Gov. Bill Richardson endorsed Barack Obama yesterday. I know, 'cuz I watched it live on CNN.
I had a feeling--which I should have shared on this blog to prove that I had this feeling--that Richardson wasn't going to endorse Hillary. Just look at Bill's face here. Does he look like he's having fun during the most exciting sports event ever?
I referred to Senator Hillary Clinton as "Hillary" in the preceding paragraph deliberatively. Her campaign has thrilled lots of people--men and women--by being the most successful female candidate for President. Until now, I was willing to accept the concept that she was really a female candidate, and as a liberal Dem, I thought that was pretty cool.
But the reaction of the Clinton campaign to Richardson's endorsement shows that she is not the first female candidate. She is from a long line of candidates who have run on the coattails of relatives who had been President or prominent in other ways.
Per the New York Times, James Carville has compared Bill Richardson to Judas (imagine the uproar if Richardson were also Jewish!). The idea that Richardson owes Hillary Clinton is ludicrous. Pray tell, James, what has Hillary Clinton ever done for Bill Richardson? Did she appointment him Secretary of Energy? Did she appoint him Ambassador to the United Nations?
Richardson owes nothing to Senator Hillary Clinton just because her husband appointed him to high government positions. If she is a candidate running on her own merits, she and her campaign should not take for granted the support of anyone who served under Bill.
The airwaves and blogs are awash with debate over the effect of the Richardson endorsement. Votes, superdelegates, Latino voters, etc. Maybe he just saw which way the wind was blowing. Maybe Obama's speech on race truly inspired him. Here's an attempt to add value to the debate with some wild speculation.
Richardson thought Hillary would ask him to be her Vice Presidential nominee. If he said yes, he's be marginalized for 4-8 years. If he said no, he's be out of the Administration.
In contrast, there's no way that Obama would go all brown on the ticket. (My best guess for VP: Jim Webb of Virginia.) Richardson, however, is a natural choice as Secretary of State in an Obama Administration. If you want a foreign policy that includes talking to dictators, Richardson is your man.
While we're on the subject of the Clintons, Bill is a major reason why I think Obama should not even ask Hillary Clinton to be the VP nominee. He has damaged Obama with biting comments about his record, race, and patriotism. Clinton has used race as a wedge issue in 1992. Not that I think that Hillary would accept the VP slot, but Bill is also just too unpredictable and scandal-prone. Why invite a financial or sex scandal into your White House?
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
America: Shocked and Awed
Has it really been five years since Bush blindly took us to war against Iraq?
Other bloggers (no link required) have catalogued the litany of rosy scenarios put forth by Bush, Cheney, McCain and all the others. Remember how easy it would be to invade Iraq, overthrow its dictator, install a new government, and pump that oil at 1990s prices? The sad thing is that so many Americans believed the bullshit. I can state, with complete honesty, that I was never for it. The invasion and the overthrowing would be the easy part, but I knew that creating a new functioning government and society would be extremely difficult. And I didn't need to read a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) to tell me that.
White House mouthpiece Michael Gordon of the New York Times wrote an interesting piece a few days ago which blames Paul Bremer, not Bush, for disbanding the Iraqi army, a decision which the CW declares to have been pretty stupid:
According to the article, on March 12, 2003, Bush approved a plan that includes using the Iraq military as a building-block of a new Iraqi society. On May 22, 2003, Bush approves the dismantling of the Iraqi article and no one raises a peep:
So, what happened? According to Gordon:
Well, who was at the meeting? Colin Powell was in Paris--on business, I presume--and so could not attend. Here's Powell's take on the record:
Sounds like another neo-con plot gone awry. Rumsfeld informally approved the the dismantling before the videocon with Bush. Given Cheney's mastery of bureaucratic infighting, he probably waited until Powell was out of the country to put this issue before Bush. Bush either didn't really pay much attention to the "plan" in the first place and so didn't think it would be a big deal or he was too simpleminded to understand its implications. Assuming Rice told the truth to Powell that she did not know in advance, she was too much of a lightweight to incur the wrath of Cheney and Rumseld, so she asked no serious questions. Her line to Powell that she was caught by surprise is pracically malpractice. As the President's National Security Advisor, how does she not know in advance the agenda of a national security meeting and weigh in?
But enough about Iraq....let's talk about Vietnam. After Vietnam, the American public was painfully aware of the human and social costs to a failed war. So the public was skeptical of all military involvement. If you recall, even Reagan's actions in Grenada and against Libya were controversial. However, Panama stirred people up with the yellow ribbons and made people "proud to be Americans (again)".
After Panama came the Gulf War, which also came with pretty, pretty ribbons, and few physical casualties. Then, thanks to Bill Clinton, the public was introduced to war by remote control--namely, the Kosovo War. War was no longer a bloody, dirty, painful thing for society. It became a sport! Go America!
For the first time in American history, the public was for military intervention against anyone. So when Bush said in March, "let's get rid of Saddam," the public responded, "yeah, sure, I'm not watching baseball anymore and football season doesn't start 'til September, so I could watch a good war on TV". (Plus, there was that whole September 11th thing that made it really easy to lump all Arab countries together--I'll leave that theme to other bloggers.)
So, where are we now? The good news is that the public might want to think about the consequences before it supports military involvement. The bad news is that when the national interest truly requires military action, the public may not be on-board.
Other bloggers (no link required) have catalogued the litany of rosy scenarios put forth by Bush, Cheney, McCain and all the others. Remember how easy it would be to invade Iraq, overthrow its dictator, install a new government, and pump that oil at 1990s prices? The sad thing is that so many Americans believed the bullshit. I can state, with complete honesty, that I was never for it. The invasion and the overthrowing would be the easy part, but I knew that creating a new functioning government and society would be extremely difficult. And I didn't need to read a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) to tell me that.
White House mouthpiece Michael Gordon of the New York Times wrote an interesting piece a few days ago which blames Paul Bremer, not Bush, for disbanding the Iraqi army, a decision which the CW declares to have been pretty stupid:
Mr. Bremer’s decree reversed an earlier plan — one that would have relied on the Iraqi military to help secure and rebuild the country, and had been approved at a White House meeting that Mr. Bush convened just 10 weeks earlier.
According to the article, on March 12, 2003, Bush approved a plan that includes using the Iraq military as a building-block of a new Iraqi society. On May 22, 2003, Bush approves the dismantling of the Iraqi article and no one raises a peep:
while Mr. Bush endorsed Mr. Bremer’s plan in the May 22 meeting, the decision was made without thorough consultations within government, and without the counsel of the secretary of state or the senior American commander in Iraq, said the commander, Lt. Gen. David D. McKiernan.
So, what happened? According to Gordon:
Mr. Bremer, through a videoconference, was part of a National Security Council meeting held in the White House Situation Room, and said that he was planning to issue the decree disbanding the army. Mr. Bush seemed satisfied, and no officials spoke up to object, according to Mr. Bremer and other participants.
Well, who was at the meeting? Colin Powell was in Paris--on business, I presume--and so could not attend. Here's Powell's take on the record:
Mr. Powell, who views the decree as a major blunder, later asked Condoleezza Rice, who was serving as Mr. Bush’s national security adviser, for an explanation.
“I talked to Rice and said, ‘Condi, what happened?’ ” he recalled. “And her reaction was: ‘I was surprised too, but it is a decision that has been made and the president is standing behind Jerry’s decision. Jerry is the guy on the ground.’ And there was no further debate about it.”
Sounds like another neo-con plot gone awry. Rumsfeld informally approved the the dismantling before the videocon with Bush. Given Cheney's mastery of bureaucratic infighting, he probably waited until Powell was out of the country to put this issue before Bush. Bush either didn't really pay much attention to the "plan" in the first place and so didn't think it would be a big deal or he was too simpleminded to understand its implications. Assuming Rice told the truth to Powell that she did not know in advance, she was too much of a lightweight to incur the wrath of Cheney and Rumseld, so she asked no serious questions. Her line to Powell that she was caught by surprise is pracically malpractice. As the President's National Security Advisor, how does she not know in advance the agenda of a national security meeting and weigh in?
But enough about Iraq....let's talk about Vietnam. After Vietnam, the American public was painfully aware of the human and social costs to a failed war. So the public was skeptical of all military involvement. If you recall, even Reagan's actions in Grenada and against Libya were controversial. However, Panama stirred people up with the yellow ribbons and made people "proud to be Americans (again)".
After Panama came the Gulf War, which also came with pretty, pretty ribbons, and few physical casualties. Then, thanks to Bill Clinton, the public was introduced to war by remote control--namely, the Kosovo War. War was no longer a bloody, dirty, painful thing for society. It became a sport! Go America!
For the first time in American history, the public was for military intervention against anyone. So when Bush said in March, "let's get rid of Saddam," the public responded, "yeah, sure, I'm not watching baseball anymore and football season doesn't start 'til September, so I could watch a good war on TV". (Plus, there was that whole September 11th thing that made it really easy to lump all Arab countries together--I'll leave that theme to other bloggers.)
So, where are we now? The good news is that the public might want to think about the consequences before it supports military involvement. The bad news is that when the national interest truly requires military action, the public may not be on-board.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Coca leaf
Thanks to the Drug Policy Alliance for alerting me to the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) 2007 annual report. It calls for Peru and Bolivia to ban non-medical and non-scientific purposes of the coca leaf.
I've been to Peru. That coca leaf tea really helps to prevent altitude sickness. At altitudes of over 10,000 feet, altitude sickness could be severe. Instead of criminalizing traditional uses of the coca leaf, we should ship that tea to every ski lodge in the Rockies and Alps.
In contrast to the pressure on Peru and Bolivia, the U.S. got a free pass. Not a single recommendation. Not even a mention of renegade province California. The word "California" does not appear in the North America section of the report. Even worse, the report favorably portrays the ridiculous TV ads that say if you buy a bag of weed, the terrorists win.
I've been to Peru. That coca leaf tea really helps to prevent altitude sickness. At altitudes of over 10,000 feet, altitude sickness could be severe. Instead of criminalizing traditional uses of the coca leaf, we should ship that tea to every ski lodge in the Rockies and Alps.
In contrast to the pressure on Peru and Bolivia, the U.S. got a free pass. Not a single recommendation. Not even a mention of renegade province California. The word "California" does not appear in the North America section of the report. Even worse, the report favorably portrays the ridiculous TV ads that say if you buy a bag of weed, the terrorists win.
Air Force tanker deal
Boeing loses out to Airbus. Republicans and Democrats united in outrage. Lou Dobbs is seething.
Whenever the Republicans and Democrats agree on something, it is usually a mistake. This must be a good deal for taxpayers.
Whenever the Republicans and Democrats agree on something, it is usually a mistake. This must be a good deal for taxpayers.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
First road race
I just ran a St. Patrick's Day 8k, my first road race. I finished between a 9 and 10-mile pace. Thanks to Gotta Run in Arlington for equipping me with the right sneaks and having a 40% sale on winter running clothes.
Here's the course map (approximately):
Race-time temperature at 9 AM: 32 degrees and windy. To give you an example of the wind, this is what the wind did last night:
Extenuating circumstances: The first "spring forward" daylight savings morning, so it was extra hard to get up this morning. Thanks to the local coffee shop (not the one seized by the DC tax authorities) for a good 12-oz cup on the way to the Metro.
Post-race report: My left ankle/Achilles is a little sore from not wearing the right sneakers for a few weeks. I hope to continue running for the...
Next race: the April 6th Cherry Blossom 10-miler.
Now I am back home and actually enjoyed Meet the Press this morning. Thank God, no Carville/Matalin garbage-fest.
The topic was the on-going Democratic circular firing squad. I am afraid this nomination fight isn't going to end well for Democrats. Neither one can get a majority of delegates without the superdelegates.
The final result needs to fair in fact and appearance. This Florida and Michigan delegate clusterfuck really need to be sorted out, one way or another. It's hard to see women, blacks, and younger voters coming together behind one candidate in the summer and fall unless both candidates are on the ticket.
I doubt Hillary would accept the VP position given her intimate familiarity with the powerlessness of the position and her age. Is it up to Obama to yield, even if he is leading in elected delegates and/or total votes and the polls?
One last comment before I publish this puppy....what foreign policy experience does Hillary have that makes her so damned qualified to run the armed forces? She has claimed to have played important roles in Northern Ireland and the Balkans. I suppose it is a media conspiracy that the '90s went by and we never heard a peep about Hillary's foreign policy successes. The Clintonites speak of her service on the armed services committee. Taking votes and mocking Rumsfeld for a few hours has very little to do with leadership. Look at the list of full committee members. Some are more than qualified to be the CiC of the armed forces (i.e., Warner, Webb). Some are not.
Her track record is voting for the war, the most reckless vote of this decade. Bring this up, and she says, well, I wasn't voting for the war, I was voting for giving diplomacy and inspectors a chance. I am not a member of the armed services committee, so I can't possibly compete with her foreign policy creds, but it was pretty clear to me that Bush was intent on war irrespective of diplomacy, inspectors, and everything else. If you are suckered by Bush--the most transparent leader on Earth--how are you going to match up with Putin?
Here's the course map (approximately):
Race-time temperature at 9 AM: 32 degrees and windy. To give you an example of the wind, this is what the wind did last night:
Extenuating circumstances: The first "spring forward" daylight savings morning, so it was extra hard to get up this morning. Thanks to the local coffee shop (not the one seized by the DC tax authorities) for a good 12-oz cup on the way to the Metro.
Post-race report: My left ankle/Achilles is a little sore from not wearing the right sneakers for a few weeks. I hope to continue running for the...
Next race: the April 6th Cherry Blossom 10-miler.
Now I am back home and actually enjoyed Meet the Press this morning. Thank God, no Carville/Matalin garbage-fest.
The topic was the on-going Democratic circular firing squad. I am afraid this nomination fight isn't going to end well for Democrats. Neither one can get a majority of delegates without the superdelegates.
The final result needs to fair in fact and appearance. This Florida and Michigan delegate clusterfuck really need to be sorted out, one way or another. It's hard to see women, blacks, and younger voters coming together behind one candidate in the summer and fall unless both candidates are on the ticket.
I doubt Hillary would accept the VP position given her intimate familiarity with the powerlessness of the position and her age. Is it up to Obama to yield, even if he is leading in elected delegates and/or total votes and the polls?
One last comment before I publish this puppy....what foreign policy experience does Hillary have that makes her so damned qualified to run the armed forces? She has claimed to have played important roles in Northern Ireland and the Balkans. I suppose it is a media conspiracy that the '90s went by and we never heard a peep about Hillary's foreign policy successes. The Clintonites speak of her service on the armed services committee. Taking votes and mocking Rumsfeld for a few hours has very little to do with leadership. Look at the list of full committee members. Some are more than qualified to be the CiC of the armed forces (i.e., Warner, Webb). Some are not.
Her track record is voting for the war, the most reckless vote of this decade. Bring this up, and she says, well, I wasn't voting for the war, I was voting for giving diplomacy and inspectors a chance. I am not a member of the armed services committee, so I can't possibly compete with her foreign policy creds, but it was pretty clear to me that Bush was intent on war irrespective of diplomacy, inspectors, and everything else. If you are suckered by Bush--the most transparent leader on Earth--how are you going to match up with Putin?
Sunday, March 2, 2008
MTP Jumped the Shark
I have heard it said that Tim Russert reinvigorated Meet the Press once upon a time. Tim has been under the gun lately for sexism and/or bias against Hillary Clinton, for being a mouthpiece and easy interviewer for Cheney, and for other sins.
I do think he is selectively tough on certain guests, but that's not my complaint today. Mine is his choice of guests. I hadn't really thought about a political talk show jumping the shark until today. NBC really needs a new host to bore my wife on Sunday mornings.
Today's guests included:
* James Carville, Democrat
* Mary Matalin, Republican
What a second! Aren't they married? But they disagree! How novel! They should do commercials! Where's the sitcom?
Other guests include perennial loser Bob Shrum, Democrat, and another Washington establishment consultant, Mike Murphy.
Four has-been retreads saying nothing that hasn't been said a thousand times all week by the usual cast of purveyors of DC conventional group-think. Nuggets of wisdom so far: 1) Hillary's "crisis at 3 AM" ad stinks; 2) If Hillary doesn't win Texas and Ohio, she's finished; 3) Republicans hope there's chaos in the Democratic nominating process; 4) Mary Matalin is upset George H.W. Bush lost in 1992, thanks to Perot, not her husband's candidate; and 5) There is no 5.
And they get paid for this.
I really should go out for a run. I've got the Cherry Blossom 10-Miler in a month and I haven't been running because of Achilles and calf soreness. Hopefully new insoles will help.
Update: I ran a 5k, but I'm not sold on the insoles. My Achilleses feel good, but the arch support hasn't molded to the shape of my foot yet.
I do think he is selectively tough on certain guests, but that's not my complaint today. Mine is his choice of guests. I hadn't really thought about a political talk show jumping the shark until today. NBC really needs a new host to bore my wife on Sunday mornings.
Today's guests included:
* James Carville, Democrat
* Mary Matalin, Republican
What a second! Aren't they married? But they disagree! How novel! They should do commercials! Where's the sitcom?
Other guests include perennial loser Bob Shrum, Democrat, and another Washington establishment consultant, Mike Murphy.
Four has-been retreads saying nothing that hasn't been said a thousand times all week by the usual cast of purveyors of DC conventional group-think. Nuggets of wisdom so far: 1) Hillary's "crisis at 3 AM" ad stinks; 2) If Hillary doesn't win Texas and Ohio, she's finished; 3) Republicans hope there's chaos in the Democratic nominating process; 4) Mary Matalin is upset George H.W. Bush lost in 1992, thanks to Perot, not her husband's candidate; and 5) There is no 5.
And they get paid for this.
I really should go out for a run. I've got the Cherry Blossom 10-Miler in a month and I haven't been running because of Achilles and calf soreness. Hopefully new insoles will help.
Update: I ran a 5k, but I'm not sold on the insoles. My Achilleses feel good, but the arch support hasn't molded to the shape of my foot yet.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
The U.S. Mint Hearts George III
This week the U.S. Mint rejected within 48 hours the District of Columbia's suggested motto for its commemorative quarter, "Taxation Without Representation." This is DC's unofficial motto and is found on most DC car license plates.
[Congress passed legislation in 2008 to allow DC and US territories to have their quarters like the 50-State Quarter Program that made the Federal government billions of dollars less poor.]
Since DC is not a state, we do not have voting representation in Congress. Nevertheless, we are required to Federal income taxes. This, ostensibly, was the cause of the American Revolution.
Lots has happened in the past two-hundred thirty-two years. "Taxation Without Representation" is now "controversial":
Sounds reasonable, right? We don't want rabble-rousing quarters to negatively affect the dignity of the George Washingon quarter.
Under Federal law, a design cannot be "frivolous or inappropriate." DC's proposal isn't frivolous. I don't know how to interpret "inappropriate," but let's see how the Mint interpreted it.
There is no design criteria on the Mint's website, but since this is an outgrowth of the 50-State Quarter program with the same statutory standard, let's assume that the 50-State design criteria applies:
The design criteria is subject to interpretation. It could that designs should avoid (a) controversial subjects; and (b) symbols likely to offend. Or it could mean, controversial subjects and controversial symbols, either of which are likely to offend. Perhaps a Treasury Department attorney-advisor was consulted on this.
Reasonably or not, some Americans may feel that full DC voting rights is controversial, but I doubt think it is likely to offend. If you are offended by that, you are a crazy cracker.
In any event, whether legal or not, the Mint will have its way. The Washington Post reports that the District may seek to use its official motto--Justitia Omnibus (Justice for All). Fuck that!
How could you go from the truth that there is taxation without representation to the lie that there is justice for all?
I have a better idea. Submit no motto. A motto is not a design criteria. Just plaster the "controversial Negro" (as Public Enemy would say) Frederick Douglass on the back of the quarter and call it a day. He can be George Washington's new black friend!
This issue relates to another pet peeve of mine. There has never been a USS District of Columbia in the US Navy.
Washingtonians have served in the Navy since its inception and the Washington Navy Yard has been the center of US navy shipbuilding and the largest naval ordnance plant in the world.
If you review a list of USS navy ships, you can tell that the USS DC hasn't not been commissioned because the name may be a bit clunky. Past navy ships include the USS Van Valkenburgh, the USS Chase S. Osburn (scared the crap out of the Germans!), and the USS Cheboygan County (a frickin' county!).
It is a slight, most likely because the majority of its residents have traditionally been black. That is also why there is Taxation Without Representation.
[Congress passed legislation in 2008 to allow DC and US territories to have their quarters like the 50-State Quarter Program that made the Federal government billions of dollars less poor.]
Since DC is not a state, we do not have voting representation in Congress. Nevertheless, we are required to Federal income taxes. This, ostensibly, was the cause of the American Revolution.
Lots has happened in the past two-hundred thirty-two years. "Taxation Without Representation" is now "controversial":
"Changing how the District of Columbia . . . is represented in Congress is a contemporary political issue on which there presently is no national consensus and over which reasonable minds differ," the Mint said in a statement.
Sounds reasonable, right? We don't want rabble-rousing quarters to negatively affect the dignity of the George Washingon quarter.
Under Federal law, a design cannot be "frivolous or inappropriate." DC's proposal isn't frivolous. I don't know how to interpret "inappropriate," but let's see how the Mint interpreted it.
There is no design criteria on the Mint's website, but since this is an outgrowth of the 50-State Quarter program with the same statutory standard, let's assume that the 50-State design criteria applies:
Designs shall have broad appeal to the citizens of the state and avoid controversial subjects or symbols that are likely to offend.
...
State flags and state seals are not considered suitable for designs. (Ed: Take that, South Carolina!)
...
Inappropriate design concepts include, but are not limited to logos or depictions of specific commercial, private, educational, civic, religious, sports, or other organizations whose membership or ownership is not universal.
The design criteria is subject to interpretation. It could that designs should avoid (a) controversial subjects; and (b) symbols likely to offend. Or it could mean, controversial subjects and controversial symbols, either of which are likely to offend. Perhaps a Treasury Department attorney-advisor was consulted on this.
Reasonably or not, some Americans may feel that full DC voting rights is controversial, but I doubt think it is likely to offend. If you are offended by that, you are a crazy cracker.
In any event, whether legal or not, the Mint will have its way. The Washington Post reports that the District may seek to use its official motto--Justitia Omnibus (Justice for All). Fuck that!
How could you go from the truth that there is taxation without representation to the lie that there is justice for all?
I have a better idea. Submit no motto. A motto is not a design criteria. Just plaster the "controversial Negro" (as Public Enemy would say) Frederick Douglass on the back of the quarter and call it a day. He can be George Washington's new black friend!
This issue relates to another pet peeve of mine. There has never been a USS District of Columbia in the US Navy.
Washingtonians have served in the Navy since its inception and the Washington Navy Yard has been the center of US navy shipbuilding and the largest naval ordnance plant in the world.
If you review a list of USS navy ships, you can tell that the USS DC hasn't not been commissioned because the name may be a bit clunky. Past navy ships include the USS Van Valkenburgh, the USS Chase S. Osburn (scared the crap out of the Germans!), and the USS Cheboygan County (a frickin' county!).
It is a slight, most likely because the majority of its residents have traditionally been black. That is also why there is Taxation Without Representation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)