28 April 2008
The Math of Climate Change
I did some of the math that Steven F. Hayward presents in his OpEd in the April 28, 2008, Wall Street Journal, “The Real Cost of Tackling Climate Change,” and came to a different conclusion. Reducing emissions 80% by 2050 will be difficult, but not more impossible than emulating European models.
First of all, the 80% reduction goal must be applied to per capita CO2 emissions. In 1990 each American apparently was responsible for generating 20 tons of carbon dioxide. By 2006, we were still emitting over 19 tons per capita. Much of our population growth between those years, however, was due to immigration. Moreover, at least as much if not more of the increase in our numbers by 2050 will also be due to immigration. These additional Americans, fortunately, will have come from societies with lower emissions levels and will have habits that are less carbon-consumptive than the rest of us. They make our overall emissions-reduction task a little easier. In other words, the more our people and routines diversify through immigration, the lower our average carbon footprint becomes.
By Mr. Hayward’s numbers, an 80% reduction in our 1990 per capita CO2 emissions would result in a level of approximately 4 tons in the year 2050. While this is quite a transformation from America’s 19.3 ton level in 2006, it is 60% higher than the 2.5 ton level with which he tries to frighten us in his essay. In addition, it is only 40% lower than the current levels he credits to France and Switzerland. They will have a much less challenging job to meet the same per capita emission goal. How humiliating it will be for us to concede that we must envy the French and other Europeans for their foresight, and that we have something to learn from them about living within the means of our planet!
I did some of the math that Steven F. Hayward presents in his OpEd in the April 28, 2008, Wall Street Journal, “The Real Cost of Tackling Climate Change,” and came to a different conclusion. Reducing emissions 80% by 2050 will be difficult, but not more impossible than emulating European models.
First of all, the 80% reduction goal must be applied to per capita CO2 emissions. In 1990 each American apparently was responsible for generating 20 tons of carbon dioxide. By 2006, we were still emitting over 19 tons per capita. Much of our population growth between those years, however, was due to immigration. Moreover, at least as much if not more of the increase in our numbers by 2050 will also be due to immigration. These additional Americans, fortunately, will have come from societies with lower emissions levels and will have habits that are less carbon-consumptive than the rest of us. They make our overall emissions-reduction task a little easier. In other words, the more our people and routines diversify through immigration, the lower our average carbon footprint becomes.
By Mr. Hayward’s numbers, an 80% reduction in our 1990 per capita CO2 emissions would result in a level of approximately 4 tons in the year 2050. While this is quite a transformation from America’s 19.3 ton level in 2006, it is 60% higher than the 2.5 ton level with which he tries to frighten us in his essay. In addition, it is only 40% lower than the current levels he credits to France and Switzerland. They will have a much less challenging job to meet the same per capita emission goal. How humiliating it will be for us to concede that we must envy the French and other Europeans for their foresight, and that we have something to learn from them about living within the means of our planet!
23 April 2008
Unelectability Is Just an Elusion for Racism
Senator Clinton is ducking the issue that probably won her the ten-percentage-point victory in the Pennsylvania primary election. It was reported on the Brian Lehrer Show (WNYC 23 April 2008) that as many as 16% of Clinton supporters in that contest would not vote for an African-American in the general election.
Senator Obama’s supporters, God bless them, have chosen to disregard that hurdle standing in the way of his path to victory over the Republican candidate for the Presidency. They are determined to use the 2008 election as a tool for bringing out the country’s higher principles. Unfortunately, we may not be ready and the stakes are too high to withstand another four or eight years of warfare and national financial ruin in exchange for fighting a losing general election campaign.
Senator Clinton is ducking the issue that probably won her the ten-percentage-point victory in the Pennsylvania primary election. It was reported on the Brian Lehrer Show (WNYC 23 April 2008) that as many as 16% of Clinton supporters in that contest would not vote for an African-American in the general election.
Senator Obama’s supporters, God bless them, have chosen to disregard that hurdle standing in the way of his path to victory over the Republican candidate for the Presidency. They are determined to use the 2008 election as a tool for bringing out the country’s higher principles. Unfortunately, we may not be ready and the stakes are too high to withstand another four or eight years of warfare and national financial ruin in exchange for fighting a losing general election campaign.
21 April 2008
Umbrage is the Theme
As Michael Kinsley said today on WNYC’s Brian Lehrer Show, the theme of the 2008 Democratic primary campaign is umbrage. The Obama failing that Tim Russert chose to take offense from was his not covering his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance (or National Anthem). Mr. Russert did not thereby lose his eligibility to host a network interview program. After all, news programs like his exist in symbiosis with the vicious primary candidate selection process.
That process doesn’t satisfy the real need of the Democratic Party: to nominate a candidate who can be most effective in November. Instead it and news programs like Meet the Press review the abilities of political hopefuls to pander to particular segments of the population, in this case those that already lean toward the Party’s policies. Mr. Russert’s taking umbrage at Mr. Obama’s standing with arms at his sides does a good job of offering a forum for pandering. That’s what he’s supposed to do, just like Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos did last week when focusing Obama’s debate with Hillary Clinton on the absence of a flag on his lapel.
It’s unreasonable to expect the media to correct the shortcomings of the Democratic nomination process. They are very effective in taking advantage of those shortcomings to generate viewership revenues. It is up to those of us who are concerned about how our country is governed (and that should be all of us) to insist that our system of selecting potential office holders reveals their real competencies and policy objectives rather than merely represent their appearances.
As Michael Kinsley said today on WNYC’s Brian Lehrer Show, the theme of the 2008 Democratic primary campaign is umbrage. The Obama failing that Tim Russert chose to take offense from was his not covering his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance (or National Anthem). Mr. Russert did not thereby lose his eligibility to host a network interview program. After all, news programs like his exist in symbiosis with the vicious primary candidate selection process.
That process doesn’t satisfy the real need of the Democratic Party: to nominate a candidate who can be most effective in November. Instead it and news programs like Meet the Press review the abilities of political hopefuls to pander to particular segments of the population, in this case those that already lean toward the Party’s policies. Mr. Russert’s taking umbrage at Mr. Obama’s standing with arms at his sides does a good job of offering a forum for pandering. That’s what he’s supposed to do, just like Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos did last week when focusing Obama’s debate with Hillary Clinton on the absence of a flag on his lapel.
It’s unreasonable to expect the media to correct the shortcomings of the Democratic nomination process. They are very effective in taking advantage of those shortcomings to generate viewership revenues. It is up to those of us who are concerned about how our country is governed (and that should be all of us) to insist that our system of selecting potential office holders reveals their real competencies and policy objectives rather than merely represent their appearances.
Primary Reasons
The electoral system that suits the governance of our country does not necessarily suit the selection of candidates for public office by political parties. Election of officials (and referenda on public policy issues) is a tool for determining the will of a majority or plurality of the people. Political parties exist in order to win those elections and in order to build the coalitions necessary effectively to adopt their policies as law.
It is clear from the 2008 Democratic presidential primary campaign, however, that using popular elections to select a political party’s candidates for public office may handicap its ability to win general elections. Whereas the decisions made in the November polling places are individual preferences, the primaries were instituted also to “democratize” the process of adapting political parties to the likely voting behavior of the public (not just party members). Another noble motive may have been to educate party members by affording candidates a forum to present and debate the issues. The outcome of the primaries, in any case, was to have served as guidance to the parties’ conventions on their selection of a winning general election ticket, not as a determinant of that ticket.
Similar to the question of whether corporations ought to be governed by shareholder votes, the answer in the case of political parties is that party members should defer to their duly appointed leaders for finding solutions to their business challenges, especially general elections. Primary elections make it seem that “smoke-filled rooms” have been opened to transparent media coverage. This may provide more entertainment and revenue for the national media, but it doesn’t necessarily result in better government.
The electoral system that suits the governance of our country does not necessarily suit the selection of candidates for public office by political parties. Election of officials (and referenda on public policy issues) is a tool for determining the will of a majority or plurality of the people. Political parties exist in order to win those elections and in order to build the coalitions necessary effectively to adopt their policies as law.
It is clear from the 2008 Democratic presidential primary campaign, however, that using popular elections to select a political party’s candidates for public office may handicap its ability to win general elections. Whereas the decisions made in the November polling places are individual preferences, the primaries were instituted also to “democratize” the process of adapting political parties to the likely voting behavior of the public (not just party members). Another noble motive may have been to educate party members by affording candidates a forum to present and debate the issues. The outcome of the primaries, in any case, was to have served as guidance to the parties’ conventions on their selection of a winning general election ticket, not as a determinant of that ticket.
Similar to the question of whether corporations ought to be governed by shareholder votes, the answer in the case of political parties is that party members should defer to their duly appointed leaders for finding solutions to their business challenges, especially general elections. Primary elections make it seem that “smoke-filled rooms” have been opened to transparent media coverage. This may provide more entertainment and revenue for the national media, but it doesn’t necessarily result in better government.
The Pentagon Cultivates the Media's Military Analysts
The true culprit in David Barstow’s report in the April 20, 2008 New York Times, “Courting Ex-Officers Tied to Military Contractors,” is the media. As he attributed to the Pentagon’s Lawrence De Rita, “we assume” the military analysts and the networks know where the conflict of interest lines are. It has been the electronic and print news agencies who have sacrificed “objectivity” to the convenience and profitability of accepting commentary on the strategy and conduct of the Iraq war that is canned by its lead perpetrator.
The true culprit in David Barstow’s report in the April 20, 2008 New York Times, “Courting Ex-Officers Tied to Military Contractors,” is the media. As he attributed to the Pentagon’s Lawrence De Rita, “we assume” the military analysts and the networks know where the conflict of interest lines are. It has been the electronic and print news agencies who have sacrificed “objectivity” to the convenience and profitability of accepting commentary on the strategy and conduct of the Iraq war that is canned by its lead perpetrator.
15 April 2008
Demeaning the Public
It isn’t easy for Republicans to distract the public from their job losses, the rising cost of essentials, etc. with references to “hot button issues.” Senator Obama found himself in hot water by calling a few such issues—gun control, religious fervor, immigration reform—small-town America’s refuges from their bitterness over the bad state of the economy. The Bush Administration has failed to distract the Iraqi public from the humiliation of American invasion by characterizing their natural resistance as Baathist recidivism or Al Qaeda terrorism. The Iraqi public is not that stupid, nor is the American electorate. People understand where their interests lie. Underestimating their intelligence, even in a slip of the tongue, invites facile and effective put-downs from an eventual opponent’s political supporters.
None of Senator Clinton’s allies is happy that it is taking so long for the Democratic Party to decide on a candidate for President. The extended process inevitably leads to friction between the rival camps. However, avoiding that friction is not a good reason to settle on a candidate regardless of his or her suitability. It’s not a foregone conclusion that the Democrats will win the White House in November. The public will demand a President who demonstrates a clear understanding of what is on their minds. We shouldn’t avoid the difficult process of finding a candidate who makes that demonstration just because the process is messy.
It isn’t easy for Republicans to distract the public from their job losses, the rising cost of essentials, etc. with references to “hot button issues.” Senator Obama found himself in hot water by calling a few such issues—gun control, religious fervor, immigration reform—small-town America’s refuges from their bitterness over the bad state of the economy. The Bush Administration has failed to distract the Iraqi public from the humiliation of American invasion by characterizing their natural resistance as Baathist recidivism or Al Qaeda terrorism. The Iraqi public is not that stupid, nor is the American electorate. People understand where their interests lie. Underestimating their intelligence, even in a slip of the tongue, invites facile and effective put-downs from an eventual opponent’s political supporters.
None of Senator Clinton’s allies is happy that it is taking so long for the Democratic Party to decide on a candidate for President. The extended process inevitably leads to friction between the rival camps. However, avoiding that friction is not a good reason to settle on a candidate regardless of his or her suitability. It’s not a foregone conclusion that the Democrats will win the White House in November. The public will demand a President who demonstrates a clear understanding of what is on their minds. We shouldn’t avoid the difficult process of finding a candidate who makes that demonstration just because the process is messy.
14 April 2008
Military State
The troublesome thing about Steve Coll’s Comment on Military Conflict in the April 14, 2008, New Yorker, is his observation about suppressing professional military dissent. You can’t rely on the military to prevent policy disasters like the Iraq War, nor to enliven an election-year debate. For example, whether or not the U.S. adopts a draft in order to carry out a martial foreign policy is not a military issue, but a political one. In our system of government, civilian control of the military should reserve decisions to military non-professionals on whether to invade other countries and turn our democracy into an international bully.
Military action is not the answer to every security threat to America. It is true that George W. Bush has tried to duck responsibility for protecting the nation’s wellbeing by hiding behind the military professionalism of General David Petraeus. A broader solution to the country’s fragile safety and economy needs to be found. That will take courage and foresight that we have seen in neither the Bush Administration nor in the present Congress.
The troublesome thing about Steve Coll’s Comment on Military Conflict in the April 14, 2008, New Yorker, is his observation about suppressing professional military dissent. You can’t rely on the military to prevent policy disasters like the Iraq War, nor to enliven an election-year debate. For example, whether or not the U.S. adopts a draft in order to carry out a martial foreign policy is not a military issue, but a political one. In our system of government, civilian control of the military should reserve decisions to military non-professionals on whether to invade other countries and turn our democracy into an international bully.
Military action is not the answer to every security threat to America. It is true that George W. Bush has tried to duck responsibility for protecting the nation’s wellbeing by hiding behind the military professionalism of General David Petraeus. A broader solution to the country’s fragile safety and economy needs to be found. That will take courage and foresight that we have seen in neither the Bush Administration nor in the present Congress.
13 April 2008
Surging More Only Wastes More
The attribution at the end of the OpEd article in the April 11, 2008, Wall Street Journal by Michael Yon states credits his bona fides to his recent book (we know how well even the best of publishers these days vets the words it prints) and to his reporting from Iraq and Afghanistan since 2004 (for which he has financed by soliciting funds directly from readers of his blog). Regardless of Mr. Yon’s credibility, it is clear that neither the 2004-2006 U.S. adventure in Iraq nor the one Congress is reconsidering right now is any more a “war” than the Cold War was. The U.S. won that ideological competition without a direct battle with our primary adversary, the U.S.S.R. The “War on Terrorism” also will only be won on other than military terms.
Iraq is really irrelevant to the fight to protect civil order in the modern liberal democracies. Last year’s reduction in violence there can only reasonably be attributed to a decision by Sunni and Shia Arabs alike that the best way to get the Americans out of their hair (so they can resolve their sectoral strife on their own) is to reduce the killing between the two of them and their attacks on the American invaders at least temporarily. Whether that is a wise decision, only time and the outcome of the 2008 U.S. Presidential election will tell. The longer we wait before pulling out of Iraq, the more wasteful, costly and tragic our attempt to obviate the inevitable bloodshed there will be.
The attribution at the end of the OpEd article in the April 11, 2008, Wall Street Journal by Michael Yon states credits his bona fides to his recent book (we know how well even the best of publishers these days vets the words it prints) and to his reporting from Iraq and Afghanistan since 2004 (for which he has financed by soliciting funds directly from readers of his blog). Regardless of Mr. Yon’s credibility, it is clear that neither the 2004-2006 U.S. adventure in Iraq nor the one Congress is reconsidering right now is any more a “war” than the Cold War was. The U.S. won that ideological competition without a direct battle with our primary adversary, the U.S.S.R. The “War on Terrorism” also will only be won on other than military terms.
Iraq is really irrelevant to the fight to protect civil order in the modern liberal democracies. Last year’s reduction in violence there can only reasonably be attributed to a decision by Sunni and Shia Arabs alike that the best way to get the Americans out of their hair (so they can resolve their sectoral strife on their own) is to reduce the killing between the two of them and their attacks on the American invaders at least temporarily. Whether that is a wise decision, only time and the outcome of the 2008 U.S. Presidential election will tell. The longer we wait before pulling out of Iraq, the more wasteful, costly and tragic our attempt to obviate the inevitable bloodshed there will be.
11 April 2008
Revolving Presidential Ticket
A lot of Democratic Party observers have been advocating a joint Obama-Clinton Presidential Ticket for 2008 in order to combine the strengths of the two candidates and to avoid alienating the supporters of either of them. Despite their conviction that ultimately the Party will unify behind whichever of them is actually nominated this summer, it’s only the media and the travel/hospitality industry that benefits from extended campaigning by the two rivals. Moreover, the Republican presumptive candidate probably reaps more advantage than either of his eventual opponents from any inevitable bickering between them.
It appears that both the Clinton and Obama campaigns have realized that they are in danger of hurting themselves through their delegate fight. Indeed they have both begun to orient their critical rhetoric towards Senator McCain. Nevertheless, their continued competition is depleting both the patience and the pocketbooks of Democratic voters, whose energy and resources would better be reserved for the electoral battle in November.
It seems that neither Senator Clinton and her supporters nor Senator Obama and his consider their respective candidacies unattainable, and they seem to agree on every major policy issue. Therefore, why not split the ticket between them? One of them could run for President and the other for Vice President on the condition that in the case of a reelection bid, he or she would be the other’s running mate in four years. Of course, each of them would have to make an irreversible commitment to switch roles with the other after their first term of office. This revolving arrangement would effectively result in a joint Presidency, minimizing disgruntlement over who goes first.
Maybe it’s audacious to think that with egos large enough to make a run for the White House either of them would accept such a wing-clipping. It may be just the sort of paradigm change for which this country is ready.
A lot of Democratic Party observers have been advocating a joint Obama-Clinton Presidential Ticket for 2008 in order to combine the strengths of the two candidates and to avoid alienating the supporters of either of them. Despite their conviction that ultimately the Party will unify behind whichever of them is actually nominated this summer, it’s only the media and the travel/hospitality industry that benefits from extended campaigning by the two rivals. Moreover, the Republican presumptive candidate probably reaps more advantage than either of his eventual opponents from any inevitable bickering between them.
It appears that both the Clinton and Obama campaigns have realized that they are in danger of hurting themselves through their delegate fight. Indeed they have both begun to orient their critical rhetoric towards Senator McCain. Nevertheless, their continued competition is depleting both the patience and the pocketbooks of Democratic voters, whose energy and resources would better be reserved for the electoral battle in November.
It seems that neither Senator Clinton and her supporters nor Senator Obama and his consider their respective candidacies unattainable, and they seem to agree on every major policy issue. Therefore, why not split the ticket between them? One of them could run for President and the other for Vice President on the condition that in the case of a reelection bid, he or she would be the other’s running mate in four years. Of course, each of them would have to make an irreversible commitment to switch roles with the other after their first term of office. This revolving arrangement would effectively result in a joint Presidency, minimizing disgruntlement over who goes first.
Maybe it’s audacious to think that with egos large enough to make a run for the White House either of them would accept such a wing-clipping. It may be just the sort of paradigm change for which this country is ready.
09 April 2008
Bank Robbery
What would you do if one of your employees, your store manager, directed his bookkeeper to improve the company’s cash-on-hand by enlisting the warehouse crew to rob a bank? Would you applaud his decision to hire an experienced corporate turnaround specialist to organize and direct the criminal enterprise? Would the turnaround specialist’s effective execution of the robbery be the basis on which you judged your store manager or his decision? That is what Congress is supposed to be doing by evaluating authorization and appropriations for the Iraq War based on the testimony of the chief military commander there.
Now that the warehouse crew has been caught, tried, convicted and imprisoned, you might try to reform the penitentiary, but that was not your store manager’s original objective--it won’t improve his cash balance or yours. It looks like it’s time for a new store manager.
What would you do if one of your employees, your store manager, directed his bookkeeper to improve the company’s cash-on-hand by enlisting the warehouse crew to rob a bank? Would you applaud his decision to hire an experienced corporate turnaround specialist to organize and direct the criminal enterprise? Would the turnaround specialist’s effective execution of the robbery be the basis on which you judged your store manager or his decision? That is what Congress is supposed to be doing by evaluating authorization and appropriations for the Iraq War based on the testimony of the chief military commander there.
Now that the warehouse crew has been caught, tried, convicted and imprisoned, you might try to reform the penitentiary, but that was not your store manager’s original objective--it won’t improve his cash balance or yours. It looks like it’s time for a new store manager.
07 April 2008
Iraq and Its Costs
In their OpEd article in the April 7, 2008 Wall Street Journal, Senators Lieberman and Graham demonstrate their wrongheaded confusion over what the conflict is about in Iraq. It should be clear to General Petraeus and to the U.S. Congress to whom he testifies again this week that the American military is only battling, through either armed force or social work, resisters to U.S. aggression. We can call that resistance “Al Qaeda” all we want, but that doesn’t make it part of the conspiracy to destroy the World Trade Center, any more than it does other disaffected groups that rely on terror as their primary tool for attaining political goals.
Al Qaeda in Iraq, in fact, is a red herring. The “surge” has not made possible the liberation from Al Qaeda of any areas of Iraq; it was the apparent success of the “surge” that was made possible by smart Iraqis who are only disappointed now that counterinsurgency buffs, like General Petraeus and his acolytes like Senators Lieberman and Graham, are drinking their own potion. What these Sunni and Shia Iraqis each want from the “surge” is security from attack by the other until one of the sects believes it can prevail in the ultimate competition for dominance of the religious and natural resources of Iraq.
The rest of the Lieberman/Graham expostulation on Iraq is irrelevant nonsense. Iraq’s 7% growth is mainly due to the rise in the global price of oil. Mr. Maliki’s characterization of Shiite militias as “worse than Al Qaeda” is not surprising since he is just as dependent on the U.S. for his power as the fictional Al Qaeda in Iraq, whereas the strength of the Shiite militias is real and dangerous. “The larger struggle to prevent . . . an Iranian-dominated Middle East” is the latest in the succession of reasons to emerge for our going to war in Iraq.
Finally, there is no commonality between American and Muslim opposition to Al Qaeda’s ideology. Terror is not an ideology; it is a tactic. Most Muslims in the modern world oppose the use of terror for achieving political or religious objectives. However, their ideology may be closer to the world view that drives the leaders of Al Qaeda than to that of modern secular democracies. They can sympathize with Bin Laden’s objectives while condemning his tactics.
In their OpEd article in the April 7, 2008 Wall Street Journal, Senators Lieberman and Graham demonstrate their wrongheaded confusion over what the conflict is about in Iraq. It should be clear to General Petraeus and to the U.S. Congress to whom he testifies again this week that the American military is only battling, through either armed force or social work, resisters to U.S. aggression. We can call that resistance “Al Qaeda” all we want, but that doesn’t make it part of the conspiracy to destroy the World Trade Center, any more than it does other disaffected groups that rely on terror as their primary tool for attaining political goals.
Al Qaeda in Iraq, in fact, is a red herring. The “surge” has not made possible the liberation from Al Qaeda of any areas of Iraq; it was the apparent success of the “surge” that was made possible by smart Iraqis who are only disappointed now that counterinsurgency buffs, like General Petraeus and his acolytes like Senators Lieberman and Graham, are drinking their own potion. What these Sunni and Shia Iraqis each want from the “surge” is security from attack by the other until one of the sects believes it can prevail in the ultimate competition for dominance of the religious and natural resources of Iraq.
The rest of the Lieberman/Graham expostulation on Iraq is irrelevant nonsense. Iraq’s 7% growth is mainly due to the rise in the global price of oil. Mr. Maliki’s characterization of Shiite militias as “worse than Al Qaeda” is not surprising since he is just as dependent on the U.S. for his power as the fictional Al Qaeda in Iraq, whereas the strength of the Shiite militias is real and dangerous. “The larger struggle to prevent . . . an Iranian-dominated Middle East” is the latest in the succession of reasons to emerge for our going to war in Iraq.
Finally, there is no commonality between American and Muslim opposition to Al Qaeda’s ideology. Terror is not an ideology; it is a tactic. Most Muslims in the modern world oppose the use of terror for achieving political or religious objectives. However, their ideology may be closer to the world view that drives the leaders of Al Qaeda than to that of modern secular democracies. They can sympathize with Bin Laden’s objectives while condemning his tactics.
02 April 2008
Richardson Endorsement
Governor Bill Richardson’s endorsement of Senator Barack Obama shows the power of the latter’s personality, intellect, and oratory. However, it takes a good understanding of how the government works to be an effective President. Senator Hillary Clinton has demonstrated a clearer perception of the need for conciliation in order to achieve progressive (dare I say liberal) political goals. This is something she learned from her experience in attempting to reform the nation’s public health care system in the last decade, and in her subsequent widely praised terms in the Congress.
There certainly is a place for both these leaders in America’s civic affairs. At this moment in time, however, it is a mistake to rush into Mr. Obama’s corner. Senator Clinton’s Presidency will pave the way for Senator Obama to succeed her.
Governor Bill Richardson’s endorsement of Senator Barack Obama shows the power of the latter’s personality, intellect, and oratory. However, it takes a good understanding of how the government works to be an effective President. Senator Hillary Clinton has demonstrated a clearer perception of the need for conciliation in order to achieve progressive (dare I say liberal) political goals. This is something she learned from her experience in attempting to reform the nation’s public health care system in the last decade, and in her subsequent widely praised terms in the Congress.
There certainly is a place for both these leaders in America’s civic affairs. At this moment in time, however, it is a mistake to rush into Mr. Obama’s corner. Senator Clinton’s Presidency will pave the way for Senator Obama to succeed her.
Pakistan Sources of Stability
In a BBC World Service interview on April 2, 2008, a Pakistani official attributed unrest in the Tribal Areas of his country to the “U.S.” policy of fighting the Taliban. As he said, until 9/11 the Tribal Areas were peaceful.
Of course, that is just the problem. Pakistan’s policy up to then was to try to ignore the threat to world order posed by the Taliban government in Afghanistan, directly adjoining the Tribal Areas. The U.S. policy of eradicating the Taliban government in Afghanistan was genuinely a worldwide reaction to the violent attack on civilization that was fomented by the radicalism allowed by the Taliban on its territory.
The government of President Musharraf has collaborated, to the extent he believes his own political survival permits, with this international policy. This is the minimum level of cooperation that civilized nations have a right to demand of him. The policy that has led to the disruption of “peace” in the Tribal Areas may not have originated in Pakistan; but the Pakistan by which that policy had not been undertaken would have been legitimately considered an outlaw nation, subject to international sanctions or enforcement measures that surely would have been more upsetting to Pakistani officials.
In a BBC World Service interview on April 2, 2008, a Pakistani official attributed unrest in the Tribal Areas of his country to the “U.S.” policy of fighting the Taliban. As he said, until 9/11 the Tribal Areas were peaceful.
Of course, that is just the problem. Pakistan’s policy up to then was to try to ignore the threat to world order posed by the Taliban government in Afghanistan, directly adjoining the Tribal Areas. The U.S. policy of eradicating the Taliban government in Afghanistan was genuinely a worldwide reaction to the violent attack on civilization that was fomented by the radicalism allowed by the Taliban on its territory.
The government of President Musharraf has collaborated, to the extent he believes his own political survival permits, with this international policy. This is the minimum level of cooperation that civilized nations have a right to demand of him. The policy that has led to the disruption of “peace” in the Tribal Areas may not have originated in Pakistan; but the Pakistan by which that policy had not been undertaken would have been legitimately considered an outlaw nation, subject to international sanctions or enforcement measures that surely would have been more upsetting to Pakistani officials.
01 April 2008
Sub Prime Mortgage Cleanup
The U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve rescued the country’s financial system from the consequences of a collapse of Bear Stearns with a guarantee of $30 billion of its assets to its selected buyer, J.P. Morgan Chase. The immediate beneficiaries of this emergency measure were other investment banks whose operations depend on the availability of credit from their trading partners around the world. Ultimately, the entire financial system of the country was believed to have escaped a meltdown for lack of the mutual trust of trading partners on which it depends.
The emergency action was taken to preserve the lubricant, credit, that allows large financial institutions to conduct their business with each other. This was an operational challenge. Secretary of Treasury Paulson characterized it as facing the systemic risk. It had arisen from nervousness about the value of one class of assets underlying a small part of the global money market—real estate. It did not correct the valuation errors that led to the credit crunch, nor did it address the personal tragedies of those home buyers whose mortgage loans exceed the deteriorating value of their homes.
We have indeed gone through another bubble-bursting, and there are many different losers. Some deserve what they got, having invested capital in a wildly inflated real estate boom. A few, however, saw their personal savings destroyed by the collapse of foolish dreams sold to them by fast-talking con-artists.
Perhaps an argument can be made for rescuing those victims of the real estate debacle. No one believed that investors in the stock market deserved a bailout, even those whose retirement nest eggs were crushed, deserved rescuing in 1987 or following the Internet Bubble. However, investment in one’s home is encouraged officially by the Income Tax code as well as culturally by the American mythology of self-reliance. Based on that, a federal rescue plan for home owners who took ill-advised mortgages could reasonably be offered new loans on realistic terms, at the expense of the investors who bought debt obligations collateralized by the original sub prime mortgages involved.
An important part of the new federal credit regulation plan proposed by Secretary Paulson, the Mortgage Origination Commission, should be implemented strongly in order to demonstrate to foreign investors the conscientiousness of federal regulators. Although foreign investors were possibly imprudent to have invested in CDOs backed in part by sub prime mortgages, their confidence in the transparency of the U.S. financial system is critical for assuring the availability of their capital to finance American private enterprise and public entitlement programs. The aphorism, “Fool me once, shame on me; fool me twice, shame on you,” packs a lesson that Americans must abide by if we wish to continue enjoying a way of life we cannot afford without monetary liquidity provided by willing institutional investors from abroad.
The U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve rescued the country’s financial system from the consequences of a collapse of Bear Stearns with a guarantee of $30 billion of its assets to its selected buyer, J.P. Morgan Chase. The immediate beneficiaries of this emergency measure were other investment banks whose operations depend on the availability of credit from their trading partners around the world. Ultimately, the entire financial system of the country was believed to have escaped a meltdown for lack of the mutual trust of trading partners on which it depends.
The emergency action was taken to preserve the lubricant, credit, that allows large financial institutions to conduct their business with each other. This was an operational challenge. Secretary of Treasury Paulson characterized it as facing the systemic risk. It had arisen from nervousness about the value of one class of assets underlying a small part of the global money market—real estate. It did not correct the valuation errors that led to the credit crunch, nor did it address the personal tragedies of those home buyers whose mortgage loans exceed the deteriorating value of their homes.
We have indeed gone through another bubble-bursting, and there are many different losers. Some deserve what they got, having invested capital in a wildly inflated real estate boom. A few, however, saw their personal savings destroyed by the collapse of foolish dreams sold to them by fast-talking con-artists.
Perhaps an argument can be made for rescuing those victims of the real estate debacle. No one believed that investors in the stock market deserved a bailout, even those whose retirement nest eggs were crushed, deserved rescuing in 1987 or following the Internet Bubble. However, investment in one’s home is encouraged officially by the Income Tax code as well as culturally by the American mythology of self-reliance. Based on that, a federal rescue plan for home owners who took ill-advised mortgages could reasonably be offered new loans on realistic terms, at the expense of the investors who bought debt obligations collateralized by the original sub prime mortgages involved.
An important part of the new federal credit regulation plan proposed by Secretary Paulson, the Mortgage Origination Commission, should be implemented strongly in order to demonstrate to foreign investors the conscientiousness of federal regulators. Although foreign investors were possibly imprudent to have invested in CDOs backed in part by sub prime mortgages, their confidence in the transparency of the U.S. financial system is critical for assuring the availability of their capital to finance American private enterprise and public entitlement programs. The aphorism, “Fool me once, shame on me; fool me twice, shame on you,” packs a lesson that Americans must abide by if we wish to continue enjoying a way of life we cannot afford without monetary liquidity provided by willing institutional investors from abroad.
