Quote Of The Day

"A liberal is a person whose interests aren't at stake at the moment."
- Willis Player

Counterpoint

Here is Marlipern's latest installment of The Great Debate.

"At long last, I have a few rebuttal comments to Squire’s recent post. It doesn’t cover every point of contention, but it’s a good start.

Minimum wage… “Why should we pay young people well?” Well, if you consider $7/hr. paying someone “well”, I have this really great bridge for sale…. No, I’m not suggesting paying the young, or the old, or the poorly qualified “well”. I’m suggesting that we make sure that they can survive in the real world. Have you forgotten what it was like to struggle paycheck to paycheck? I haven’t. As for the idea, “Let the market determine wages.” No thanks, not at the expense of the most vulnerable in our society. I just don’t think “the market” is looking out for the best interests of those they consider “expenses”, rather than what employees really are, a company’s most valuable asset.

Energy independence… “Does this mean we can drill in ANWR now?” You can drill in the ANWR until you’re blue in the face, it WILL NOT solve the problem. Petroleum is not the solution. As we’ve seen for the past 30+ years in this country, petroleum IS THE PROBLEM. Let’s try thinking outside the box for a change.

Global warming… As for your point “OK – it’s a fact; based on 200 years of data on a subject that unfolds over a geologic time scale.” You are absolutely right. So what? Can we agree that based upon the latest widely accepted scientific research, burning fossil fuels is bad for the environment? Why is it that conservatives seem to feel that it’s not necessary to address an issue until it reaches crisis proportions? Here’s a concept – be proactive, rather than reactive, regarding an issue of the common good; rather than only applying that approach when waging war.

Campaign reform… “Money is the mother’s milk of politics.” Again, so what???? It doesn’t make it right. So, you’re saying, “that’s just the way it is”????? I’m sorry; I refuse to accept resignation when it comes to the corruption so rampant in our representative government. As for the comment “when the Founders, your radical buddies, wrote ‘We the people…’ they were referring to adult, white, male, property holders.” Well, I think we’ve certainly addressed that little oversight. And it was a Republican who got the ball rolling on that one – thank you, Abe. Are you suggesting we go back to “the good old days”?

Integrity of the election system… “You can not contest every single national election just because your candidate does not win.” I am not suggesting that, and you know it. I am referring to the specific actions that were taken by Republican operatives to “steer” elections in a particular direction. My guy has lost many times, and I haven’t cried foul. This is different, and it makes me sick. Try reading RFK Jr’s article in Rolling Stone. I have yet to hear anyone on the right effectively contradict the evidence he lays out.

Social Security solvency… “What about privatization?” Quite frankly, what about it? You want to implement privatization for those who are interested, go for it. But it DOES NOT address the solvency issue of the Soc. Security trust fund. Period. Apples and oranges my friend.

Well the one thing that I discovered in looking at the recent exchange between Country Squire and myself is some of the general philosophical differences between your typical conservative/Republican and your typical liberal/Democrat. I guess it boils down to the fact that we just look at things differently.My observation of those differences looks like this:
A conservative would prefer to maintain the status quo, rather than risk a change.
A liberal would like to change the things that are obviously (to them) not working.
A conservative will tell you, “That’s the way things are. Get used to it.”
A liberal will tell you, “This is the way things should be. Let’s make it happen.”

You conservatives are realists. And that’s a good thing.We liberals are idealists. And that’s a good thing too.I’m not suggesting either view is right or wrong, good or bad. Just different. In the final analysis, having both perspectives active and viable has served our country well for the past 200+ years. It truly is a set of checks and balances that, unfortunately, the Republicans have desperately tried to erode in recent years through one-party control of our government.Well that “status quo” is about to change come November. And the Republicans have nobody to blame but themselves. “That’s the way things are. Get used to it.”

Quote Of The Day

"Observe your enemies, for they first find out your faults."
- Antisthenes

Intellectual Cocooning

Tigerhawk posted this comment in relation to the Chapter 11 filing of Air America and how their failure was a direct result of being unable to take listeners from NPR (emphasis is mine):

"The left has a tough time of it in the United States, I think, because it is in the minority but does not understand that it is. It dominates universities and the national news and entertainment media. As a result, liberal intellectuals who develop new ideas do not have to test their arguments to the same degree as conservatives because they are much more likely than conservative intellectuals to be surrounded by people who agree with them as a matter of course. Conservative "institutions" were built because by the 1970s conservatives felt that they were frozen out of the national conversation. Liberals should not, as Ezra says, mimic the Heritage Foundation or Rush Limbaugh. Instead, liberals should go out of their way to understand their opponent. They should engage, argue and even hang out with conservatives, and listen to the smart arguments that will be raised against their best new ideas. Only then will they understand how to refine their own arguments into a winning message."

Intellectual cocooning should be avoided at all costs. It is often shrill and venomous debate that causes listening to stop.

Additional Fuel To Fire The Great Debate

Recently on Tigerhawk's blog Charlottesvillain posted "what's a liberal?" and then Cassandra came back with "what it means to be a conservative." Both posts deserve a reading as they apply directly to The Great Debate. Besides, a visit to Cassandra's blog, Villainous Company, is worth it just for the pin-up art alone!

The Great Debate

As I mentioned recently, I have linked to a blog called "Truth, For A Change" which is brought to us by Marlipern. During some recent exchanges certain challenges were issued and as a result we have begun "The Great Debate". For my part, I am more interested in where we might find common ground, as I am fairly certain we can find topics to disagree on without much difficulty. I’d say we are getting off to a fair start since I believe we have found common ground on 70%. But let me steal/paraphrase a comment I read recently:The goals of liberals were "Peace, prosperity, and national security," whereas the goals of conservatives were "Peace, prosperity, and national security." What we disagree about is how to get there.

I have taken the liberty of reproducing Marlipern's ten topics/viewpoints with my comments interspersed so it is much more like the discussion it is intended to be.

1. Raise the minimum wage.Should a family of four be able to survive on one person earning minimum wage? No. But should a young person, just getting started? Absolutely.

Answer: I disagree. “Minimum wage workers tend to be young. About half of workers earning $5.15 or less were under age 25, and about one-fourth of workers earning at or below the minimum wage were age 16-19. Among employed teenagers, about 9 percent earned $5.15 or less. About 2 percent of workers age 25 and over earned the minimum wage or less. Among those age 65 and over, the proportion was about 3 percent.” This isn’t my opinion – this comes from the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers 2005. Why should we pay young people well? Are we discriminating against them because they are young, have no experience and do not bring much in the way of ability to the table? Let the market determine wages.

2. Make education a top priority in our country.Our nation’s schools are in an abysmal state. We are short-changing our nation’s future. If you think, “no child left behind” is the solution, fine. Then fund it damnit!

Answer: I agree. Our nation’s schools are in an abysmal state – agreed. Then let’s implement standardized curriculum and testing across the county so that anyone who tests at or above a 3.5 GPA gets a free ride to college. And any school that is not performing to acceptable standards gets closed or preferably, burned to the ground. Can you say school vouchers? And let’s not forget Ted Kennedy’s involvement in “No Child Left Behind”. "Senator Kennedy has also been a leader in the fight to close the $17 billion gap between funding provided so far by the Administration and Congress and the resources necessary to get the job done."We strongly believe that in order to make the No Child Left Behind law work, more fundamental changes will have to be made. The law continues to evaluate student and school progress on just a 'snapshot'—two tests taken once a year—and it fails to measure growth in individual student achievement over time.”So says the NEA, the single largest roadblock to implementing this act. Two tests taken once a year – exactly how often do you think we would be “testing for growth in individual student achievement over time”? And could we really do it for a mere $17 billion? Not to mention, do you think it would eventually show what a sham the public school system in this country really is – and that the NEA bears a great deal of the blame? Please do not misunderstand me; I have a great deal of respect for some teachers. But what I have a problem with is a union that fights monitoring of results which shields their membership at the expense of our children.

3. Make our nation TRULY energy independent.This is more than just good policy; it is a matter of national security. We have some outstanding scientists and engineers in this country (I know, I’m one of them :-) ), we CAN do this.

Answer: I agree. It is definitely a matter of national security; we have the technology and the people. And I know because you’re one of them. Does this mean we can drill in ANWR now? I mean, since it’s a national security issue and we have the technology and the people and everything…..

4. Take global warming seriously, AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!!!This is not theory, this is not an opinion, this does not require “further study” to verify. This is a fact. No, it’s not some commie-leftwing-treehugger-antiestablishment conspiracy to kill big oil. The science bears this out. It’s time we thought of the future of our planet, rather than just the future of one political party or their corporate contributors.

Answer: PPPLLLLLEEEEEEEAAAAAASSSSSEEEEEE. I disagree. OK – it’s a fact; based on 200 years of data on a subject that unfolds over a geologic time scale. Thirty years ago every scientist was convinced we were going into the next ice age. Now it’s global warming. Please make up my mind. “Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore warned hundreds of U.N. diplomats and staff on Thursday evening about the perils of climate change, claiming: Cigarette smoking is a "significant contributor to global warming!"Gore showed computer-generated projections of ocean water rushing in to submerge the San Francisco Bay Area, New York City, parts of China, India and other nations, should ice shelves in Antarctica or Greenland melt and slip into the sea.”I’ll give the planet San Francisco and New York City if I can still drive my SUV. And as for cigarette smoking being a "significant contributor to global warming!" as Jocelyn Elders, the Clinton appointed US Surgeon General once said “You’ve gotta die of something.”

5. Require a balanced federal budget, period.A constitutional amendment perhaps? Yes, you heard me, a Democrat advocating for an amendment that the federal budget be balanced. It’s simple math. We’ve gone from the largest budget surplus in history to the largest deficit in history. We cannot continue down this road. Our children and our grandchildren are going to inherit enough of the problems we’ve created. They don’t need to be in perpetual debt as well.

Answer: I agree but with provisions. I am not convinced a constitutional amendment could/should correct this problem. And yes – it is rich, that you, a Democrat would suggest one. As for it being simple math – I’m not so convinced. Both parties have shown a complete lack of regard for our children and grandchildren when it comes to disciplined spending. The only difference here is one of emphasis; historically, Republicans spend more on the military at the expense of domestic programs and the Democrats offer the opposite. But pork remains king.

6. Implement serious campaign finance reforms.Public financing of elections? Maybe. A serious cap on soft money? Perhaps. But the point is, our democracy should not be for sale to the highest bidder. It’s “We the People”, not “We the Corporations”. Pay to play doesn’t seem consistent with “promote the general welfare”.

Answer: I disagree. Money is the mother’s milk of politics. Public financing of elections – surely you jest. I’ve got a great idea – let’s tax ourselves to let these idiots run for office!!!! What a wonderful trough that would be!!!!Anyway, I thought McCain-Feingold fixed all of this.By the way, interestingly enough, when the Founders, your radical buddies, wrote “We the people…” they were referring to adult, white, male, property holders.

7. Establish trade policies that protect American jobs.I’m not suggesting that we isolate ourselves. I’m not suggesting that corporations shouldn’t be able to turn a profit. But somehow, some way, we need to make it a priority to have decent, good-paying jobs for workers right here in the U.S. of A. If we keep outsourcing our jobs, we might as well start outsourcing the consumers as well. Because eventually, there won’t be anyone left here who can even afford the cheap Chinese products at Wal-Mart.

Answer: I agree with provisions. Our economy is changing from a manufacturing to a service economy. It concerns me a great deal since I work for a manufacturing oriented company. But the fact remains that we are increasingly moving to a service based economy - and as with the change from an agricultural to a manufacturing economy, some people inevitably get hurt in the process. We do need to keep certain industries (i.e. steel, auto) if for no other reason than national defense considerations. But our children need to be concentrating their efforts on the post industrial jobs of the future not following in their parents footsteps and going to work in the mill. If you have not already done so, read Thomas Friedman’s book “The World Is Flat”.

8. Take some serious steps address nuclear and WMD proliferation.The greatest threat to our civilization continues to be a man-made threat. This isn’t just some tree-huggin’ nonuke freak talking here. Even dubya is concerned with the spread of WMDs. (too bad he can’t find any – yes, that was a cheap shot, and well-deserved) Given today’s verification of a nuclear North Korea, this issue is all the more relevant.

Answer: I agree. But the real question is how. This could be a huge discuss all by itself. See my post on North Korea for starters.

9. Make the election system in our country above reproach.Forget about whether or not there were shenanigans in 2000 (which there were), or 2004 (ditto). The fact remains that the American people are questioning the integrity of the very system that insures that their voices are heard and their interests are represented. If we cannot insure the validity and transparency of the very foundation of our democracy, then the rest of our discussion is pointless.

Answer: I agree with provisions. And if you think that our election process is flawed, you should watch the rest of the world try to do what we have been doing for over 200 years – the peaceful transfer of power via the ballot box.These sour grapes have turned to vinegar. We have had close elections before. In 1960 the question was “How many times can a dead person vote in Chicago, Illinois?” The answer was “As many times as it takes to make Jack Kennedy president.” For the good of the country, did Richard Nixon contest the election – no. But in 2000 Al Gore did and so did his army of lawyers. Gore won the popular vote and lost the Electoral College. If you don’t like that election system then work to change it; but, like it or not, we have been using it to elect presidents in this country for a long time. Strangely enough, people tend to forget that the mid-term elections of 2002 were a pick up for the Republicans when, historically, they should not have won.In 2004 you just plain lost. Get over it. “The fact remains that the American people are questioning the integrity of the very system that insures that their voices are heard and their interests are represented.” Wrong. Less than half of the people are because the person they voted for was not elected. You can not contest every single national election just because your candidate does not win. However, if someone is actually caught circumventing the election laws then let’s make an example of them and put them in front of a firing squad. But if you are not bright enough to figure out where you are supposed to vote, what voter registration is all about, what kind of ID you might need and how a butterfly ballot or an electronic voting machine works – don’t complain – you probably aren’t doing the Republic a great service by casting a ballot either. And leave the lawyers at home.

10. Insure the solvency on the social security system, for generations to come.Some on the right have argued that there is nothing to worry about, that the liberals are twisting this way out of proportion. Given the Republicans’ recent proclivity to spend this nation into oblivion, I couldn’t disagree more. Some of us are fortunate enough to not have to worry about whether social security will be there for us when we retire. That doesn’t mean we should turn our back on those who are not so fortunate.


Answer: I agree. What exactly was the Democrats plan for Social Security reform when they decided they didn’t want President Bush to reform it? The President came out and said there was plenty to worry about in regards to Social Security and showed it would go bankrupt. What about privatization? Nope, can’t do that; we’re not smart enough. Give me the money the government is taking from me and let me invest it. I’ll be just fine.And as for retirement – I am glad to hear you have nothing to worry about. But turning our backs on the less fortunate? Come on. Social Security was never meant to be a retirement plan. When President Roosevelt put it together you had to be 65 years old to qualify – which happens to have been older than the average person lived to be at the time.

Quote Of The Day

I recently finished reading William Manchester's two volume biography of Winston Churchill The Last Lion and perhaps the most chilling sentence was:

"One pictures Neville Chamberlain in hell, sitting at one end of a table with Satan at the other, each checking off items on his agenda, and a slow, awful expression of comprehension crossing the late P.M.'s face as he realizes that he has just traded his soul for a promise of future negotiations."

Why North Korea is the Wrong Focus

I have been reading about North Korea a great deal this week in an effort to determine if they did test a nuclear device, which it seems they have, as well as to gain an understanding of where we should go next with this situation. In a comment to a recent post about North Korea Marlipern said:
"In the end, it will likely be China that comes to the world's rescue, and puts the North Koreans in their place. I'm sure they have no desire for a nuclear-armed irrational neighbor to their south.Who would have ever thought we would be relying on China to get our diplomatic work done for us."

On the contrary, the very definition of "diplomatic work" is getting other nations to enact our policies by eliciting either their co-operation or the co-operation of their client states. And as one can see from the article below, China has long been the "man behind the curtain" in this little drama. Hence, the six party talks. China, if indeed they do act against North Korea, will certainly not be doing so out of a sense of international altruism. They will act because it is in their best interest and because of the box they find themselves in, courtesy of the United States. Read on.

Winds of Change.NET: Why North Korea is the Wrong Focus: "So the day has likely come, as it inevitably had to. And with it comes the question: "Now what?"

And my first answer is: Forget North Korea. No proposal involving their government, from idiotic talk of sanctions (what, we're going to cut Kim out of the movie remake?) to even dumber and more craven responses around "rewards" (read: appeasement and a license to keep cheating) is worth even 10 seconds of your time. Search and boarding activities for ships from North Korea may be helpful, and preparations for that have been underway for a while, but ultimately this doesn't solve the problem and raises risks whenever used.

If you want to fix the problem, you have to see and understand the lever.
The truth is that North Korea is an irrelevant bit player in this whole drama. The real player here is China. They have helped North Korea at every step, and North Korea's regime cannot survive at all without their ongoing food and fuel aid. Kim Jong-Il's nuclear plans may be slightly inconvenient to the Chinese - just not not inconvenient enough to derail a strategy that still promises net plusses to those pursuing it within China's dictatorship.

Recall Winds' comprehensive look at the forces within and around China, its geo-political goals and imperatives, and its military options. Korea is a potent potential competitor that has historically had some rivalry with the Chinese, and South Korea is part of the chain of countries that helps to box China and prevent unimpeded access to the sea lanes on which it is so dependent for resources. With its highly developed economy, it's also an investment rival for projects in Russia, and thus complicates Chinese efforts to secure Siberia's resources as a land-based alternative.

Hence the two-faced strategy China is pursuing. One that uses North Korea as their deniable "cut out," and works in conjunction with South Korean political elements to irritate the US and build pressure to push them out of Korea. Once that is achieved in whole or in part, or South Korea concludes for other reasons that the US security guarantee cannot be relied upon to the extent required, South Korea can be "Finlandized" by making China its key security guarantor. Of course, this will happen in return for the same kind of quiet veto power and political interference the USSR exercized in Finland during the Cold War.

That's a very big strategic carrot to dangle in front of fellow members of China's ruling dictatorship. This approach is also bolstered on the flip side by a Chinese aversion to seeing a wave of starving North Korean refugees from what may be the most evil regime in human history wash over Manchuria. Hence, both advantage and fear work to keep Chinese support in place, while shaping South Korea toward a strategic Chinese double-win in which they also pick up the pieces in any northern collapse. The current South Korean government's "sunshine policy" which preaches "one Korea," plays down issues with the North and will not confront it, and demonizes the USA at a grassroots level is perfect on all counts from a Chinese perspective. North Korea's threat will not go away, of course, but friction with the USA, paralysis that keeps their North Korean client safe from retaliation, and positioning Korea psychologically to be responsible for the North later (but not, for instance, for starving North Korean refugees now)... all are exactly what China's doctor ordered from a geo-political perspective.

That will not change. Not until - and unless - the potential advantage is seen to be outweighed by very immediate consequences, and the fear of regime collapse in North Korea is replaced by a greater fear. Since China's is also an absolutist dictatorship, the consequences and greater fear must be far greater in order to trigger the kind of to-the-death (and here we mean the real deaths or equivalent of people and families, not just political careers) internal political battles required to remove the architects and proponents of the current strategy. Who cannot back away from it normally, both for fear of their lives and positions in such a system and for more culture-specific reasons around "face."

In other words, China won't move unless its current strategy is seen to cost them, big-time.
The biggest cost, and the only one that will be real to them in any sense, is to have Kim Jong-Il's nuclear detonation result in parallel nuclear proliferation among the nearby states China wishes to dominate/ bully. That would be a foreign policy disaster for the Chinese, and would cause the current architects of China's North Korea policy to be buried along with their policy. Which, as we noted earlier, is the only kind of policy education that works in a system like theirs.

So... if this turns out to be a nuclear test, ignore North Korea. Sanctions et. al are a total waste of time. Target China indirectly, with consequences it can easily understand as horribly bad from their perspective but which appear to be perfectly reasonable responses to North Korea.
In other words, make it clear to the Chinese via back-channel diplomacy that anything Taiwan chooses to do re: acquiring nuclear technology is no longer of any interest to the USA until Kim's regime is gone - and that the Taiwanese are being briefed to that effect (the US had stopped a Taiwanese nuclear effort by threatening a cutoff of all military aid). Be clear also, and make public statements that "other states in the region" now have a viable reason to respond in kind. One could also drop hints about and then refuse to deny to the Chinese that back-channel discussions have begun with South Korea and Japan that involve America offering them a set number of working nuclear weapons from US stocks as a counterweight. They can also be told more directly via diplomatic channels that the USA will also support either or both countries if they choose to pursue their own programs, meanwhile floating diplomatic "trial balloons" re: a system that gives these countries their own deterrents as a better option, because it does not produce the capacity for further manufacture and so is "less destabilizing to the region."
How China chooses to fix the North Korea problem after that and thus stop all of these intiatives is, of course, up to them.

Welcome to the big leagues, and have a nice day.

Nothing short of that kind of response is going to change anything.

Quote Of The Day

"Newspapers are for people who didn't read the Internet yesterday."

- James Lileks

How I Spent My Weekend

This is how I spent my weekend - enjoying the beautiful weather and bringing in the apple harvest off the trees on our property.




Here is how Kim Jong-il spent the weekend.




Bad dictator! Bad, bad dictator!!!

I know I said that I would only write posts that fit the ten year time test - but he didn't have to do this just for me.

Let's see - nuclear weapons and ICBMs equals Clear and Present Danger. Stay tuned.

Quote Of The Day

"Great people talk about ideas, average people talk about things, and small people talk about wine."

Fran Lebowitz

Truth, For A Change

Please note that I have posted a new link to a blog called Truth, For A Change. While the fare there is considerably different than what you are apt to find here, be sure to give Marlipern a try. We're going to see if we can find some common ground or at worst, agree to disagree.

Ah, political debate - one of the many, many things that makes this country great!

I'm Back

After blogging a while and then standing back for a couple of months I have decided to begin posting again. I am sure that no one has noticed that I have been gone but…….

Anyway, I have decided to comment only on the “important”, “big picture” issues of the day and not the “disasters du jour”. If you want wall to wall Mark Foley coverage, please look elsewhere. The acid test now being applied will be “Will this topic have relevance ten years from now?” This should make for fewer posts but heavier lifting.