This blog is now unnecessary

The rise of Facebook and Twitter and the ability to post links to their streams, there is really no need for a blog to raise awareness of news items that I believe are not getting enough exposure. You can now follow me on Twitter @chip_roberson.

The War on Torture by an American Patriot

Every day I read news items that I think deserve to be shared when I get time and then there are the days when I find something that demands my immediate attention. This article by “Matthew Alexander” in the Washington Post on November 30th is one of those items.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/28/AR2008112802242.html

As a nation, our behavior (or the behavior of our agents) in the world can define us to our friends and adversaries alike. Just as importantly, how we citizens respond to this behavior reflects on us individually. Is it not our duty to ensure our government reflects our values?

I believe patriotism is not wearing flag pins or all the other accoutrements one is supposed to wear or participating in the obvious ceremonies, it is about standing up, often in opposition to authority or public opinion, to uphold the vital principles of our nation. I realize that we may disagree on exactly what those principles are or their relative priority, but for me, Matthew Alexander’s efforts exemplify patriotism.

I think President Bill Clinton summed it up best during the 2008 Democratic Convention: “People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power.”

Kristof on "The Pakinstan Test"

I read Nicholas Kristof’s column, “The Pakistan Test”, on my outbound Thanksgiving travels and had made a note to write about it in my blog once I got home. However, the events in Mumbai over the last 48 hours have made this column even more significant and timely. Please take a moment to read it.

Some points to note are:

• Pakistan is in a state of slow collapse;
• It has up to 60 nuclear weapons;
• The influence of the Taliban seems to be growing there;
• Our air strikes may be galvanizing public opinion behind the Taliban;
• Pakistan and Afghanistan are linked.

Kristof goes on to describe 4 steps that the international community should pursue to help resolve the problems that are helping to destabilize the region. I think they make sense and are worthy of us exploring.

Unless we educate ourselves and provide informed perspective to our leaders, will they come to the right decisions? I believe we should consider Kristof’s argument and let’s get ahead of the issue before it becomes a crisis.

Also, be sure to check out the Developments in Literacy page to which he links.

John Brennan deserves a closer look

There are reports that John Brennan is Obama’s “favorite to be nominated director of the Central Intelligence Agency." I haven’t paid too much attention to Brennan over the years but when both Glenn Greenwald of Salon and Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic raise concerns, it puts Brennan on my radar. The Huffington Post has a good overview article which might be a nice place to start.

Note, however, that there have just been reports (i.e. ”leaks“) that Brennan is Obama’s choice -- it may prove false.

Thanks to Erica B. for bringing this to my attention.

The must-read article on the sub-prime meltdown

I’m still trying to get back into my rhythm of maintaining these blogs so this will be short but to the point.

From my observations, I think many people are missing the magnitude of the financial crisis that is before us and various invested parties are trying to fix blame on their favorite scapegoat (e.g. Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac). For the lay person, I have not found a better article to explain the origins of this mess that the one in Condé Nast Portfolio called “The End” by Mark Lewis.

Not only is it well written it is very informative. I think we all need to pay attention to this mess -- I fear the next 3-5 months are going to be quite painful.

Keith Olbermann on California Prop 8

It's probably no surprise to most that I like Keith Olbermann. At a time when I was frustrated and outraged over what the George W. Bush administration was doing, he gave voice to those emotions.

As I've grown older, I've learned that homosexuals are just people who, like me, are pursuing their own happiness in this world. Their "agenda", if you want to call it that, is not about taking anything away from me; they just want to be treated as any other citizen would be treated. So, when I heard Keith Olbermann's Special Comment on MSNBC's Countdown tonight, I knew that Keith had once again hit at the heart of the matter:



Isn't it time that we treated others as we would like others to treat us and isn't this most important when the others are not like us?

Church and State: The issue of Prop 8

While people on both sides of this issue have fanned the rhetoric, James Brosnahan, a senior partner at the Morrison & Foerster law firm in San Francisco, gives a very reasoned analysis for the layman why this issue is important from a First Amendment perspective:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/09/INUV13V3I2.DTL

I think everyone should read his article.

On another front, you want want to watch America Blog to see some of the backlash that is brewing against the Mormon Church, among others, over their support of Prop 8.

Bill Maher: No Crony Left Behind

Let me just say that Bill Maher has an interesting take on No Child Left Behind at the Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/no-crony-left-behind_b_70758.html

I never thought about it but I should have.

Warren Buffett on SIV Super-fund

Are Citigroup, Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase, along with the US Treasury’s encouragement, trying to “turn a toad into a price by repackaging it”? An article in the Financial Times says Warren Buffett thinks so.

When Buffett speaks, people (should) listen.

Check Mate to the Court Jester

Today Bill Maher and Jon Stewart are our jesters, the only people seemingly capable to reveal the truth in the court of public opinion when our other watchdogs dare not. However, in last week’s Real Time with Bill Maher, (Episode 112, 19 Oct 2007), Gary Kasparov clearly and succinctly put Maher into “check and mate.”

Kasparov, who is running for the Russian presidency, spoke with a sophistication and clarity which is woefully absent from our own politicians. This was so evident that the conversation with Bill Maher evoked both an element of surprise and high praise from both Maher and his guest, political talk-show host, Chris Matthews.

Today our would-be leaders try to craft a story and crack a joke in an effort to win a popularity contest rather than truly engage in a dialogue around the issues. We have so paralyzed our political process that not only are our administrators afraid to speak truth to power but our hopeful leaders are afraid to speak truth to the people.

I encourage you to watch the episode on YouTube (though it may be best viewed via HBO On Demand) and see how a truly analytical mind can cut through the obfuscations and distractions to see the forces at play.

Is our administration a pawn to its own ideology?

Two looks behind Obama and Clinton

On Tuesday, Oct 16, Charlie Rose hosted two guests in a show I think anyone with an interest in the 2008 election should watch.

The first guest was Samantha Power who is a senior policy advisor to Barack Obama. As Ms. Power spoke, I found myself captivated by the freshness and insight she revealed with her perspective on the topic of American foreign policy. Time and time again during the conversation, I heard myself saying “this is what we are missing today.”

The second guest was Mark Penn who is the chief strategist for Hillary Clinton. This conversation was illuminating for different reasons. Mr. Penn has written a new book called Microtrends: The Small Forces Behind Tomorrow’s Big Changes. I was unsure what to expect but Mr. Penn was disarming as he showed an almost Rovian understanding of, well, the “small forces” that are at play. Just as Carl Rove understood how to mobilize key factions to win an election in a closely-divided society, Mr. Penn demonstrates a similar mastery.

For me, this episode encapsulated the essence of these two candidates as I see them. Obama presents a fresh perspective that offers hope for a more successful approach to governing. Clinton represents an uncanny understanding of how the power is harnessed.

Crosby & Nash Play Hardball

“Capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth, communism is the equal distribution of poverty.“

I’m not sure to whom this quotation should be attributed but it came to mind as I watched Chris Matthew’s interview with David Crosy and Graham Nash on Hardball. However, in this case, I would reframe the quotation to be ”Modern American Democracy (MAD) is the unequal distribution of burden....“ At least that’s how I see it.

As Crosby, Nash and Matthews point out, the burden of this war is being born by a minority, a minority that is unlikely to rise up and demand change. We are not all at risk. We are all not suffering the consequences of this war. Only the small percentage of our population who are in the active military are shoulder this burden along with some unnamed future generation of debtor citizens.

It is as if our government has successfully divided and muted its citizens. A majority, when asked, is against the war but they are not acting on their convictions. We are passive because the threat is not knocking on our door, the cost is not in our blood or coming out of our pockets. Why speak out? Why demand action when somebody else is shouldering the burden.

I do not believe in this war. I do not believe in this administration. This is not the country I studied in my high school government class. Slowly, our population is being divided and either pitted against itself or just marginalized until it is just a whisper. The checks and balances that were put in place to ensure the government was ”of the people, by the people and for the people“ are being dismantled. Our judicial system is politically compromised and Congress is AWOL.

Do we not have an obligation as citizens to ensure we maintain the government our Founding Fathers established? I realize that life is busy, our lives are complicated and we have many demands on our time but can we afford to remain safe in our own cocoons while others die, possibly in vain, for us? Do I deserve their sacrifice if I’m unwilling to shoulder my own my own responsibility to this country; my own ”burden“, so to speak?

I apologize for allowing my personal opinions come through so strongly on this blog, it was not my intention but as I watch Hardball this evening, I was struck at how the current situation has been structured (either intentionally or unintentionally) to remove the motivations for galvanizing an anti-war movement. I watched Crosby and Nash speak and wondered how many of our young Americans can even relate to their message.

We have a mess in Iraq and I don’t think it is going to end well, no matter which way we go. I know I can no longer accept the reasons and explanations given by our current administration and I’m not sure I can really expect much different from the next... unless the people speak with a strong and clear voice.

Where is our national voice?

Counterinsurgency

I’m having trouble typing these days due to some inflammation in my wrist so my recommendations will be short. On Oct 5, 2007 Charlie Rose had David Kilcullen who is described as a Counterinsurgency expert. Kilcullen has apparently advised David Petraeus.

I found this episode interesting and I hope to watch it again to determine what I think about his assessments.

The comments on Charlie Rose’ site are also worth checking out.

Thomas Friedman on Tim Russert (CNBC)

Thomas Friedman was on CNBC’s “Tim Russert“ this weekend, Sept 22, 2007, and this is one of those shows that I’ll have to watch again, at least the second half. The clarity of what he has to say is very compelling and I think we should be listening. He has taken the gloves off his treatment of our president, he is calling for a revolution in our energy policy and he’s got an intriguing view on climate change and the green ”revolution.“

I don’t know if one can find a copy of this episode online or not, the CNBC site seems pretty sparse; however, I think this show may run on CNBC later this week. It’s worth watching.

Immunity for Warrant-less Wiretaps?

I've read three recent articles about the warrant-less wiretaps and this is another case where our system of checks and balances seems to be threatened:

Newsweek ran a story, by Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball, on MSNBC.com titled: Case Dismissed?
The secret lobbying campaign your phone company doesn't want you to know about 

Glenn Greenwald pretty much repeated the story titled, “Former Clinton officials lobby for amnesty for FISA lawbreaking” on Salon.com.

And the New York Times also ran a related story, by James Risen, titled Warrantless Wiretaps Not Used, Official Says.  Why can't the FISA court be adapted and why is there so much pressure to immunize everybody from any form of judicial oversight and responsibility for past actions?

Since when are we supposed to trust only one branch of our government to protect our interests?

As for the telecom companies, remember, Qwest Communications stood up to the Bush administration’s warrant-less wiretapping when the other communication companies rolled over.

If there is anything I believe in, it's accountability.

Edwards, Clinton and Fundraising

I think campaign finance reform is the bedrock of any fundamental change in the way our government operates. I don’t consider speech and money as equivalent entities but donating money is considered a form of protected speech. What happened to the ideal where the there is a competition of ideas and the best ideas win? Too idealistic?

The John Edwards campaign is taking aim at the Clinton campaign over a fundraiser. You can read about it on several sites but there are couple of blog entries at MSNBC and NYT. I’m not aligned with any candidate yet but this whole issue doesn’t pass the sniff test for me.

Here is a list of some organizations that might help add some perspective:

The Center for Responsive Politics
Taxpayers for Common Sense
Porkbusters
Common Cause

Checks and Imbalances

Here is another story, by the FInancial Times, where it appears politics is getting in the way of our government trying to police itself. I’m probably more sensitive to this because of my dismay over the K-Street Project, the US Attorney’s firings, Alberto Gonzales and the general lack of accountability in Congress and our government in general.

In this case it is “chief internal watchdog” of the state department that seems to be getting in the way.

I want to avoid adding too much commentary in this blog but I think this is another reason why Americans need to demand more clarity and accountability in our government. Our system of checks and balances seems to be crumbling, slowly before us.

The Moral Price of Leaving Iraq

The following was an notable excerpt from Anderson Cooper 360 on Sept 14, 2007. Michael Ware, CNN Correspondent, raised some great questions to consider about our responsibility with regard to Iraq:

GRAPHIC: U.S. opinion of war in Iraq, September 7-9. Favor, 34 percent; oppose, 63 percent.

COOPER: Those were some of poll numbers that greeted General Petraeus as he testified in Washington this week. Support for the war, now in its fifth year, has been declining. And as we learned this week, there are still going to be large numbers of U.S. forces here going into next year's elections.

You're going to hear politicians trying to come up with solutions, though there are no easy solutions at all for what's happening here. The end game, that's what we want to talk about with CNN's Michael Ware, who joins me now here in the Green Zone.

In the United States, some, mostly Democrats, want a date set for withdrawal. They say, those who support that, that it would pressure the al Maliki government, it would pressure the Iraqi military to stand up faster. Would it?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's a dream-like state. Anyone who's telling themselves that is absolutely deluding themselves. Maliki's under no pressure from the presence or not of American forces. I mean...

COOPER: Really? He's not under pressure from American forces?

WARE: No. Whilst America, on the one hand, is propping up his regime, on the other hand, they don't answer to the Americans. They don't feel beholden to the Americans. And they have a ready-made sponsor waiting in the wings to step into the American vacuum, as the Iranian president this week himself said.

So the presence of American troops is meant to serve U.S. interests, Western interests. They're not necessarily the interests of the government that America has created.

COOPER: But the U.S. can pressure them to some degree, no?

WARE: It can and it's trying that. It's failed abysmally until this point. Right now the greatest stick that America has, that it's jabbing this government with, the only thing that's forcing them to even pretend to meet any of the benchmarks on de-Ba'athification or reconciliation is that America is now supporting the Ba'ath insurgency. It's supporting the Sunni tribes, and this is terrifying this government.

This government's trying to block it at every turn. Iran has said that you're going to pay a severe price if you keep doing this, but it's the only thing.

COOPER: You know, there are a lot of folks in the United States who say, look, why should the U.S. troops be here? I mean, why should Americans be losing their lives here when Iraqi politicians are going on vacation and are not even passing, you know, reforms that would work towards reconciliation, which would seem -- I mean, everyone seems to admit that's essential for progress here.

WARE: And that's right. And that's not going to happen. You may get it on the surface. You may get some bells and whistles, but you're not going to get true reconciliation, no matter how much people are working to...

COOPER: Still too much hatred and too much desire for retribution?

WARE: And too much vested interest. I mean, it doesn't suit peoples' agendas to come together in the middle. And there's external players all around this country who don't want to see that happen, and they're having much greater affect here than America is.

COOPER: Those who support the U.S. effort here say that American troops should stay because they're a vital national security interest here. If American troops did pull out in great numbers, withdraw totally, even, say in the next year or so, do we know for sure what would happen? Or is it a roll of the dice?

WARE: No one knows for sure. But one thing that we can count on is the blood will flow. And American foreign policy interests will suffer such a withering blow I'm not sure that they would be able to recover from this region.

America can leave tomorrow, as long as it's ready to pay the price. And let's not forget: everyone wants the American sons and daughters to go home. But this is a dilemma facing liberal America. You can do that, but you're going to have such death and misery on your conscience.

There is a moral imperative here. America chose to invade. America created this environment that's not just hurting the Iraqis but it's hurting American interests. It's fuelling al Qaeda and fuelling Iran. You can walk away from that, but it's not without price.

Bush extends State of Emergency

Why do we need to go into our 7th year of a State of Emergency?

Something doesn’t sound right about this as it is reminiscent of what dictators have done to consolidate power. I always thought states of emergency were meant to give a president short term authority to address a crisis until Congress could convene. Has our government not adapted enough yet to address the threat?

What is the meaning of this and where is the analysis of its purpose and implications? What am I missing here?

Partisan Brain Study

Michael Krasny hosted a topic on his program, “Forum” (produced by KQED), Thursday, Sept 13, 2007 on a “new psychological study [which] appears to show that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives. The program examines the study, which gives new meaning to the terms ‘right brain’ and ‘left-brain.’"

Mr. Krasny’s guests were:
• David M. Amodio, professor of psychology at New York University and author of the study
• Jack Glaser, professor of public policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley
• Jonah Goldberg, editor at large of the National Review Online, columnist at the L.A Times and author of article, "Hard Wired Right"

Interested readers can download an MP3 of this show from the KQED website.

I am a big fan of Krasny’s show and find him to be an exceptionally prepared host who probes issues with a depth that is both refreshing and informative.