her where the specific statement "separation of church and state" appeared in the Constitution. Then, in an interview, she thought she got the "upper hand" on Coons by getting him to duck a question about naming the five power guaranteed in the first amendment. She concluded that he did not know what those five powers are (speech, petition, religion, assembly and press).

She felt it was necessary to clarify what the first amendment said about freedom of religion (establishment clause): "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." She is right. There is no language that explicitly states that there should be a "separation of church and state."

But, the constitution does not explicitly state:
  • Corporations should have first amendment rights (Citizens United Case)
  • The right to parenthood counseling should not be infringed upon (Griswald v Connecticut)
  • Schools should be desegregated (Brown v Board)
  • Interracial marriage cannot be outlawed(Loving v Virginia)
  • Consenting adults cannot be prosecuted for sexual activity within their own home (Lawrence v Texas)
  • A bridge company has the right to charter a toll road in the spirit of competition even if it violates a contract (Charles River Bridge Case)
  • Native American tribes are their own sovereign nation (Cherokee Nation v Georgia)
  • Bakers have the right to an 8-hr work day (Lochner v New York)
Well...you get the idea.

The Constitution does not explicitly state that there is a separation of church and state. But, upon a simple interpretation, one can obviously see the meaning of the Establishment Clause. It clearly states that "Congress shall make no law." This means that in the arena of "free exercise" of religion, the state (government) has no jurisdiction. Any attempt at such would be overreaching. Therefore there is a SEPARATION of the state from the sphere or jurisdiction of religion. It also gives individuals the right to freely exercise their religion without impairment.

This is where O'Donnell is so unbelievably wrong about her constitutional leanings. The power of the constitution is in its constantly evolving interpretation. This is why the case Marbury v. Madison was so important. It gave the right to the Supreme Court to interpret the constitutionality of laws, or Judicial Review. All of the examples I mentioned above were ruled on by the Supreme Court, and in each case they extended or rejected a ruling based on the interpretation of rights inherent in the Constitution.

Here is a quote from my favorite Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., that sums it up pretty well:

"law, wherein, as in a magic mirror, we see reflected, not only our own lives, but the lives of all men that have been"

Friday, October 15, 2010

One Prop 19 Prediction is Confirmed

It looks as if the Federal Government is both opposed to Prop 19 and has vowed to continue to crack down on marijuana usage as a violation of the Federal Controlled Substances Act. Eric Holder responded for the Dept of Justice.

This is 2 for 2 in regards to predictions. See my correct prediction on the constitutional challenge to AZ SB1070 for my first act of prognostication.

Endorsement: NO on Prop 19

Yup...you read that title correctly. I am opposed to Prop 19. And, here's why:

You may have read all the reasons why legalization of Marijuana in CA will help the economy, undercut the drug cartels and possibly stem some of the violence that has been the end-result of the illegal marijuana trade, south of the border. That is the desired result of Prop 19. But, once reality sets in, legalization of marijuana won't be so desirable:

Legalization would help revive the CA Economy: Some reports have said that legalization of marijuana would pump as much as $2 billion into the CA economy in the form of taxes ($50/ounce proposed). I don't dispute the fact that the prop will funnel some money to the economy. In fact, we must always find innovative ways to get us out the deficit hell we are in. But, the numbers may be a little too optimistic. The uncertainty comes from how the prop is written (which is something I will harp on throughout this piece). If we were to have UNIFORM legalization, then the numbers proposed would be relatively accurate. But, the prop gives freedom to any county or city to opt out. Any opting out would seriously undercut the tax money that would be funneled back into the state. Just look at the polls - right now support is about 50/50, which means that those who are really against it will most likely push their locality to opt out.

Here is my political answer: legalization is sidestepping the issue (much like I will) of proper governance. CA is ungovernable, and the first thing we should be doing is eliminating the 2/3 majority to pass a budget and Pension reform. Keep the 2/3 majority to pass a tax, as that is a CA sacred cow.

It would undercut a source of income for the Mexican cartels and (by association) stem violence south of the border - Not so much, says (credible) RAND Corps. Their report on methods to stem Mexican drug violence says that the percentage of cartel marijuana consumed in the US (60%) is way overblown. The actual number ranges between 15-26%. If CA represents 1/7 of the marijuana consumption in the United States, according to RAND, the prop would only cut 2-4% of the cartel's marijuana revenue. If the known revenues of marijuana smuggling from Mexico to the US is around $2 billion (conservative estimate), then it would only cut their take by $40-80 million. For drug cartels, who practically control parts of Mexico, that is a drop in the ocean in regards to revenue (think of the OTHER, more lucrative drugs they smuggle into the US).

CA is also a hub through which Mexican marijuana (and other drugs) can be distributed throughout the United States (as in AZ, NV, TX, NM, etc). So, the only way that this prop will stem the distribution of cartel marijuana would be if CA marijuana out-competed Mexican marijuana on all levels (cost, potency, access, etc.). Adding to the uncertainty would be problems about taxing the marijuana before it heads to other states and how state and federal officials would react to such a dispersion (what some might call "positive leakage?").

As the report notes, the assertion that the prop would contribute to a stemming of violence south of the border is highly speculative and most likely false. They assert that it will probably lead to more violence over the perceived loss in revenue, regardless of how small it is. There are also problems of turf warfare between cartels that will occur regardless of whether or not pot is legalized. The ultimate uncertainty is whether or not CA marijuana will outperform and push Mexican cartel marijuana out of the markets in other states.

Structural Flaws in Prop 19 - While its intentions are certainly noble, Prop 19 has a major structural flaw that will create regulatory uncertainty. The law allows for every county/city (I call "locality") to decide whether or not it wants to legalize (and tax) marijuana or make it outright illegal. This allows for each city/county to create its own set of regulatory procedures, leading to enforcement uncertainty. It also leads to aforementioned loss in tax revenue if a locality decides to opt out.

Leakage and Federal Prosecution - If Prop 19 passes, I am almost certain there will be a higher demand for CA legal weed. But, what happens when this legal weed begins to travel from one state to another? Once that happens, and someone is caught, it becomes a federal matter because of the Fed's power over interstate commerce and the violation of federal drug enforcement laws. Marijuana is still a federally designated class 1 narcotic (DEA), as much as we would like to see a reassignment. While the government will probably not actively enforce marijuana laws, if a state decides to prosecute someone who comes from CA with legal weed then it is up to the state to enforce under their laws or federal laws. And, what is going to stop the US Justice Dept. from filing suit and injunction to stop Prop 19 because of its conflict with federal law? It is their duty to file against any law that comes into conflict with a federal statute. That's why they are filing against an injunction on "don't ask don't tell" and state laws that go against DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). That's why they sued the state of Arizona for passing an immigration law when it is clearly the Fed's duty.

Wake up and smell the Profit loss - If you are a good dealer, you will understand clearly that legalization will take a huge chunk out of your bottom line. The environment for dealers and sellers (legal or otherwise) is favorable towards high profit. There is a lack of enforcement, the president has diverted resources from CA and the price per ounce is high enough to attract business and make a killing (no pun intended) doing it. What will stop these dealers from trying to return to the good old days of high profit after Prop 19 passes? Nothing. The market for weed is primarily underground and informal. If Prop 19 passes, that market might cause an abatement in the sliding price of weed. While underground markets for goods are usually a drop in the ocean in regards to the formal markets, the one for weed in CA will be a big player. If you think otherwise, you are being naive.

Solution? One just passed a couple days ago. The Governator signed a law, going into effect on 01/01/11, that will reduce the punishment for possession of an ounce or less to an infraction. That is a fine comparable to a speeding ticket, with no mark on your record. Coupled with lax enforcement, this is practically a legalization in-and-of-itself.

Conclusion I support the legalization of marijuana. It is the least addictive controlled substance and it is an innovative way to raise money for the state (and snack food companies). But, Prop 19 is badly written, will create regulatory and enforcement uncertainty and will most likely lead to intervention by the Federal government. While this is a healthy step and represents a near mandate for legalization, it must be rewritten to be uniform, or it will fail as a policy.

Friday, October 1, 2010

Arnold, CA Governor, Takes Oil to Task over Prop 23

This is an amazing video. Arnold, the Republican, who signed into law AB32 takes Texas based oil companies Valero and Tesoro to task over their misleading commercials supporting Proposition 23. This proposition would suspend the law until unemployment drops below %5.5 in CA for more than 4 quarters. This doesn't even happen in a healthy CA economy. So, this prop would essentially kill AB32.

They claim that the bill will kill jobs. What they don't get is that AB32 has been signed into law, and has been working for 3 years, creating 150,000 clean tech jobs and attracting clean tech industries, like Tesla to CA. There is a reason that Silicon Valley vehemently opposes Prop 23. They have gained substantially from the incentives in AB32. AB32 has helped CA becomes the center for innovative technology that benefits the environment. CA will lose its competitive edge in this market, if Prop 23 passes. VOTE NO!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Monday, September 27, 2010

You Can't be a Stubborn A$$ and Evoke the Founding Fathers

If you have a pulse and have the smallest interest in the upcoming midterm elections, you might know the mantra of the Republican party. Republicans have looked to score major political points in November by opposing most of the Administration's initiatives and bragging about their fiscally conservative nature. They have been courting the TEA party by campaigning and supporting their endorsements in Alaska, Delaware, Nevada, Kansas and a few other states whose mere livestock to population ratio might be considered a justifiable reason for being annexed by its more important neighbors (see the Dakotas, Kansas, Nebraska, Delaware, Iowa, Idaho, Wyoming, etc.).

I'm not criticizing the strategy. In fact, it is a perfect strategy if you want to score big in November. What I have an issue with is the constant evocation of the founding fathers, and the assertions that the regular American, characterized by the lumberjack/plumber/handyman/truckdriver/tanned Ohio Representative(See John Boehner), are making about them. Somehow the vision of the Founding Fathers prefers the principles of one CONTEMPORARY political party over another.

Making speculative statements about the Founding Fathers with the obvious contemporary bias is falling into the trap of Revisionist History. This only shows that the person making the mistake is unbelievably principled, but also unbelievably ignorant.

The use of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers as a way to justify political stubbornness is flat out wrong. I don't negate this view with the belief that I have the same clairvoyance about the founding fathers as conservatives seem to think they possess. I do it from a purely historic standpoint. If you know a single shred of information about the Constitution and Constitutional convention, you would know that the Constitution is nick-named a "Bundle of Compromises" for a reason. Here's a history lesson:

States with less population endorsed the New Jersey Plan, which would have given every state equal voting power in the bicameral legislature. The Virginia Plan, which was endorsed by larger states, would have apportioned the two houses by population or taxes paid. Eventually, the Connecticut Compromise was drafted which formed the House of Representatives, based on population, and the Senate, with equal representation for all states.

The reason the document took so long to draft was because of the already forming ideological and sectional divide between Southern (primarily agriculture) states and Northern (budding industrialists) states. Apportionment was just one topic that was compromised over. Some others included: Slave Trade (Int'l Trade outlawed in 1808), Representation (3/5ths Compromise) and powers delegated to each branch. The first 10 Amendments to the Constitution (The Bill of Rights) were mostly written as a Compromise to states-rights followers of Thomas Jefferson in order to get them to agree to signing a Constitution with a Federal Government.

Beyond the ratification of the Constitution, figures who were contemporaries of the Founding Fathers became famous for having debates over the age-old problem of Federalism versus States Rights. These differences led to the creation of the Compromise of 1820 (Missouri Plan), The Mason-Dixon Line, Popular Sovereignty and the Compromise of 1850. One of the most iconic Senators from the 19th century was the "Great Compromiser" Sen. Henry Clay (Kentucky). He helped broker the 1820 compromise and stopped the first major secession attempt by Sen. John C. Calhoun in South Carolina over a tariff (see Nullification Crises). Politics was still a partisan and heated debate during the antebellum era, but it was also characterized by the idea of preserving the Union and its principles above all, even if it meant compromising on your beliefs.

Sunday, September 12, 2010

UCLA: It’s Time to Clear House

I read Bill Plaschke’s Article Saturday night and hung my head in disbelief. Irrelevant little Bruins indeed. Just like Coach Neuheisal, I will always remember the Stanford game, 2010. It wasn’t the interceptions and the fumbles, or the lack of defense that got me down. It was the feeling of disbelief – that burning question: how did we get here?

The 2005 “Beat SC Bonfire” was my introduction to UCLA football. “Beat SC Week” was scheduled for the week before finals, giving us a nice catharsis. The tower burned, the insults flew, the Trojans hung and the troops were rallied. Karl Dorrell, our fearless leader stood in front of the inferno pumping his fists and leading numerous 8-claps. Then, like a mystic hero, Maurice Jones-Drew took the mic and the crowd went haywire. Although we suffered a humiliating loss to SC that year, our 10-2 record stood was nothing to be disappointed over.

We had momentum going into 2006. Although we barely broke even that year, we did the impossible. We upset #2 ranked USC 13-9. Like the aforementioned Stanford game, I will always remember where I was when we beat USC. We rioted, cars were torched and fans were maced, all in the supposedly quiet Westwood.

The next season, we made the Las Vegas Bowl, but went 6-7. But, no lackluster season goes unpunished – Dorrell was fired.

Those were the days.

It went downhill from there. Relatively unknown former UCLA MVP quarterback Rick Neuheisal was hired to replace Dorrell, and former Trojan Norm Chow took up Defense. Redshirt Junior Kevin Craft was chosen for starting quarterback, and the worst season in my four years at UCLA began. Craft ran more than he could throw and when he did throw, he had more interceptions that completions. He ignored Neuheisal, and made up plays on the fly. We went 4-8 that season with another humiliating loss to USC. That was my senior year. Nice way to say goodbye.

Again, no lackluster season goes unpunished. Craft lost the starting quarterback position to Kevin Prince, a perpetually injured Crespi High School alumni. Neuheisal started the season with a promise: a 6-6 record and a bowl berth. He fired up the troops and we rushed into the 2009 season 3-1 with wins against Tennessee, Kansas State and San Diego State. We were unstoppable. That is, until we started playing against Pac-10 teams. We went 0-4 in October, lost a 5th game to USC, but held on to beat Washington, Arizona State and Washington State. Neuheisal made a promise and he delivered. We were 6-6 and were invited to the Eagle Bank bowl in Washington, DC, where we beat Temple University.

Our current team is a mix of rookies, the always-injured Kevin Prince at quarterback and the sensational Kai Forbath at kicker. But, when I watched Prince go 9/26 against Kansas State, and experienced our Washington-State-like effort against Stanford, I could not help but wonder: Why do I miss Karl Dorrell so much?

Maybe it’s time for the UCLA to do some soul searching, and clear house. Neuheisal is failing and Chow isn’t helping. Our most effective offensive player is Forbath at kicker. And, with the 7th hardest schedule in the entire BCS system, we are destined to go into October 0-5. If we don’t act soon, UCLA might become Pac-10 irrelevant, and The Pac-10 doesn’t need 2 Washington States.

Thursday, September 9, 2010

9/11+9

If you were alive during Pearl Harbor, you experienced a nation, shaken to core, and ready to unite against the Imperial forces of Japan. 2,400 soldiers and civilians died, making it the worst attack on U.S. soil. The attack that pushed the U.S. into World War II also created an era of unity that saw families cut back on consumption, women working in munitions factories and assembly lines and a general feeling that a strong home-front would help our boys overseas. For historians, the 20th century became divided between the pre and post-war eras. World War II led to the Cold War, which spawned many proxy wars that make the U.S. the policing force it is today. But, it also led to paranoia and suspicion that caused the internment of over 100,000 Japanese-American citizens.

The attack on the World Trade Center in 2001 had the same effect on the era. For those who experienced the attack, and the subsequent expansion of Intelligence and Domestic/International security know the 21st century as the pre and post-9/11 world. I can vaguely remember airport security before 9/11, and I do remember a government devoid of any office called "Homeland Security." 9/11 not only exposed to the United States to the effects of interventionism against the Soviets in Afghanistan, but also re-introduced the idea of Radical Islam and Terrorism into our lexicon. Those who even considered cutting defense budgets were accused of being either soft on terrorism or not supporting our troops overseas. It was a post-Cold War era governed by poorly disguised Cold War policy.

9/11 put the U.S. into a war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, which has turned out to be the longest in U.S. history (9 years and counting). 9/11 created the "War on Terrorism" which spawned the proxy Iraq war. While we have effectively pulled out all combat troops from Iraq, we still have a lot of nation (re)building to do. The eight years of the Bush Administration were defined by his response to 9/11. His policies tarnished America's image in most of the international world. Constitutional questions in regards to everything from warrant-less arrests to wiretapping to prisoners of war were reopened and quickly co-opted by politicians. Most importantly, 9/11 created a world of suspicion, paranoia and fear that was manipulated to spread religious intolerance and indifference to violations of civil rights.

My question, as a historian (BA, UCLA, 2009) , is how we will frame the post-9/11 world to those who were or will be born after 9/11/2001. Moralists and revisionist historians might talk about the post-Pearl Harbor era as a dark time in U.S. history where bigotry disguised as "national security" led to the internment of Japanese-American citizens. That may be true. But, being someone who was born 46 years after Pearl Harbor, I see the event in its context: a country reacting to an attack on its soil and preparing to fight a war. While the unfortunate internment did occur, we must teach Pearl Harbor in its context without using our contemporary moral filter. What was the cause of the Japanese attack? What was the U.S. response? What were the events that led the Roosevelt Administration to intern so many civilians? These types of questions will help teach the historical legacy of Pearl Harbor without injecting our own biases.

Like Pearl Harbor, the post-9/11 world was a product of a county reacting to an attack on its soil and preparing to fight a war. Like Pearl Harbor, it also produced bigotry towards a U.S. minority, Muslims. But, how will we teach this era of transition in the future? The same way we teach Pearl Harbor and the WWII era. We should instruct on the causes of the attacks, the response to the attack and the political, social and cultural environment that was created by the attack. Teachers should talk about how the United States changed in the face of adversity, and how everyone from the President of the United States to a minister in Florida reacted to the attack and the environment it created.

Pregnant Demon at Glenn Beck's Rally

All he wants is a sandwich

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Obama: Join the Chosen Tribe

I have a solution to all this speculation about Obama's religion. It's simple, nearly immune from political attack and would be a nice respite from the stupid, useless, waste-of-my-oxygen debate about whether or not Obama is a Christian.

First, a short recap. Obama has taken his time choosing a church. While this might seem like an entirely symbolic gesture, it seems to have injected doubt about his religion into Lexicon of Conservative Bulls%$t (publishing pending). With the addition of the TEA party and the anti-tax rallies, the idea that Obama may be a Muslim (and not born here) was formed and carried, along with Obama-as-a-Socialist and Obama-as-Fascist...and...Obama-as-Hitler (I really don't understand the connection - I think you would be hard pressed to find a Muslim-Socialist-Fascist-Nazi).

Now, the Muslim cultural center (Park51, Cordoba House, etc) has sparked an interest in Obama's religion, once again. Apparently, almost 20% of those polled in a recent survey believe that Obama is a Muslim. And, that same anti-Muslim sentiment has surfaced, like it did in the aftermath of Sept. 11th. Somehow, a good amount of people (mostly feeling that pain of "white guilt") feel that once an Islamic presence is legitimized in their neighborhood, the local law will be replaced with Sharia. Oh no! Not law motivated by religious doctrine! That would NEVER happen in the United States.....(ahem).

My favorite crying patriot Glenn Beck has even jumped on the bandwagon. Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally at the nation's capital was not only "non-political" (you know, you're sooooo NOT political if you have Sarah Palin as a speaker) but a way to get the country "back to God" (God in uppercase letters because it is specifically referring to the "Glenn Beck God Model" possibly version 2.0). Beck somehow believes that his very Christian god is a more legitimate version of Obama's Christian god. Somehow, in the midst of crying, blackboard ranting and spouting revisionist history, Beck forgot that his god is no different than the god of Islam, Judaism and every sect of Christianity (god knows how many there are...no pun intended). Furthermore, (while not trying to offend any hardcore philosophy majors), the idea of god is a never-ending debate, and ones personal god (think 12-step program, etc) might embody something much different than a religious god.

Here is my idea for Obama (drum roll):

Join a Synagogue!

Become part of the Chosen Tribe. The Jewish community is a tight-knit group that transcends religion. It is not only a religion, but a culture and tradition that provides support for all its members. And, technically, you will be praying to the original god, the real OG.

Here's a good reference list:
http://www.sixthandi.org/
http://www.ostns.org/
http://www.templemicah.org/

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Dr. Laura: Race and the Lack of Pragmatic Foresight

An recent occurrence has renewed my interest in the issues of Race and Racism. In a previous post (a while back) I had made a point that Political Correctness in regards to race and the idea of "diversity" had very noticeable limits. My argument (adapted from Walter Benn Michaels "The Trouble With Diversity") was that ideas of race, racism and sensitivity to race are secondary reactions to the problem of poverty, class and social status. Racism, while clearly existent in this era, is represented by facets of social inequality in urban social space: redlining, block busting, environmental injustice, inner city slums, gentrification, oppressive immigration policies, etc. These problems must be addressed first in order to be able to tackle less prevalent issues, like blatant racism.

So, here is a quagmire caused by out-of-step individual making a point of race and making a complete a$$ out of herself:

Dr. Laura Schlessinger:
Dr. Laura, a conservative radio show host (just behind the unbelievably "large" personality of Rush Limbaugh in ratings), had a caller (black) who was angry over her husband's (white) friends remarks about her race. They were making jokes about stereotypes, and asking her questions about her race. Instead of telling the caller that she should confront her friends and have a meaningful discussion about why she thought those comments were hurtful to her and somewhat "racist," Dr. Laura went into a tirade about how white people cannot say certain epithets about black people that black people can say about other black people. She even repeated that epithet many times during the interview. She even brought Barack Obama into it, talking about how he was voted in because he was "half-black."

Her Lack of Pragmatic Foresight: First, she is completely negating the whole purpose of the caller's questions. Dr. Laura needed to help this woman with her problem, but instead she used it as a platform to denounce Barack Obama (not like that's been done before...). Second, as was stated so eloquently in an article by Mary Curtis, Dr. Laura is stepping into the ring of race by being blatantly racist. She is using stereotypes about black voters (they automatically vote for black candidates) and she is assuming that black voters use "logic and reasoning" when picking their candidate. She uses that as a platform to jump to making a point about having a "half-black" person in the White House as a reason to suddenly stop decrying racist remarks.

But, where her ridiculous lack of pragmatic foresight comes in is when she starts repeating the aforementioned epithet over, and over, and over and over again. Let's pull the Rawlsian Veil of Ignorance over ourselves for this moment and assume ceteris paribus. The word has a historic meaning that is unbelievably offensive, and she suddenly thinks she will not get an opposing reaction to her repetition of it, as if it were household rhetoric. You have a public forum and you are spouting out a very racially charged word? What did you think would happen? Either she is ridiculously stupid, or she has been living under a rock for the last 400 years (I suspect the former).

Her outrage over her inability to use this racist epithet did not advance our ability overcome social or racial inequality. It did not advance the idea that we should decry any divisive language and work together to solve social issues. All it did was show that a sad, old, crazy white woman is mad because there's a Democrat in the White House, and he happens to be, yes...you got it..."half-black."

Monday, August 16, 2010

Ground Zero Mosque Naysayers are Ignoring American Values

I don't usually start my blogs off with a quote, but I found this one (from a Michael Cohen article titled "Why I Miss George W. Bush") appropriate for this post:

Our nation must be mindful that there are thousands of Arab-Americans who live in New York City...And we must be mindful that as we seek to win the war, that we treat Arab-Americans and Muslims with the respect they deserve ... the attitude of this government is we should not hold one who is a Muslim responsible for an act of terror
- President George W. Bush (A few weeks after Sept 11th)

Yes, you read that name right... President George W. Bush. This is the same Bush that presided over the bifurcation of the pre and post-9/11 world. I challenge all my readers to find an era before the Bush presidency, pre-9/11, where Islamic extremism and Islamic terrorism became a everyday topic for a long period of time (in our case, 9 years and counting). Putting aside the Aircraft Carrier sized "Mission Accomplished" bumper stickers and the sheer stupidity of calling something a "War on Terror," let's look at the substance behind the Dubya remark, putting in its historic context:

In the first few months after 9/11, Islam became a vulnerable minority religion in the United States. I remember stories of people attacking mosques and hearing about death threats against Muslims, or those who looked like Muslims. The United States had just entered a war in Afghanistan against a the Taliban who used Sharia Law to justify public executions and tyrannical rule. Most Americans did not understand the difference between the Religious Extremists who were responsible for the 9/11 hijackings and an everyday religious Muslim. It is in this environment of suspicion and paranoia that Bush made this remark. Bush's message was not only that we honor the Constitutional right of freedom of religion by respecting Islam, but that we should not succumb to swaying from our founding values, thereby confirming the affects of the 9/11 terrorists (and their backers) actions.

Bush's message rings true today, in the right over building a mosque at Ground Zero. President Obama used straightforward language to explain his support for the mosque (from a Hugh Collins article):

As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.

What is most effective about Obama's statement is that he did not politicize it. He told it as it was: This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. Just like Bush, Obama has emphasized that we not change our values in the light of the actions of a few extremists.

But, it seems as if some people don't see the contradictory or unsound nature of their opposition. Here are some remarks made against the Ground Zero Mosque, and my answers:

1. There should be no Mosque because there are no Churches or Temples in Saudi Arabia.
This isn't Saudi Arabia...don't even talk about religious tolerance and mention Saudi Arabia in the same sentence.

2. Obama has abandoned America by supporting the Mosque.
OK. Not relevant. Hyperbolic appeals to patriotic emotion and personal insults don't count as viable arguments. Next.

3. Putting a Mosque there would insult the 3,000 who died during 9/11 and all the troops that have died fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
To honor those who died and those who are fighting, we should make sure our American values, including the value of freedom of religion are kept intact. Ever heard of something called a united "home front?"

4. Putting a Mosque near Ground Zero is like putting a Nazi museum near Auschwitz. Nazism and Islam are both religions.
Oh god, no. I thought I had read enough about Nazi references. Islam is a religion, Nazism is a political, economic and social movement in Germany during WWII that was tyrannical and SECULAR. Extremist outliers in Islam were responsible for 9/11, and the majority of Islamic scholars have rejected violence. Nazism, and Auschwitz are representatives of a vast movement dedicated to the mass murder of Jews, Gypsies, Russians, Poles, Gays, etc. with a highly interconnected system that perpetuated genocide. They were not the exception, they were the rule.

5. The mosque will desecrate the ground of those who were murdered by people who practice Islam, or at least an element of Islam. Islam is not just a religion, it is also a political doctrine. (Former Sen. Rick Santorum)
This is blatant disregard for the fact that mainstream Islam has denounced the use of violence. You do not collectively punish an entire religion for the acts of a few extremists.
And, that last part...(expletive) you. You're a Roman Catholic-Republican-former Senator, and you are saying that a dangerous aspect of Islam is because it is a political doctrine as well as a religion!!! Really?!?!?! This is coming from the same guy whose positions on privacy, abortion, gay rights and evolution are derived from his Christian morals! The same guy who helped pass the Workplace Religious Freedom Act! Hypocrite doesn't even come close. I guess you were asleep when Christian conservatism also became a "political doctrine." Christian doctrine has pervaded U.S. politics since Independence. It wasn't meant to (ala "separation of church and state"...whatever that means anymore), but it's still there.

Emotion, personal attacks, hyperbolic rhetoric and ridiculous comparisons don't make viable arguments. These naysayers are forgetting the simple value of religious freedom, which must be kept intact.

Friday, August 6, 2010

65 Years in the Nuclear Age: US and Japanese Perspectives and A Giant Lizard

65 years ago, a plane called the Enola Gay and a device called "Little Boy" put the United States, and the rest of the world into the Nuclear Age. The Atomic bomb "Little Boy," a simply constructed "gun bomb," exploded with the force of 12,000 tons of dynamite over the city of Hiroshima, instantly killing 120,000 people. Three days later, "fat man," was dropped over the city of Nagasaki, killing another 80,000 people. In a matter of days, 200,000 people had been wiped off the earth, some of whom were completely vaporized, leaving only a silhouette, burned into the pavement where they stood.

The only use of nuclear weapons during war had lasting effects on the country, and directed foreign policy for the subsequent Cold War. I want to emphasize the confusion and disbelief that the Japanese felt after their surrender and the effects of being occupied by a foreign force after witnessing mythical destruction caused by something they did not entirely understand. First, I want to look at the reaction immediately after the bomb in the U.S. (NOTE: These are all excepts from a paper I wrote about the bomb.)

The U.S. Perspective

Americans, along with social liberals, garnered a general anxiety about the condition of the post-war world. Liberals had their suspicions of the legitimacy of the scientific approach to the new weapon. They became highly critical of government policy regarding the testing of nuclear weapons in the Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands, and the displacement of the native culture. They saw the tests as a “portent of future nuclear horrors – a grim replication of Hiroshima in the name of scientific inquiry.” Readers and editors of the The New Yorker castigated science for unleashing the powerful destruction of the atom. This acted as detraction from the mainstream media’s belief in the positive results of atomic science. Scientists were caricatured as goofy, disconnected geniuses who found enjoyment in formulas and research with a total lack of knowledge of the implications of their fun. The magazine’s emphasis on the inevitability and intractability of a nuclear state and the need for a moral cleansing came to a head with the publishing of John Hersey’s Hiroshima.

Published in The New Yorker one year after the dropping of the first atomic bombs, John Hersey’s Hiroshima vividly visualized and personalized the legacies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Hiroshima chronicles the stories of six survivors, whose everyday lives and responsibilities are interrupted by a “blinding flash of light and succeeding blast.” The descriptions that Hersey provided gave readers a first hand account of the personal horrors that an ordinary person (like the reader) faced once the bomb had been dropped. Hersey’s descriptions of “charred death” and the smell rotting corpses that pervaded the city in the hours and days after the explosion were complemented by surreal environmental descriptions of “fires, windstorms, huge radioactive raindrops and eerie, dusty darkness." Here is an exceprt from Hiroshima:

"...hundred and hundreds who were fleeing, and every one of them seemed to be hurt in some way. The eyebrows of some were burned off and skin hung from their faces and hands…Some were vomiting and they walked. Many were naked or in shreds of clothing"

The dramatic descriptions of the horrors that each individual faced gave the bomb and its aftermath and human dimension. This acted as a counterpoint the mostly antiseptic descriptions of the bombing that were made public. The book also conveyed a sense of guilt and remorse over the dropping of the bomb. Hersey also offered a very controversial view of science. He viewed the atomic bomb and its use as a perverse experiment, with the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as the test subjects. The bomb had soiled the name of science and the scientists behind creating it. While most of American did not share Hersey’s biting criticism, the book became widely read and it helped spread awareness of the potential of the bomb.

Japanese Perspective

Japanese culture and tradition was badly damaged by the end of the war. The "no surrender" mentality bolstered by the Cult of the Emperor as a god amongst men was completely shattered. The idea that Japan could be occupied by a western force was anathema to their prideful and stoic society. The fact that the Emperor himself surrendered to the western power was even more culturally damaging than the actual loss of life sustained during the war. I am going to represent this confusion and loss of pride through a pop cultural medium: film. More specifically, the movie Godjira (Godzilla).

The legacy of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the surrender to a western power was kept alive in Japan, in part, by the mythic destruction of a giant lizard. Godjira (Godzilla) was not created in a historical vacuum. It was spawned from a “primordial soup of political concerns, cultural influences, cinematic inspirations, genre traditions, economic crassness, simple opportunism and sheer creativity.”

Even though the post-Imperial Japanese government declared the post-war era to be over by 1956, the memory of the atomic bomb, firebombing and the death and destruction that followed left long-lasting emotional and physical scars. Families were torn apart and the principle of honor that the Japanese society placed great emphasis on was bruised by the surrender to and occupation by a western power. Even though the occupation force has left by 1952, cities were still being rebuilt and the victims were still dying from radiation poisoning from the Bomb. The Cold War arms race played into global tension especially in Japan, because of its first hand experience with the effects of the bomb. To exacerbate the increasing Japanese-United States diplomatic tensions, in March of 1954, the U.S. tested a hydrogen bomb in the Bikini Atoll that gave nearby Japanese fisherman on the Luck Dragon No. 5 radiation poisoning and contaminated their supply of tuna. Dubbed Operation “Castle Bravo,” the bomb that was believed to be 6 megatons, exploded with the force of 15 megatons, increasing blast radius and the radioactive cloud.

It became no coincidence that creator/director Tanaka Tomoyuki observed that “the theme of the film [Godjira] was the terror of the Bomb…mankind had created the Bomb, and now nature was going to take revenge on mankind.” The movie begins with a reference to the Lucky Dragon incident: A group of fisherman on the Glory No. 5 see a blinding flash from the sea, which immediately engulfs their ship into flames. The survivors of the incident describe the occurrence as a large explosion emanating from the sea. In another scene, some commuters on a train are discussing the government’s ban on tuna and the contamination of the tuna supply.
This is an overt reference to the actual announcement by the Japanese government to boycott tuna over the Lucky Dragon incident, which they believed to be the second nuclear attack on the people of Japan.

The historical symbolism only seems to increase once the movie progresses beyond Godjira’s initial appearance. Later in the film, a cheesy love triangle is revealed. The female lead, Emiko, who is betrothed to the recluse Dr. Serizawa, falls in love with the war hero Lieutenant Ogata. Serizawa is introduced as a mad-scientist type character, with an eye patch and a pension for clutter and dark spaces. This is an obvious reference to the idea that science had become perverted and reclusive with the advent of the Bomb. Serizawa, ignoring Emiko’s attempts to express her love for Ogata, decides to show her his newest invention. He drops his device into a fish tank and the fish inside instantly dissolve into skeletons. Serizawa describes the device as an “Oxygen Destroyer” and that it could be stronger than any atomic bomb.

Meanwhile, Godjira is wreaking havoc on the industries, infrastructure and people of Tokyo burning down buildings with radioactive fire breath reminiscent of the firebombing that had occurred only 10 years earlier. The images that came out of the attack on Tokyo harkens back to the pictures of death and destruction from Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Men, women and children running from the fiery destruction of something that is almost mythical in nature. A giant irradiated lizard had held as much legitimacy as an atomic bomb to those who were witnesses of the Bomb’s effects. Throughout the movie, there are scenes of overflowing hospitals and people slowly dying of radiation sickness.

By the end of the movie, the creators took the moral high ground. Once revealed that Serizawa has a weapon that could destroy Godjira, Ogata and Emiko are sent to his laboratory to attain it. Serizawa shows opposition, making an obvious political jab:

“If the Oxygen Destroyer is even used once, politicians from around the world will see it. Of course they will want to use it as a weapon. Bombs versus bombs, missiles versus missiles and now a super- weapon to throw upon us all! As a scientist, as a human being, I cannot let this happen.” (Godjira)

After burning his notes and vowing never to use the oxygen destroyer again, Serizawa goes with Ogata and Emiko to find Godjira. They swim down to his lair, lay the weapon and Ogata swims back up. But, burning his notes was not enough, as Serizawa bids everyone goodbye and cuts his oxygen line, killing himself and taking his knowledge of the oxygen destroyer to the grave.

Godjira was presented with no moral ambiguity. After passing through Hiroshima after the war, co-creator Honda Ishiro noted that the movie was created to “make radiation visible” by “giving a tangible form to unspoken fears of the Bomb, nuclear testing and radiation.” Radiation was not depicted as something mysterious or scientific, but instead a destructive force that, once unleashed, causes insurmountable damage to humankind. Godjira was created to tell the rest of the Cold War world that the splitting of the atom was a dangerous power and the horrors that would come from nuclear war should be avoided at all costs.

Japan’s position as only playing a bit part in the Cold War as well as being the test subject fore the Bomb allowed the creators of Godjira to analyze with an especially legitimate, authentic and experienced mind, the fear of nuclear annihilation.

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

"Middle of the Road" Predicts Constitutional Challenge to AZ Immigration Law Correctly

In May, I analyzed SB1070, the controversial immigration law passed in Arizona. One of my points of contention was the "reasonable suspicion" clause in the law, as I thought it would be challenged in Federal Court. Here is the excerpt from my blog post:

"The ambiguity comes from the words “reasonable suspicion.” What constitutes “reasonable suspicion?” Will it be treated like “probably cause?” More importantly, is it ambiguous enough that it can withstand an argument of violation of XIV rights? [Court Challenge]"

AND

For this law to stand up to legal challenges, it must clearly outline the guidelines for “reasonable suspicion” and ensure that the lawful activities and civil rights of U.S. citizens are not unconstitutionally scrutinized or violated.

Here is an excerpt from a recent politics daily article that described the injunction passed that restricted some elements of the law from being enforced:

"Put on hold for now, pending further judicial review, were provisions that required a check of immigration status for anyone stopped by police under "reasonable suspicion" of unlawful status; made it a state crime to violate federal immigrant registration laws; and made it a crime for illegal immigrants to seek work in the state."

Prognosticator? I think so.

Monday, July 26, 2010

Wikileaks and Afghanistan

Julian Assange, the founder of wikileaks.org, believes that courage is contagious. But, what is he referring to when he talks about "courage?" That would be the 91,000 classified intelligence documents that he leaked to major newspapers in the U.S., U.K. and Germany. These files described, amongst a slew of wartime failures, the shaky nature of the ISI, or Pakistan's intelligence agency. Assange has already threatened to release thousands of more documents, and hopes that more whistle-blowers will come out, because his "courage" will inspire others. Hence, his statement.

This sounds familiar. In 1971, Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers, about the secret extension of the Vietnam War into Laos and Cambodia under the Nixon administration. As Nixon was talking about Vietnamization and the return of troops, he was upping bomber missions over sovereign countries who were geographically subject to elements of the Ho Chi Minh trail. There have been some newsworthy opinions that have compared the Wikileaks documents to the Pentagon Papers and even the Tet Offensive. The Tet offensive was a series of attacks (1968) by the Vietcong which penetrated deep into South Vietnam. Although it was a military failure, it showed that the situation in Vietnam was deteriorating.

But, were Assange and whomever leaked the documents acting with courage or reckless disregard? How will the leakage of theses documents affect the war effort?

In order to even consider an answer to these loaded questions, we need to understand some of the important points of the leaked documents:

1. ISI - Claims that the ISI is in cahoots with elements of the Taliban at the same time they were purported to be helping pinpoint drone strikes on the porous A-P border. One of their main commanders, Gen. Hamid Gul, was said to have supplied motorcycles and plans for suicide bombings.
2. Pakistan/India - Claims that the ISI and elements of Pakistan military helped insurgents bomb the Indian embassy in Afghanistan because of India's plans to help build roads in the country.
3. Double Agents? - Claims that ISI was working with elements of Al Qaida.
4. Civilian Casualties - Claims that civilian casualty numbers have been purposefully reported as lower than they actually are. Wikileaks claims that there is enough evidence to bring war crimes charges against the U.S.
5. Useless Spending - Claims that former Pakistan pres. Musharraf was using counter-terrorism funds provided by the U.S. to bolster security against India.

The documents show that Pakistan has not clamped down on corruption and extremism in its own ranks. If intelligence instability occurs in Pakistan, then the entire war effort is put in jeopardy. Pakistan's unreliability and corruption have made it both a liability and a necessity in fighting the war. These claims would also explain why the situation in Afghanistan was in shambles when the new Administration created its war strategy.

This is why the documents are so volatile. Eve if Pakistan is not the perfect, terror-fighting ally we want them to be, our diplomatic relationship must remain stable in order to make any improvements. The documents showed that neglect led to continued intelligence failure, and a drastic downfall in Afghanistan. But, the documents do not cover the current strategy. Reports about civilian casualties (albeit still occurring) have been drastically reduced, and there have been significant gains in the targeting and killing of Taliban leaders, sometimes with the help of ISI or the Pakistani military.

War crimes and other hyperbolic statements aside, these documents reflect what we already know: the situation in Afghanistan is a result of negligence and corruption, but it can be improved. Because of that, it does not warrant any comparison to the damning results of the Tet Offensive and the Pentagon Papers.

Thursday, July 8, 2010

Bulls%$t on Main Street: How "Main Street" Political Rhetoric Means Nothing

Since the election, an entirely new set of words has been added to the political dictionary. When Obama and McCain were stumping for their respective campaigns, they both promised to help "Main Street" instead of "Wall Street." This made it simple for the public by providing a clear dichotomy: Wall Street was the unregulated spending and risk that put us in a recession (the Bernie Madoffs, Allen Stanfords, AIGs, Lehmans, CountryWide, etc) and Main Street was the public and the small businesses, hurt by Wall Street's risky business.

But, Main Street's definition expanded beyond financial overhaul and evolved to become the symbolic representation of all of those hurt by the recession, regardless of culpability. According to the White House, Main Street was hurting and only policies that encouraged stimulus of the spending power of Main Street would help us through the recession. In short, Main Street became the American people.

This is all true: I am very certain that most Americans were affected by the recession. Small businesses saw less of a customer base, and had to either cut costs by laying off workers, or buying up less supplies. People lost their life savings, their retirements and the 401(k)s. Philanthropy dropped (initially) and the national unemployment rate jumped above 10%. As of now, the picture is not going to get any better, with a possible double-dip and a global slow down in the EU (Greece debt, et al.)

The Obama Admin. decided to reign in on its promise to help Main Street by passing a Stimulus Package (phallic jokes aside) chock full of investment money and tax breaks for businesses and "Main Street." (Milton Friedman did a couple flips in his grave). The Republicans who voted for it do not mention it, and the Republicans who voted against it mention it too much. Then came the healthcare bill, passed through reconciliation almost a year after it was introduced. In between, some people wasted some tea and bitched about socialists, a moron with the last name Beck cried a lot in front of a huge American Flag, some guy from South Carolina questioned the "truthiness" of the President (thanks Colbert) and another guy from Texas voiced his opinions about infanticide. (its funny when you generalize).

Republicans from DeMint to Bachmann had a love fest with some TEAbaggers, calling for reform in Washington so that "Main Street" would not be enveloped in an incoming socialist/Marxist/fascist/Muslim Armageddon-Holocaust brought by an illegitimate president whose middle name was the same last name as that guy from Iraq.

I digress....

But, all that rhetoric and all that banner waving mumbo-jumbo about the end of American civilization (and the possible return of Arrested Development? We can always pray) was for nothing. Once Obama tried to extend unemployment, a retired hall-of-fame-baseball-pitcher-turned-Senator from KY with nothing to lose named Bunning blocked it because it would add to the deficit.

Ah, yes....the deficit. Conservatives on the Hill are usually deficit hawks, and don't let any useless spending get by them without giving it a piece of their mind (see McCain's pork list). With the deficit becoming a little hefty these days, Obama has decided to take on the difficult, and oxymoronic task, of looking for places to cut spending while spending more to get prop up a fledgling recovery. Republicans call this tax-and-spend, which is entire mystery to me because Obama hasn't really raised taxes (except on tanning beds, as of July 1st, 2010). But, conservatives would rather see the money spent from the stimulus instead of taken out of the deficit. Hence, Bunning.

Back to the point. So, Bunning, a Republican, stopped the extension of unemployment to Main Street because of his own, personal views on deficit spending. He put the livelihood of a whole lot of American people on the hook the make a point about the deficit. This selfish son of a....nevermind.

Then, came the financial overhaul. This was the reason why Main Street entered our political lexicon in the first place. Initially, Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, and Chris Dodd, the lame duck senator from Connecticut negotiated in a bipartisan fashion to write an overhaul that protected the people from another bailout and the insurgence of "too big to fail." Again, the Republicans balked on the issue, choosing to filibuster cloture (for neophytes, a vote for cloture means that the bill will be INTRODUCED to the Senate floor, not passed). While they talk about no bailouts and protection of small businesses, they don't even want to talk about protecting taxpayers from another bailout. Status quo....gimme a second helping. Democrats lost two of their own (because they thought the Bill was too soft), but gained a couple Republicans to finally start debate. Where is the bill now? Far from passing, especially without Sen. Byrd. What did we lose? Any regulatory power in a new Consumer Protection Agency and a $50 million fund that would prevent bailouts, which was of course a victim of political hyperbole (called a "slush fund").

Next, came the bill to extend unemployment for millions of Americans. The bill, once it made it to the Senate was stripped of ALL provisions except for unemployment and home buyer tax credits. In the 11th hour, when millions of Americans were about to lose their unemployment, Republicans balked once again because of the deficit issue. The deadline came and went, and once again Congress chose to go on vacation instead of help the American people (that goes for both sides). So, when you come back to your deficit ridden states, with high unemployment, look someone in the eye and tell them that you screwed them over because of your personal feelings about deficit spending. Tell them that you decided to take a week off, while they struggle to feed their family and make ends meet. Enjoy that vacation, Senator!

My issue is this: Do not even think you represent Main Street if you consistently leave them behind because of the deficit. I get it, there is a deficit. It will cause problems in the future, of which I will have to deal with. But, there are people on Main Street suffering now, and they have no control over it. They are the same people you tout as real, hard working Americans who cannot find a job. This is not because they are lazy and dependent (message brought to you by Sharon Angle), its because there is 1 job for every 5 qualified applicants.

There is a thin line between being principled and being a hypocritical a$$hole. Congress is certainly skirting that line.

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

60 Minutes Interview with Deep Horizon Chief Technician Mike Williams

This is a very captivating, scary first hand account of the explosion on the BP Deep Horizon well. Chief Technician Mike Williams gives a detailed account of the panic on the rig, his injuries, and moment when the blowout preventor fails and his jump from the rig into the water and subsequent rescue. It is a very amazing interview.


Watch CBS News Videos Online

Monday, June 7, 2010

In Memory of The Wizard of Westwood: RIP John Wooden

To put this in perspective, he gave UCLA 10 NCAA titles. I believe the team with the next highest amount of titles has less than 5. So, you can imagine how good of a coach he was, and how important his lessons are, even today.

His legacy will live on in the players he coached, the coaches he taught and the countless number of UCLA alums and students who are inspired by his words and life lessons.



Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Arizona HB 2881: Teaching Intolerance by Encouraging Tolerance

In a recent post, I implored the public to read SB1070, the immigration bill that has caused a national uprising amongst Hispanics and concerned citizens who see the bill as leading to civil rights violations. I concluded that the bill, while not explicitly stating that law enforcement could search individuals based on their appearance, did contain very ambiguous language which did not protect against abuse and civil rights violations.

Once again, Arizona’s state legislature has proven itself to be a bunch of backwards ignoramuses. In this case, the legislature decided to amend a section of state law dealing with curriculum taught in state funded educational institutions (public schools K-12). I read the 5 page bill, and here are my conclusions:

The bill is summed up in the first page:
A. A SCHOOL DISTRICT OR CHARTER SCHOOL IN THIS STATE SHALL NOT INCLUDE IN ITS PROGRAM OF INSTRUCTION ANY COURSES OR CLASSES THAT INCLUDE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. PROMOTE THE OVERTHROW OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.
2. PROMOTE RESENTMENT TOWARD A RACE OR CLASS OF PEOPLE.
3. ARE DESIGNED PRIMARILY FOR PUPILS OF A PARTICULAR ETHNIC GROUP.
4. ADVOCATE ETHNIC SOLIDARITY INSTEAD OF THE TREATMENT OF PUPILS AS INDIVIDUALS.

For the first point about the overthrow of the government: There is a litmus test that has been used back to the days of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (Supreme Court justice extraordinaire) that says that a person’s first amendment rights should be balanced against the national security and general security implications of that person’s actions. This goes hand-in-hand with the idea that someone is not allowed to openly advocate and advertise violence or actions to do violence against the US government. But, it is within their rights to teach about and talk about the overthrow of the U.S. government. They can also talk about a preference to overthrow the government without directly talking about taking action or advertising action to overthrow it. So, the first point is vague on its constitutionality.

The second point is not as controversial as the last section. There are plenty of contemporary areas of study and research that examine writings that show and promote resentment towards a race or class of people. These things have historic, social and cultural significance, and should not be banned. Just because one book talked about Mexican resentment towards the U.S. takeover of Mexican territory, doesn’t mean you should ban all racially or ethnically charged or divisive literature. If you know anything about US History and intervention in the world, you know there will be a lot of writing that shows resentment towards the US and certain ethnic groups that are seen as benefitting from US presence.

Section 3 and 4 go together. Classes that these sections challenge do not exist. There are no classes that exclude individuals based on their race, class or ethnicity in public schools. Classes may be designed to teach about a specific ethnicity or race, but they do not overtly exclude anyone. With that said, the argument can be made that they are “designed” for a specific race or class and they present a covert message that individuals outside of that race or class should not take the class. This argument is weak, as it is based on individual perception instead of actual policy. They policy is that all classes are open for all individuals.

I doubt any of these teachers will punish a student if they do not go along with some sort of “ethnic solidarity” that is in line with the themes of the class. These classes are meant to teach about the different ethnicities and races that young students encounter every day in order to encourage tolerance. They do not accomplish this by teaching intolerance. If that were the case, the problem should be solved through disciplinary action against the teacher, not banning all classes outright. Even in that case, it is extremely difficult to discern the reason for punishment. This will be complicated by the law, which will most likely, and inadvertently, encourage ethnic solidarity effectively negating the purpose of the law (see Prohibition Amendment).

Lastly, I want to look at another section:
NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO RESTRICT OR PROHIBIT THE INSTRUCTION OF THE HOLOCAUST, ANY OTHER INSTANCE OF GENOCIDE, OR THE HISTORICAL OPPRESSION OF A PARTICULAR GROUP OF PEOPLE BASED ON ETHNICITY, RACE, OR CLASS.

This makes sure that the law does not stifle the teaching of historic examples of oppression. Those include: the Holocaust, Slavery, Armenian Genocide, Rwanda, Civil Rights, Somalia and many more. But, what this section ignores is that these examples of historic oppression have an effect on politics and cultural morays of today. In other words, they encourage the teaching of history but ignore the effect of history. They are making the gravest of mistakes. They are leaving history out of its contemporary context, which is detrimental to the education of young students, especially in primary school. And, it strips students of a contemporary perspective, leaving history to be just a subject of dates, facts and people.

Arizona needs to encourage the free flow of ideas and encourage the study of many cultures, races and ethnicities. If they wanted to stop the banning or exclusion of a race in public education, they are going about it in an a$$ backwards way. They should be encouraging the study of as many ethnicities and cultures as possible as to inundate the students with knowledge about the world around them. This will teach them tolerance for other people’s cultures and traditions, without harboring some sort of stereotypical vision or hatred towards a culture that isn’t theirs. This isn’t about the oppression of a minority, its about the correct way to teach and encourage tolerance.

TVA Coal Ash Spill, Dec, 2008

I just want to give everyone a glimpse into one of the worst environmental disasters in US History. It makes Exxon-Valdez and BP look like puddles. In Kingston, TN a relatively small coal ash pond near a TVA owned coal fired power plant burst, inundating the local environmental and destroying homes and livelihoods. It released 1 billion gallons of toxic coal ash. For a comparison, Exxon-Valdez spilled 11 million gallons of oil, and BP has spilled about 5.5 million gallons of oil.






Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Michael Brown, You’re Irrelevant

I usually try to keep my blogs about the bigger picture and less about railing on individuals. But, this one such individual (if you can call him that) has been the subject of my ridicule, dating back to Hurricane Katrina. Michael Brown, horse trainer, former head of FEMA and the face of the Bush Administration’s failure in New Orleans after Katrina, is now imparting his infinite wisdom and unending intelligent discourse onto our open and loving ears.

The subject: The Gulf Coast BP Oil Spill.

His conclusion: The Administration allowed oil to spill into the gulf to appease environmentalists and undermine their own plan to continue offshore drilling. BRILLIANT! The government must have been behind it!

The last time I heard something like that was when I was walking down Bruin Walk at UCLA and saw a 9/11 conspiracy table. The fact that he thinks the administration would deliberately allow for the destruction of fragile ecological habitats in order to pander to environmentalists is unbelievably contradictory bordering on stupidity.

The fact that he has the audacity to assert that Obama has some sort of political agenda in regards to this tragedy shows that he is completely and utterly irrelevant, and no one cares what he thinks.

Here is my open letter to Mr. Brown:

Dear Michael Brown,

You’re irrelevant. Your hyperbolic, politically motivated, soap box bulls$%& doesn’t amount to diddly. You didn’t matter during the Bush administration, and you don’t matter now.

Sincerely,

The USA

Friday, May 7, 2010

Arizona SB1070: Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act

The great state of Arizona has been in the news recently, and not because John McCain has found out he is of Mexican descent (we can all dream). Arizona’s SB1070, the new immigration law, has set off protests all around the country. Even Obama called the law “misguided.” Some Republicans have reacted with caution, ambiguity, avoidance and careful diction. In other words, it is an election year. Conservative Republicans have come out in full favor of the law, even considering similar legislation in their states. Finally, others have just gone independent. Well…just Charlie Crist.

I am going to read the 17-pg (yawn…) and give you, the avid reader, some semi-objective guidance. I will cover some of the more controversial sections along with some of the boring detail.

No hyperbole, just the facts…kinda:

FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON.”

The ambiguity comes from the words “reasonable suspicion.” What constitutes “reasonable suspicion?” Will it be treated like “probably cause?” More importantly, is it ambiguous enough that it can withstand an argument of violation of XIV rights?

“A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.”

What constitutes an “offense that makes the person removable from the United States?” If the person is a citizen, and is arrested on suspicion of being illegal or doing an “offense that makes the person removable from the United States,” but turns out to be a citizen doing a crime that is punishable by US law, would the conviction be overturned due to the lack of warrant? Is “probably cause” akin to “reasonable suspicion?”

“A PERSON MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.”

If any section of this law comes into conflict with federal law, and impedes the full enforcement of such a law, it can be challenged in superior court. This also allows for citizens to sue the state if they believe the law is not being implemented in its fullest.

A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS A CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR, EXCEPT THAT A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS 1. A CLASS 3 FELONY IF THE PERSON VIOLATES THIS SECTION WHILE IN POSSESSION OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

(a) A DANGEROUS DRUG AS DEFINED IN SECTION 13-3401.

(b) PRECURSOR CHEMICALS THAT ARE USED IN THE MANUFACTURING OF METHAMPHETAMINE IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 13-3404.01.

(c) A DEADLY WEAPON OR A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 13-105.

(d) PROPERTY THAT IS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMITTING AN ACT OF TERRORISM AS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 13-2308.01.”

This is a no-brainer. This is the “we care about national security” section. Stop traffickers, stop terrorists, stop WMDs.

"’Smuggling of human beings’" means the transportation, procurement of transportation or use of property or real property by a person or an entity that knows or has reason to know that the person or persons transported or to be transported are not United States citizens, permanent resident aliens or persons otherwise lawfully in this state or have attempted to enter, entered or remained in the United States in violation of law.”

In a previous section, the law prohibits human trafficking, and designates different levels of misdemeanor for a couple of circumstances (age of individual, citizenship, if intimidation or abuse occurred, etc). This section defines human trafficking as to include the transportation of illegal aliens over the border. So, this makes US citizens involved in such activities (“Coyotes”) liable to prosecuted as human traffickers. This might be inherent, but I decided to include it anyways.

IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR AN OCCUPANT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE THAT IS STOPPED ON A STREET, ROADWAY OR HIGHWAY TO ATTEMPT TO HIRE OR HIRE AND PICK UP PASSENGERS FOR WORK AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION IF THE MOTOR VEHICLE BLOCKS OR IMPEDES THE NORMAL MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO ENTER A MOTOR VEHICLE THAT IS STOPPED ON A STREET, ROADWAY OR HIGHWAY IN ORDER TO BE HIRED BY AN OCCUPANT OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE AND TO BE TRANSPORTED TO WORK AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION IF THE MOTOR VEHICLE BLOCKS OR IMPEDES THE NORMAL MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC.

C. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES AND WHO IS AN UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN TO KNOWINGLY APPLY FOR WORK, SOLICIT WORK IN A PUBLIC PLACE OR PERFORM WORK AS AN EMPLOYEE OR INDEPENDENTCONTRACTOR IN THIS STATE.

Take a look at section C, and compare it to the above paragraph. This section is a little broad and ambiguous for my taste. What is the individual being hired or picked up is a legal citizen? What will happen if one person is being picked up by their employer on the sidewalk and their car impedes the flow of traffic because of that? Do both of such things make them prosecutable under this new immigration law? Maybe the top part is unnecessary, and might not stand up to either an illegal search and seizure or violation of civil rights argument.

“AN EMPLOYER DOES NOT ESTABLISH ENTRAPMENT IF THE EMPLOYER WAS PREDISPOSED TO VIOLATE SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION AND THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS MERELY PROVIDED THE EMPLOYER WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION. IT IS NOT ENTRAPMENT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS MERELY TO USE A RUSE OR TO CONCEAL THEIR IDENTITY. THE CONDUCT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND THEIR AGENTS MAY BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING IF AN EMPLOYER HAS PROVEN ENTRAPMENT.”

An employer can claim “entrapment” if being prosecuted for hiring illegal aliens. There are various definitions of entrapment, with the most prevalent being a coercive act by a law enforcement agent forcing the person to violate the law. But, it is not entrapment when the employer was “predisposed” to violate the law or when officers “merely provide the employer with an opportunity to commit the violation.” Is there a way to discern the line between coercion (thus entrapment) and “merely providing an opportunity?” And who will verify coercion or entrapment when considering “the conduct of law enforcement officers and their agents?”


CONCLUSION: While the law is ambiguous and cries out for a legal challenge, I find no explicit section giving power to AZ law enforcement to indiscriminately stop anyone they deem “illegal.” But, it does give open ended statements which can be interpreted to enforce the purpose of the law, but not ensure against abuse and vigilantism. For this law to stand up to legal challenges, it must clearly outline the guidelines for “reasonable suspicion” and ensure that the lawful activities and civil rights of U.S. citizens are not unconstitutionally scrutinized or violated.