Blog For Arizona

First Post - In Defense of Liberty!

by John Adams

First of all, thanks to Mike Bryan and Blog for Arizona for the opportunity to contribute to this exciting, progressive community.  It's a privilege to share our thoughts on today's issues.

Since this is my first post, please allow a brief introduction.

I retired from Active Duty in the US Army in September 2007, as a Brigadier General, with over thirty years' service to our Constitution as a Military Intelligence officer, Army Aviator, and Foreign Area Officer.

With on the ground experience in both Iraq and Afghanistan (temporary duty in 2004), I also served in Africa (Operation Guardian Assistance, Rwanda, 1996), Europe (Operation Allied Force, the Balkans, 1999), and the Middle East (Operation Desert Storm, Saudi Arabia, 1991).

On 9/11, I was at the Pentagon, 100 yards from the crash site...and on that tragic day I participated in the rescue and recovery of the shattered bodies of our brothers and sisters-in-arms. As a committed servant of the Constitution of the United States of America, I am determined to combat the murderers who attacked us on 9/11.

But I am just as determined to combat the fear-mongering criminals in the Bush Administration who assault our Constitutional rights under the guise of protecting us—and who under false pretenses, send our brave troops to die in the unconscionable occupation of Iraq.

From first-hand experience, I know national security issues. I also know that the Bush Administration cynically exploits our fears to gain ever more control of our national security apparatus, benefit the richest among us economically, and eviscerate our constitutional liberties.

Although I have taken off my Army uniform, I am no less committed to fighting for our Constitution—and for real national security—than I was when on Active Duty.

However, as John F. Kennedy said in his acceptance speech for his nomination as the Democratic Party candidate for President in 1960, "We are not here to curse the darkness, but to light a candle that can guide us."

In that spirit, please allow me to address a brighter subject...the movement to elect Barack Obama as our next President. Barack has a life experience that demonstrates his capacity for hard work and commitment...and most important for someone who aspires to the Presidency, Barack is a brilliant, caring, perceptive, and courageous leader.

My own life experience convinces me that Barack Obama is the greatest leader we have seen in America for generations. He has the experience, the judgment, and the passion to inspire all Americans, to unite us, and to carry this country forward beyond ethnic and economic divisions.

As a delegate pledged to Barack Obama, I will fight to make him our nominee at our Democratic National Convention.  With the help of Americans united in the conviction that we must change the course of our country, and chart a new one that benefits all our people, we will elect a President of whom all Americans will be proud.

I am privileged to call Blog for Arizona my "home," including at the upcoming Democratic National Convention. I welcome your thoughts—and your counsel—as we march toward Denver and beyond.

Giffords and Mitchell: The New Center? Let's Hope Not... UPDATED!

NATIONAL JOURNAL: "The New Center"

National Journal is getting a lot of ink locally (e.g., here and here) due to their ranking the ideology of many of 2006's frosh congresscritters, including Arizona's Gabby Giffords and Harry Mitchell, smack dab near the center of the political spectrum.

When you take a closer look at the actual votes on which National Journal based their ratings, however, what they actually seem to be measuring is mostly how two key issues - Iraq and immigration - are causing some Democrats to throw out their principles in the name of expediency and poorly-judged pragmatism.

Note: The headings stand for Economy, Social,  and Foreign policy.

A closer analysis of the fairly small sample of bills upon which the rankings are based indicates that in most respects Giffords and Mitchell both generally hew closely to the party line on most issues other than immigration and Iraq. The moderate nature of both candidates is largely a feature of their shared (and mistaken, in my view) hands-off approach to the war in Iraq, and their perceived need to armor themselves against the immigration fire-fight in Arizona.

Giffords is not ranked as notably more "economically moderate" than, say, Rep. Ed Pastor - at least in terms of her actual votes. She has not been nearly as much of an economic conservative in her votes to date as her overall centrist ranking, and her membership in the Blue Dogs, might suggest.

What Mitchell champions, however, is clearly out of step with most of his caucus - not surprising considering he too made a bid to join the Blue Dogs. What is surprising is that his rhetoric, and to a lesser extent his votes, actually indicates that he is much more in tune with conservative tax philosophy (coddle the rich and soak the middle class), yet it was Giffords who got the nod from the Blue Dogs. Maybe Mitchell's tax rhetoric put him too far to the right even for the Blue Dog's comfort. In the end, I think that Mitchell's ranking as a 'moderate' on economic matters, is rather too generous. He actually deserves to be in amongst the Republicans proper when you take into account his advocacy, as well as his votes.

UPDATE 3/14/08: Mitchell has made it two years in a row now that he has voted against his own party's budget. If he's trying to establish his fiscal conservative credentials, I think he's more than done the job.

Despite their fairly middle-of-the-road rankings in social policy, neither member is sending many overt signals to the 'values voters'. They do score considerably more conservative than other Dems in the Arizona delegation and the Caucus overall, but that is almost entirely down to votes having to do with immigration and immigrant rights.

The big difference between 'social centrists' like Gabby and Harry and the rest of the caucus is how terrified they are of creating a record that can be characterized as 'pro-immigrant.' The callousness and pettiness that these 'centrists' will stoop to in order to avoid giving racists and xenophobes any ammunition is often farcical.

On foreign policy, both members score more conservatively than their Arizona Democratic delegation-mates, but that is predominantly down to their votes on Iraq. Their score also includes a few instances when their urge to throw money at a military system outstripped any fiscal restraint or desire to look deeper at our actual strategic needs - a common and unfortunate Democratic habit that our members default to in order to forestall being labeled as anti-military, but that results in massive pork and a flabby, wasteful military.

I will take a closer look at the particular votes that earned Giffords and Mitchell their milquetoasty middle-of-the-herd street cred after the flip, and consider how well-deserved are their carefully-crafted, centrist images...

 

Sheriff Arpaio Gets Into the Foreign Aid Game (UPDATED)

Sheriff "I Just Love, Love, Love the Hispanic Folks" Arpaio has been spending RICO funds to train Honduran police in a region of Honduras, a tropical paradise known for its sunny climes and great scuba-diving. 34 paid officer work weeks, over 30K in direct expenses, and an unspecified amount of equipment have headed south of the border in connection with the program. The Phoenix New Times broke the story and channel 12 reports:

Hmmm. Considering recent controversial jail closings justified by budgetary constraints and the generally tight budget environment, one wonders why this is a priority for Sheriff "Want Some Paid Vacay, Hendershott, My Boy?" Arpaio? We'll see if sheriff department employees will still be headed south in March as scheduled, now that the cone of silence on the program is gone. The U.S. invaded Honduras on March 21st, 1907, perhaps Arpaio's boys are going down to participate in a historical recreation of the event?

In my view, this is clearly a case of a thinly justified use of RICO funds to send favored employees on paid vacations using seized booty. The training program likely has some real benefit to Hondurans, and there does seem to be some approval by the Maricopa Board of Supervisors and the Governor's office for a training relationship with the Hondurans, but it is unclear that the extent of the program, or the paid man-hours involved, were directly authorized. Looks to me like Joe got the thin edge of the wedge in by getting the Supes and Governor to give a nod to some donations of equipment, and then tacked on junkets for his cronies himself.

Regardless, all of this is of questionable value to the citizens of Maricopa. I think they likely expect and deserve that seizures and forfeitures from criminals operating in Maricopa be used to ameliorate the effects of crime in Maricopa, not Honduras.

I like to know the officers on our streets well-rested and recently-laid, as much as the next guy, but there's a fine line between treating employees well and misuse of public funds. Lowered stress for these public servants is certainly a public good, but this program certainly gives the impression of being a slush fund for deputies to head south for a little paid vacay in exchange for giving a few lectures or demonstrations. If Sheriff "How Do You Say 'Per Diem' in Spanish?" Arpaio can produce some proof that these were really working vacations with 8-hour-a-day training schedules justify those man hours, I might change my mind about whether this program is actually corrupt, but regardless of any taint of corruption it seems like a wasteful use of limited resources.

It seems apparent that some enforcement agencies are getting up to some questionable stuff with these non-budget recovery assets, such as RICO funds. Recently, both the Maricopa and Pima County Attorneys blew a big wad of such non-budgetary funds on big glossy public information puff-pieces that were clearly campaign literature on steroids. Both offices justified the publications with the plausible public purpose of educating the public about their services and programs, and helping to prevent crime, but like these trips to Honduras, there is clearly also a plausible private benefit derived from the expenditures. The policies as to how and where these funds can be deployed clearly could use some tightening to avoid any appearance of impropriety when we discover some are being used to buy Margaritas in Honduras.

The episode with the county attorneys and some controversial billboards featuring Governor Napolitano have prompted some action in the state legislature to restrict the use of any public funds for public communication that could be deemed to promote an incumbent candidate for office. Such legislation, if properly drafted and implemented (two caveats that I do not give the current majority caucus the benefit of the doubt on), could be useful, but it only addresses one aspect of the problem. Sheriff "I wonder if any police agencies on the Riviera need some training?" Arpiao's little Honduran adventure indicates that the legislature's response may not be nearly comprehensive enough.

UPDATE 2/27: Well, it didn't take long for Sheriff "Does my tail look good tucked between my legs like this?" Arpaio to shut down his Honduran sub-station.

And it turns out that County Attorney Andy "Arrest the Press!" Thomas is the public official with the responsibility of seeing that RICO funds are spent wisely. Why am I not surprised that he approved this little boondoggle for his buddy Sheriff "Andy, my boys could use a tan" Arpaio.

The Maricopa County Democratic Party released the following statement about the scandal:

Sheriff Joe Arpaio has caved in to public pressure and the media and has suspended his controversial foreign aid project to Honduras, telling KTAR that "until we get out of this budget crunch, we're going to put it on hold." The MCSO attempted to provide cover for this waste of RICO funds saying it was to track the MS-13 gang, but never explained why they have never sent anyone working on gangs to the country, and instead sent two traffic investigators, a homicide investigator and an aviation expert. Let's just hope that this doesn't end the investigation.

A new report by Channel 12 states that the operation spent 34 of payroll, 125 hours of overtime, nearly $6,800 in shipping costs, and charged to a MCSO credit card $2,976 to buy measuring equipment, traffic accident templates and fingerprint kits that were given to the Honduran government--all paid for with YOUR tax dollars. Again, if this is an anti-gang project, why do they need traffic accident templates? What is even more revealing is that the story reports Maricopa County Attorney Andy Thomas is the person responsible for approving these funds!

One other small problems with Sheriff Joe "All them brown folk are interchangeable anyhow" Arpaio's excuse of MS-13 as the basis for he program: MS-13 originates from El Salvador and operates to a lesser extent in Guatamala and Mexico, but not in Honduras.

MS stands for Mara Salvatrucha. Get it? El Salvador? And Mara is La Mara, a street in El Salvadoe. If Sheriff Joe "Get me an atlas" Arpaio doesn't even know that about MS-13, color me unimpressed by his anti-gang efforts.

U.S., Japan, India and Education

by David Safier

The New York Times ran an article last month that caught my eye: Losing an Edge, Japanese Envy India’s Schools. The article begins:

Japan is suffering a crisis of confidence these days about its ability to compete with its emerging Asian rivals, China and India. But even in this fad-obsessed nation, one result was never expected: a growing craze for Indian education.

Despite an improved economy, many Japanese are feeling a sense of insecurity about the nation’s schools, which once turned out students who consistently ranked at the top of international tests. That is no longer true, which is why many people here are looking for lessons from India, the country the Japanese see as the world’s ascendant education superpower.

A few decades ago when it looked like Japan was the world’s economic powerhouse, we wrote glowing stories about their schools. If only our schools were as good as Japan’s, we thought, we would have a chance to compete against them. Now that Japan’s economy is fading and India’s is on the rise, they’re looking at India’s schools as a model.

There’s a lesson here. While good schools are a prerequisite for a strong economy in today’s world, schools are not the engine that drive that economy. Other factors too complex for me to fathom are at work in all these economic shifts. Blaming schools for economic successes or failures is not only a vast oversimplification, it can create “educational solutions” that cheat our students out of the human component in education, the part that can’t be measured in dollars and cents.

Education may function as the oil that lubricates the engine of the economy. It can even be thought of as the parts factory that supplies new pistons, cogs and wheels to replace those that are wearing out. But it is not the reason one country is an economic powerhouse and another is stalled. And our children are more than lumps of coal to be fed into an economic furnace to keep it burning.

Let’s imagine for a moment that Japan’s schools were every bit as good as we thought they were in the 1980s and 1990s. The students graduating from those schools during those years should have raised Japan’s economy to higher heights if education was the key factor. But Japan began tanking as those students joined the workforce.

Let’s imagine, while we’re at it, that our schools were as bad in the 1980s and 1990s as reports said they were. The graduates from those schools spearheaded our high tech revolution. Where did all those amazing minds come from, able to imagine cyber-worlds that didn’t exist, then create those worlds from scratch? From failing schools?

We longed for schools as good as Japan’s, until their economy tanked and we stopped talking about the Japanese miracle. A few years ago, when the Japanese thought they weren’t creating enough entrepreneurs to breathe life into their economy, their educators began visiting our schools to see how we managed to encourage creativity and a sense of adventure in our youth. Now the Japanese are flocking to schools created on the Indian model.

We need to do what we can to create the best schools possible for the sake of our children, so they can grow as skilled, thinking, caring human beings. The closer we come to that ideal, the better for all of us. If we are successful, when those children become adults, they will be well rounded people who, in the process of living their lives, will help move our economy forward as far as it can go in this ever-more-competitive world.

America and Iraq: The Economic Background of the Conflict, by Guest Commentator Karl Reiner

When he launched his brutal invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990, Saddam Hussein shocked the world.  As his forces callously swept over the small neighboring state, he also deliberately smashed a budding rapprochement with the United States.  Although Saddam’s government had been peddling regional stability as an objective, it viciously repudiated that policy when it went to war. American intelligence officers were stunned and mortified.  Their analyses of Hussein’s intentions regarding Kuwait had been wrong.  No one had seen the invasion coming - not even the Kuwaiti leaders fleeing in terror toward the Saudi border.            

During the early 1980s, Iraq’s emissaries to Washington began pushing to improve relations with the United States.  They said Iraq wanted to end the war with Iran.  In their newly found desire to promote regional stability, the Iraqis expressed a willingness to support whatever agreement the Israelis and Palestinians worked out.  Had the bitter war with Iran forced Saddam Hussein to alter his policies?  An emphasis on economic development, the calls for regional peace and closer cooperation with the United States were taken as signs that the government of a war-weary Iraq was bending to reality.

More of Karl's unique first-hand perspective of the history of the Iraq conflict after the click...

 

Freerice.com: Feed the World, 20 Grains of Rice at a Time.

by David Safier

I’m going to leave yesterday’s controversial tax-and-spend posting behind for today, though I have to ask, in response to one comment: Why is it people talk about “throwing money at education” but you never hear anyone use the phrase “throwing money at military defense”? Just asking.

If you haven’t visited the site, freerice.com, you should take a look. Here’s what you’ll find. On the screen is a vocabulary word and four possible definitions. If you choose the right definition, the site contributes 20 grains of rice through the United Nations to people who are hungry, and a new screen comes up with a new word. If you choose wrong, it tells you the right answer and gives you a new word to try. The site adjusts the vocabulary level based on your right and wrong answers to keep challenging you without frustrating you.

Since October, 2007, when the site began, 17 billion grains of rice have been donated (These are the site’s figures.) Scanning the web, I found varying figures for the number of grains of rice in a pound, but let’s go with the ballpark figure of 25,000 grains/pound. That would mean the site has donated 680,000 pounds, or 340 tons of rice to date (I think I got the math right, but correct me if my figures are wrong).

Where does the money for the rice come from? The wonderful, free enterprise answer is, it comes from advertisers. The creator of the site, John Breen, who also created poverty.com, says he makes no money from the site, and all the advertising revenue goes toward buying rice. In fact, he has raised the reward for each right answer from 10 grains to 20 due to increased ad revenues and hopes to increase it again in the future.

Teachers can use freerice.com with students. (Imagine a computer lab full of students, each of them racking up 20 grains of rice every few seconds! Then comes the math question at the end of the period: "How many grains of rice did we send today? How many pounds is that?") Parents and their children can do it together at home. Adults like me can develop minor addictions (“OK, just one more vocabulary word, and that’s it.” “YES, I got it right! OK, just one more.” “Damn, I missed that! I can’t quit now and be a loser.”) And the bottom line is, you’re doing a little bit to feed the world’s hungry with every right answer. That’s positive reinforcement times two.

By the way, you get a running vocabulary skill level number as you go, with the top being 55. I’m at 44. Beat that, sucker!

Ron Paul Points the Way For Democrats in Congress

Rs and Ds at all levels, but especially among those competing to be the next Commander in Chief, constantly fight over which party is the champion of our armed forces.

The Rs claim that title by dint of massive and reckless appropriations and a belligerant, wooden-headed foreign policy that gives the armed forces plenty of opportunity to ply their craft.

The Ds claim the honor by lavishing as much attention and money as possible on veterans benefits, trying to improve the conditions and equipment the soldiers must endure during active duty, and, of late, madly shoveling money in the maw of the Iraq occupation in the vain hope that no Republican will be mean to them.

It is deeply ironic, therefore, that the odd man out in the Presidential race, the Republican who advocates for a much more limited and humble foreign policy than any Democrat dares, and who demands an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, and who levels an even harsher criticism of the policies that led us there than most Democrats can (because he actually voted against the invasion), leads by a very wide margin in fund-raising among armed forces personnel.

In fact, one can clearly see that the more of a "surrender-monkey" the candidate is on Iraq and foreign policy in general, the better our men and women in arms likes him (or her).

Military donations in the 4th quarter of 2008:

Paul: $286,764 (1349 donors)

Obama: $81,037 (466 donors)

McCain: $79,597 (413 donors)

Clinton: $49,523 (181 donors)

Romney: $29,250 (140 donors)

Huckabee: $24,562 (94 donors)

Nor is this a one-time anomaly, it is an established pattern. Ron Paul is the bottom-line choice of the active duty military.

The one exception to the trend is McCain, who obviously gets points and well-deserved respect from the troops for his biography. Were it his position on the Iraq occupation that soldiers were rewarding, he would be bracketed by Romney and Huckabee, who also support the continuation of the failed Iraq occupation, rather than Obama and Clinton.

If McCain would have reversed himself on Iraq earlier, he wouldn't have wandered in the political wilderness until GOP primary voters got panicked enough to turn to him, and he would be a much stronger Presidential candidate for it -- and likely the top pick of the military instead of Paul.

As Democrats running for Congress carefully triangulate to ensure that they "don't abandon the troops" by cutting off funding for Iraq to bring Bush to the bargaining table, they might keep Ron Paul's overwhelming military support firmly in mind.

That means you, Gabby Giffords and Harry Mitchell -- as well as you hopefuls, Bob Lord and Ann Kirkpatrick. The troops want brave leadership willing to bring a misbegotten war to close every bit as much as most other Americans.

Our troops have tremendous esprit de corps and a steely determination to accomplish the mission - even if it is an impossible one. It's their job to lock their jaws and squeeze the life out of our enemies.

The job of the political leadership is to have the wisdom to know when and where it is prudent to unleash the dogs of war -- and when to put them back in the kennel. Our troops clearly recognize and value the kind of political leadership needed to end this mission-less war, even as they say they are determined to stay the course when the pols come wandering through like baby ducklings on yet another fact finding tour through the international zone.

Karl Reiner: Some of the Consequences of Our Apathy and Detachment

It has been said that American voters like solutions to political problems that are quick, cheap or paid for by someone else.  In such an environment, elected officials are encouraged to postpone addressing problems that don’t fit the mold.  After a problem escalates into a crisis, the unnerved electorate reverses its position and the political leadership rushes to repair the damage. 

It may not be the best way to conduct national affairs, but we seem to like it. We have grown accustomed doing nothing for long periods and then reacting with a self-righteous vengeance when the problem spins out of control. 

Congress oversees the federal agencies responsible for border security, immigration and foreign relations.  It is aware that the majority of migrants attempting to cross the border into Arizona are Mexican nationals trying to enter the U.S. to find work.  For the past 25 years, Congress and the White House have ignored the fact that Mexico’s ongoing anemic economic performance was contributing to the problem.  Mexico is linked by geography to the southwestern United States.  It is a major U.S. trading partner and a component in resolving the illegal migrant issue. 

Through September 2007, our two-way trade with Canada totaled $277.0 billion.  For the same period, the total for Mexico was $167.8 billion.  A large number of jobs on both sides of the border depend on the commercial relationship between the three countries.  If Mexico had been a foreign policy priority for the last 25 years, the total for Mexico would be a great deal higher today due to its economic expansion.             

Because Mexico and Arizona share part of the national border, our futures are linked in many ways. Economic stagnation in Mexico drastically impacts Arizona. On the other hand, a prosperous and economically viable Mexico will benefit Arizona to a great degree. 

The U.S. government is proposing to provide Mexico with $1.4 billion to fight drug trafficking over the next three years.  At the same time, Congress and the White House should be looking into ways to get the Mexican government to stimulate economic growth.  The country’s legendary corruption problem needs to be addressed along with Mexico’s atrociously poor productivity growth rate.  The impediments stifling business formation, competitiveness and innovation in the economy have to be removed. 

The committee on foreign affairs in the U.S. House of Representatives made national headlines recently when it announced it had determined that the killing of the Armenians during the World War I era was a genocide carried out by the Ottoman Empire.  While the dismal fate of the Armenians during the period of collapsing Ottoman rule nearly 100 years ago is a subject worthy of historical study and evaluation, Arizonians should rightly question the priority given the subject by a Congress unable to come to grips with the immigration problem here at home.

Citizens have to demand that Arizona’s congressional delegation prod Congress to focus on Mexico’s economic situation because it is a key factor in determining how successful Arizona’s economic future will be.  The matter certainly should rate as high in importance as the recent revisit of World War I events.

The “no amnesty” policy championed by many as the solution to the illegal alien (as they call them) question has a goal of ridding the United States of approximately 12 million undocumented individuals.  While the implementation of this policy would create new government contracting opportunities for those willing to seek out, incarcerate and transport large numbers of people, it would be extremely disruptive to society as a whole.  Humanitarian concerns aside, the chaos caused by the roundup and wholesale deportation of a sizable chunk of the U.S. workforce is not an event this economy can easily withstand.

Deportation would also be a peculiar position for the government to embrace given its previous policy of more or less ignoring the situation.  By not acting when it should have, the U.S. tacitly encouraged the workers to come in.  The new immigrants, as were most of those in the past, were not bent on the destruction of the United States.  They came from places of little opportunity to find work in a country where they were allowed to fill jobs.  Their much derided economic contribution has been real; it cannot be simply discounted as being irrelevant.  The economic consequences of a deportation policy are real.  They have to be seriously considered as the debate over immigration policy continues.

In the 1980s, industry lobbyists persuaded Congress to deregulate the savings and loan industry.  As part of the process, Congress purposefully had the government retain responsibility for guaranteeing the safety of deposits in the deregulated savings and loans. The unpleasant consequences of the newly liberated environment became apparent to all when Charles Keating and his Lincoln Savings in Phoenix leaped into the headlines. 

To the astonishment of lawmakers, the deregulated and rowdily managed savings and loans were not helping to generate greater national prosperity; they were imploding on a massive scale. Their sequential failures during the late 1980s and early 1990s resulted in the severest blow to the U.S. financial system since the Great Depression. Over 1,000 savings and loans eventually failed.  The government dutifully acted on its guarantee, and the taxpayers footed a bill of nearly $124 billion to clean up the wreckage.  This amount was on top of the once overconfident industry’s own substantial losses. 

The lessons learned in cleaning up the savings and loan mess didn’t seem to stick.  The housing industry, one of the major drivers of the U.S. economy, has now become entangled in a financial mess that may take two to three years to remedy. It is estimated that about two million homeowners are carrying $600 billion in subprime adjustable-rate mortgages.  The low initial interest rates on these mortgages are expiring.  They are scheduled to ratchet up during the next two years. 

As a result of the combination of slipshod lending practices, cheap credit and the unrealistic belief that housing prices would always continue to climb, many of the home buyers are finding themselves holding mortgages they will be unable to carry at the new rates.  The regulators didn’t pay attention as the inventive mortgage financing industry promoted its teaser rate inducements to unwary buyers.  No one questioned the industry’s motives as it developed ways to turn these mortgages into investment securities, a process that detached the lender from the risk of default. Since the lender’s motivation to closely check the creditworthiness of borrowers was reduced, a degree of misrepresentation and even outright fraud crept into the system.

To make matters worse, the neatly packaged securities containing the subprime mortgages were marketed to buyers around the world as first-class investment products.  When the low preliminary mortgage rates began to expire about the same time as the housing market began to slow and prices leveled off, defaults on subprime mortgages started to rise.  Billions in what may be reduced value investments are now on the balance sheets of the largest global banks. The mounting losses could easily spill over into the pension and mutual funds that invested in the same securities.

One after another, large banks have begun writing down the value of their subprime assets and CEOs have started to exit. In this uncertain situation, many of the small borrowers, who didn’t understand what kind of obligation they were taking on, will get wiped out.  The banks will have to take massive write-offs, significantly devaluating their investors’ stock holdings.  Large numbers of employees will be laid off, the lucky ones getting severance pay. 

The corporate officers and directors, who organized, ran and oversaw this ugly show will do nicely. They will suffer a little mortification from the wave of relentless press stories exposing their lack of judgment and poor management practices.  They will, however, be able to retain the all bonuses and hefty salaries already in the bank. They will not be forced to give up their big houses or multiple cars.  Thanks to the money made in mortgage securities, they will not have to rely on social security payments when they retire.            

The effects are ricocheting through the economy.  The U.S. Department of Labor estimates around 100,000 jobs related to the financial services sector have already disappeared.  Foreign investors have become distrustful of American offerings; the value of the dollar is plunging.  Housing sales are slumping, construction is slow, and the median price of homes has dropped approximately 5 percent since last year.  Analysts are predicting an additional 5 to 9 percent drop before housing prices level off. 

The shock waves of the creative financing binge will reverberate throughout the economy, maybe pushing it into a recession.  The final cost has yet to be tallied.  It remains to be seen if the taxpayers will have to provide a bailout.

It is now clear that the undisciplined dealings in mortgages and securities will put a sizable dent in America’s economy.  As it did with the savings and loan debacle, Congress will hold hearings and move to tighten regulations.  The White House will look for ways to control the damage because the president’s appointees supervise the regulatory agencies. 

The problem has already hit home.  Arizona has been affected, the housing slump driving the state’s economy into a downturn. The University of Arizona’s researchers have found that, along with Michigan, California, Nevada and Florida, we have entered the beginning phases of a recession.

Karl Reiner is a friend of this site and an active voice for a fact-based approach to the issue of immigration from Mexico. He asked me to post this commentary here on BlogForArizona.com. This blog published previous articles by Karl on the world's richest man, the failure of the immigration bill considered by Congress this year and the economic underpinnings of Mexican immigration, as well as the transcript of an erudite lecture Karl gave on that subject.

Karl managed international trade and economic policy analysis at the U.S. Department of Commerce in Washington, DC. He served as an acting deputy assistant secretary during the first Bush and Clinton administrations. A Vietnam veteran, he is a graduate of the Ohio State University and holds a MS degree from the Garvin School of International Management. After retiring from government service in 1994, he did consulting and authored a novel, "Sgt. Bellnapp’s Secret", published in 2001, and a collection of historical essays, "Remembering Fairfax County, Virginia," last year.

 

GOP planning to campaign again on immigrant issue

Link: GOP pressing immigrant issue.

I didn't realize that Republican strategists were actually pushing Congressional recommit votes on immigration-related language to paint Democrats as pro-immigrant. I have to say, I'm utterly delighted that they are hanging that anchor around their own necks.

I think most Americans, and especially independents, recoil at policies and political stands they see as cruel, petty, or mean. And there is little in American politics today that is meaner and slimier than the hatred wrapped in patriotism that is the hard-right GOP message on immigration. I get a little frisson of delight when I imagine the ads they are brewing up using these votes.

"Gabby Giffords didn't vote to cut off the health care coverage of immigrant children. She didn't vote to kick immigrant children out of public housing. She wouldn't vote to punish public schools that enroll the children of undocumented immigrants. Gabby Giffords: she just won't screw those immigrant children."

Yeah. That'll work on the vast majority of Americans who aren't eaten up with xenophobic mania.

The GOP apparently didn't learn their lesson in 2006 when their ($) candidates who made immigrant-baiting a major theme of their campaigns got their clocks cleaned across the board. If they need some more tutoring, I think we Democrats should be happy to give it to them.

We need to establish a Democratic system of values regarding the immigration debate, however. The only reason why Republicans are driving this issue is because they at least have a consistent narrative - hateful and divisive though it may be. We Democrats need  to talk about eliminating the need for illegal border crossings, saving lives and reducing the crime along the border, treating both American and Mexican laborers fairly in both countries, and the great American tradition of welcoming and assimilating new citizens.

Democrats sound soulless and stupid when we ape Republican themes of cracking down on employers, and militarizing the border, and treating immigrants as criminals and undesirables; when our Democratic politicians 'me too' the block-headed policy initiatives of Republicans - like building a damn wall - it simply makes the insane seem sensible.

I don't want our party to create a compromise with the sheer insanity that passes for policy among Republicans. I would prefer the status quo ante to compromises that would make life even worse for the immigrants already here, endanger the lives of those that will surely come, and entrench harmful policies in our immigration law for another generation. This is a fight that we can win if we stop accepting the Republican terms for this debate: hatred, fear, xenophobia, and prejudice.

So the GOP wants to square off and make immigration a central issue? I say bring it on, because they have nothing useful to say on the subject. The only we won't win is if we accept that their vision of immigration of in America is in any way legitimate or useful. We have to name the prejudice and hate fueling the GOP's obsession with the immigration issue, or they get to continue to appeal to voters anxieties and prejudices without paying the electoral price. I am sickened when I hear Democrats talking about immigration in the same fearful and divisive way that Republicans do, simply because Democratic leaders aren't offering an alternative vocabulary of ideas.

We got lucky in 2006 that the American people are naturally resistant to demagogues, and largely resisted the GOP siren songs without much help from Democrats; we would be foolish to continue to rely on Americans' continued self-discipline if we aren't even offering a counter-narrative they can stop their ears with.

Guest Commentary by Karl Reiner: The World’s Richest Man Is a Symptom of Mexico’s Shortcomings

A number of business publications recently carried reports regarding Carlos Slim. With a fortune estimated at $60 billion, the Mexican businessman has become the world’s richest man.  Slim replaced Bill Gates of the United States who held the top spot for a number of years.  According to the reports, Slim’s family business holdings in Mexico account for an astounding 5 percent of the country’s gross domestic product.  The companies controlled by Slim have a massive impact on the Mexican economy.  They comprise 35 percent of the value of the Mexican stock market.  Slim holds a dominant position in the telecommunications industry and is a major player in the automotive, retailing, and banking sectors.

The Mexican government has followed an imprudent policy of opening some markets to privatization and limited competition, while at the same time doing little to regulate them.  Slim and other shrewd business operators have taken advantage of the situation and have become billionaires in the process. One of the sad consequences of this policy has been the stifling of competitiveness and innovation in the Mexican economy. The government has allowed a colossal concentration of economic power to develop in a country desperately in need of real competition and the new investment needed to spur economic growth.  According to Mexico’s Finance Ministry, the country has recorded an atrocious zero percent increase in productivity during the last 25 years. 

Mexico could be said to be on the road to becoming a plutocracy - a government of, by and for the rich.   As economic power concentrates and the economy languishes, the 7 percent annual economic growth rate needed to improve education, create jobs and trim down the country’s staggering poverty level has become unachievable.  Those unfortunate enough to be caught at the stagnant bottom end of Mexico’s economic spectrum have little choice but to trek north, to search for work on the U.S. side of the border. 

Carlos Slim can’t be faulted for taking advantage of the irresolute regulatory situation prevailing in Mexico.  With his business acumen, he would have also found success in a more structured commercial environment. His triumph does, however, highlight the need for the Mexican government to make the changes needed to foster true competition, implement the rule of law, attract investment and deter corruption. Given the power of the entrenched interests with a stake in maintaining the status quo, it is going to be a difficult process. The reformers in Mexico are going to need all the outside support they can get. With the immigration situation the U.S. faces as a consequence of Mexico’s flagging economy, it is high time we acted.  President Bush didn’t press the matter in talks with Mexican President Calderon at the Summit of the Americas meeting held on August 20-21 in Quebec.  Being the former governor of a border state, one would have assumed he would have been willing to put a great deal more emphasis on the subject.

What would have been the result if Congress decided 15 years ago that national security considerations required our government to support Mexico in getting its sputtering economy up to snuff?  What would the relationship be like today?  There probably would not be a crisis on the Arizona-Mexico border and a large number of additional jobs would have been created in Arizona as a consequence of the growing Mexican market.  The fact that the problem has been ignored in the past by lawmakers, doesn’t excuse continued inaction.  Arizona’s congressional delegation needs to take a stand and start pushing the subject in Washington.  The issue can’t continue to be ignored because it affects Arizona’s security and long-term economic welfare.

If Mexico’s south, which is economically lagging and hemorrhaging people, got into a development mode, things would be a lot better on both sides of the border.  If we adjusted our policies to support the effort, the North American Free Trade Agreement could actually turn out to be a remarkable arrangement between three countries (Canada, the United States and Mexico) with similar standards of living.  Our total merchandise trade (exports & imports) with Mexico totaled $332.3 billion in 2006, continuing the upward trend of the past several years.  Our support of economic reform in Mexico would guarantee the upward trend will continue.

Karl Reiner is a friend of this site and an active voice for a fact-based approach to the issue of immigration from Mexico. He asked me to post this commentary here on BlogForArizona.com. This blog published previous articles by Karl on the failure of the immigration bill considered by Congress this year and the economic underpinnings of Mexican immigration, as well as the transcript of an erudite lecture Karl gave on that subject.

Karl managed international trade and economic policy analysis at the U.S. Department of Commerce in Washington, DC. He served as an acting deputy assistant secretary during the first Bush and Clinton administrations. A Vietnam veteran, he is a graduate of the Ohio State University and holds a MS degree from the Garvin School of International Management. After retiring from government service in 1994, he did consulting and authored a novel, "Sgt. Bellnapp’s Secret", published in 2001, and a collection of historical essays, "Remembering Fairfax County, Virginia," last year.

 

Understanding Iraq Though Real Journalism

If you really want to understand what will happen in Iraq, I contend, you have to understand what the people of Iraq want. You have to understand how the people of Iraq think, what they are actually trying to accomplish. Iraq is not a helpless blank slate upon which mighty America writes its will. Far from it. The past several years have demonstrated yet again for anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear the limits of military power - even if you are a 'Superpower'.

There are lots of people who can tell you what Iraqis are really thinking and doing, because they are actually listening, instead of projecting their own agenda and wishful thinking upon Iraq. Such people we used to call journalists. Now, that profession has become so infested with what we used to call propagandists that we really need a new word. I'll just call such people real journalists for the lack of anything better. One such real journalist who has been tirelessly and bravely talking to everyone on every side of this conflict is Nir Rosen.

Nir recently appeared on Fareed Zakaria's Foreign Exchange, where he did something fairly hard to do: he made Fareed seem uniformed and naive. It's well worth watching, and alone blows away much of the murk and bullshit that has been piled on topic of the future of Iraq (Nir's appearance begins at 11:28, but the whole episode is worth watching, as usual):

If you are interested in hearing more from this courageous and intrepid journalist, You should consider reading his book on Iraq, "In the Belly of the Green Bird," which is available in the local library and through most booksellers. Nir also has a homepage with links to his most recent publications, all of which are well worth reading.

Thank goodness we still have a media free enough to provide us with honest voices like Nir's. If we listen, we might actually be able to handle this mess and minimize the inevitable blow-back from our leaders' monstrous stupidity, cupidity, and gullibility.

Brzezinski's Warning to the Senate

Former NSA Director Brzezinski testified last Thursday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. His testimony was quite explosive, yet has been largely ignored by the media. He claims that the Bush Administration is even now trying to foment a wider war in the Middle East which will include a staged "defensive" war against Iran. Download the entire testimony, or click More to read his testimony.

Bolton Finished

Link: BBC NEWS | Americas | Controversial US envoy quits post.

I couldn't express what we all must be feeling any better (stick it up your joompa', indeed...):

I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.
See how they run like pigs from a gun, see how they fly.
I'm crying.

Sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the van to come.
Corporation tee-shirt, stupid bloody Tuesday.
Man, you been a naughty boy, you let your face grow long.
I am the eggman, they are the eggmen, I am the walrus,
coo coo coochoo

Mister City P'liceman sitting
Pretty little p'licemen in a row.
See how they fly like Lucy in the Sky, see how they run.
I'm crying. I'm cry------------ing,
I'm crying. I'm cry------------ing.

Yellow matter custard, dripping from a dead dog's eye.
Crabalocker fishwife, pornographic priestess,
Boy, you been a naughty girl you let your Knickers down.
I am the eggman, they are the eggmen, I am the walrus,
kookoo kachoo

Sitting in an English garden waiting for the sun.
If the sun don't come, you get a tan
From standing in the English rain.
I am the eggmen, they are the eggmen, I am the walrus,
kookoo kachoo kookoo kachoo

Expert texpert choking smokers,
Don't you think the joker laughs at you? (ho ho ho, he, he he, ha, ha, ha)
See how they smile like pigs in a sty, see how they snied.
I'm crying.

Semolina pilchard, climbing up the Eiffel Tower.
Element'ry penguin singing Hari Krishna.
Man, you should have seen them Kicking Edgar Allan Poe.
I am the eggman, they are the eggmen, I am the walrus,
kookoo kachoo kookoo kachoo kookoo kachoo kookoo kachoo kookoo kachoo

Juba juba juba, juba, juba, juba, juba, juba, juba juba.  Juba juba.....

'Everybody's got one'

'Oompa, oompa, stick it up your joompa'

 

McCain Makes Grunting Noise

McCain actually guest-posted at: Captain's Quarters. Boy, is he ever slumming of late...

His statement is cut from the same cloth as Bush's stance regarding NORK:

Time for Decisive Action on North Korea

Korea doubts the world’s resolve. It is testing South Korea, China, Russia, Japan, and the United States. They launched seven missiles in July, and were criticized by the Security Council, but suffered no serious sanction. We have talked and talked about punishing their bad behavior. They don’t believe we have the resolve to do it. We must prove them wrong.

I am encouraged by the Security Council’s swift and strong condemnation of the act on Monday, but the permanent members must now follow up our words with action. We must impose Chapter 7 sanctions with teeth, as President Bush has proposed.

China has staked its prestige as an emerging great power on its ability to reason with North Korea, keep them engaged with the six party negotiations, and make progress toward a diplomatic resolution of this crisis. North Korea has now challenged them as directly as they challenge South Korea, Japan, Russia and the U.S. It is not in China’s interest or our interest to have a nuclear arms race in Asia, but that is where we’re headed. If China intends to be a force for stability in Asia, then it must do more than rebuke North Korea. It must show Pyongyang that it cannot sustain itself as a viable state with aggressive actions and in isolation from the entire world.

They have missiles, and now they claim to have tested a nuclear device. Eventually they will have the technology to put warheads on missiles. That is a grave threat to South Korea, Japan and the United States that we cannot under any circumstances accept. North Korea also has a record of transferring weapons technology to other rogue nations, such as Iran and Syria.

The President is right to call on the Council to impose a military arms embargo, financial and trade sanctions, and, most importantly, the right to interdict and inspect all cargo in and out of North Korea. I hope the Council quickly adopts these sanctions, and that all members enforce them.

The worst thing we could do is accede to North Korea’s demand for bilateral talks. When has rewarding North Korea’s bad behavior ever gotten us anything more than worse behavior?

I would remind Senator Hillary Clinton and other Democrats critical of Bush Administration policies that the framework agreement her husband’s administration negotiated was a failure. The Koreans received millions in energy assistance. They diverted millions in food assistance to their military. And what did they do? They secretly enriched uranium.

Prior to the agreement, every single time the Clinton Administration warned the Koreans not to do something -- not to kick out the IAEA inspectors, not to remove the fuel rods from their reactor -- they did it. And they were rewarded every single time by the Clinton Administration with further talks. We had a carrots and no sticks policy that only encouraged bad behavior. When one carrot didn’t work, we offered another.

This isn’t just about North Korea. Iran is watching this test of the Council’s will, and our decisions will surely influence their response to demands that they cease their nuclear program. Now, we must, at long last, stop reinforcing failure with failure.

Instead we must extinguish the behavior by ignoring it, apparently. Good dog training; poor diplomacy.

McCain wants to continue the disastrous Bush policy of refusing to enter into bilateral talks with NORK. All this accomplishes is to subordinate American security needs to the interests of China. Instead of treating NORK's WMD capability like a regional issue and letting China, SORK, and Japan define the agenda, we had damn well better step up to the plate, recognize reality and enter into touch and verifiable bi-lateral security agreements with NORK. Doing otherwise is going to have Japan going nuclear in a matter of months, and SORK following soon after. We'll have an East Asian nuclear arms race to complement the South Asian and Middle Eastern ones we've already got on our plate.

Warfare by other means: that's what sanctions really are. The people will pay for the sins of the leader, and it will only stiffen the resolve of the people and the regime. Nor is it likely to be successful in bringing the regime to heel. As we saw in Iraq, sanctions actually tighten the grip of tyrants on power. Not to mention that NORK is perhaps the most isolated and self-contained nation on earth. Their major trade is charity from China, which is unlikely to be interrupted by UN sanctions. The whole idea is simply window dressing for a policy of continuing inaction in the face of extremely destabilizing events. More of the same for the GOP: they have consistently acted to waste our diplomatic and military capacity, and failed to act when decisive, and politically difficult action is needed.

If this is what we can expect from McCain's international leadership, it's a damn fine thing he'll never successfully run the Christo-fascist gauntlet the GOP Presidential nomination has become.

America's Enlightened Fraternity of Death Penalty Nations

"You will be known by the company you keep"

Electoral crisis looms as Mexico vote is too close to call

UPDATE 7/11: In a stunning reversal, Calderon pulled ahead of Obrador in the final stretch of the recount to reclaim a narrow 0.65% lead (236K votes out of ~41 million). The recount only retallied the polling box tallies, it did not recount the actual ballots, which is what Obrador is now demanding. Thousands have taken to the streets as Obrador refuses to concede the race, charging electoral fraud. There have been allegations that current President Fox used government resources to assist Calderon, that the PAN party was given access to voter information that only election officials should properly have, and that the computers used in the election count were manipulated.

But deeper issues are also in play. Bush and leaders of several other nations have already congratulated Calderon on his election, even though the Mexican courts have not ruled on pending issues. Are such actions the equivalent of meddling in the internal affairs of Mexico? If the leaders of Canada, France, England and Germany, for instance, called on Bush during the month-long period of uncertainty in 2000 to congratulate Bush on his election, would not many Americans have been outraged at the presumption? In addition, Mexico saw an unprecedented negativity in the campaigning of Calderon, leading some to compare the vilification of Obrador as a dangerous radical to the 'Swift Boating' of Kerry. Will the result of the suspicion of fraud, the negative vilifications, and the resentment of foreign (especially American) involvement in the process have the same strongly polarizing effect on Mexican politics we have seen in America? And does the Mexican election share causal roots with recent right wing victories in America and Canada?

Some consider the following ad from the campaign of Calderon to have been a turning point in both closing Obrador's early lead, and in the coarsening of Mexican politics:

UPDATE 7/5: Obrador continues to lead by over 1 and 1/2% as the recount approaches 90% complete. It looks like Obrador might pull victory from the mouth of defeat by demanding a full and fair recount of the votes. A dairy on Daily Kos is tracking the returns.

UPDATE 7/5: Obrador pulls ahead by more than 2% with 69% of the recount compete. Election officials are including amost 3 million ballots that were previously rejected as spoiled where the voter's intent is clear. This step alone is thought to have reduced Calderon's previous lead to just .68%. Mexican financial markets are in tizzy over what seems now to be a likely Obrador victory. Why is it that Mexico, a "Third-World" country, can do a credible hand recount of all 41 million votes cast, but America can't do the same for the roughly 120 million we cast in a Presidential election?

UPDATE 7/4: Obrador demands a vote-by-vote recount rather than the ballot box tally recount provided for in electoral regulations, saying only such a count can remove any doubt about the legitimacy of the outcome. The threat of popular protest still looms over Mexico as Calderon appears to have held on to his 1% lead, in contradiction to exit polls indicating a comfortable Obrador victory.

UPDATE 7/3: Calderon claims a narrow lead of just shy of 400K votes. Narrow margin may trigger recounts, delaying the result for weeks. Greg Pallast files a fresh report from the front lines of another theft of democracy in progress.

Link: Electoral crisis looms as Mexico vote is too close to call.

The race for the Mexican Presidency is begining to look distrubingly like America in 2000. The race is said by election officials to be too close to call until at least Wednesday. Meanwhile, both Calderon and Obrador are claiming victory, though both seem committed to accepting the outcome, though the rhetoric is flying hot and fast.

A very close race was widely feared due to the possibility that the declared electoral result could be marred by allegations of fraud, and that the supporters of the losing side might refuse to accept the outcome. There is widespread apprehension that an electoral crisis could lead to civil unrest and even violence.

Regardless of which way the vote ultimately goes, it appears likely that the legacy of this election will be further polarization within an already sharply divided electorate. It appears that the 'Americanization' of Mexican society may be destined to include the sharp and nearly even division of the electorate that we so enjoy here north of the border, only among three parties rather than two.

Why Lopez Obrador is Right for Mexico... and America

UPDATE: Greg Pallast points out that the Bush Administration may not be content with the outcome of democracy in Mexico. The Administration might be inclined to ensure the 'right' result. And ZMag has an interesting article on the potential for violence and direct action in this Sunday's election. The economic case is made by the Center for Economic Policy and Research that leftward movement in Mexican politics would be a positive development.

The framing of this Sunday's Mexican election for President in the American media is as follows:

Calderon (PAN): Technocrat, pro-business, pro-NAFTA, internationalist, successor to current policies of Fox.

Obrador (PRD): Radical leftist populist, pro-poor, anti-NAFTA, insular, extension of the Anti-American Hugo Chavez brand of Latin American politics.

Madrazo (PRI): Sinking ship. Get off now.

Even some experts on Mexican affairs like UofA’s John Garcia make Obrador seem like a dangerous and destabilizing experiment. “Latin America has recently been electing leaders who more likely to challenge U.S. policies and look for a more independent path. Mexico could be the next to go in that direction [i.e. elect Obrador] If that were to happen, it would just be another part of the world that we’d have to pay attention to.”

God forbid we should have to pay attention to the world. I don’t think Garcia is really saying that we shouldn’t need to pay attention to our relationship with Mexico, or that paying attention to Mexico is bad thing, though it rather sounds like it. In fact, paying more attention to Mexico, our second largest trade partner sharing 2000 miles of land border with us and having a population of nationals of 12-15 million and growing inside the U.S.A, is a decidedly good idea. In fact, seriously re-evaluating our relationship with Mexico is imperative to resolving the immigration issue. The don of Mexican political journalists, Carlos Monsivais, offers a much different perspective on the possibility of an Obrador win than Garcia's, which I strongly recommend a look at.

In fact, an Obrador Presidency would be the best thing for Mexico, and the best thing for the United States. An Obrador Presidency could significantly stem the tide of immigration, force a needed course correction on NAFTA in DC and the DF that brings more fairness to free trade. Obrador’s prescription could be bitter medicine on both sides of the border, especially if the Bush Administration reacts to Obrador’s refusal to lower tarriff barriers on American white corn, beans, and milk powder with heavy trade sanctions. But the inherent tensions between the systematic destruction of the rural economy of Mexico, the lack of job creation in the highly extractive Mexican export sector, and the ever increasing criminalization of economic immigration to the U.S. cannot be sustained indefinitely. And the Bush Administration favors Calderon: isn’t that alone reason enough to suspect that Calderon wouldn’t be the best thing either for Mexico, or for most Americans?

When one really looks at Obrador’s biography and his stated economic policies, he really looks more like Sen. John Edwards of South Carolina, whose concern for poverty and ameliorating the ills of the ‘Two Americas’ are his enduring themes, than like Hugo Chavez. In fact, if you squint just right, Obrador’s plans for low income pensions, agricultural supports, and increasing the purchasing power of the Mexican poor, look a lot like America’s own New Deal under Roosevelt.

The worst possible way the conflicts within Mexican society could be resolved is with millions of desperate dispossessed farmers taking up arms against their own government all over the country, as they did in Chiapas, or voting with their feet by coming to America in search of economic security. That sort of political instability on our southern border is absolutely inconsistent with our national interest. If American agribusiness suffers the loss of Mexico as a new export market, it is a small price to pay for the greater national interest. What is good for ADM is not necessarily what is good for America.

Obrador is often portrayed as a leftist radical on par with Venuzuela’s President Hugo Chavez, bent on helping the poor at any cost. It might be true, however, it should not be seen as a criticism, but as a compliment. Addressing the effects of globalization on income disparity and economic security in developing countries, the plight of the vast numbers of Latin American poor, and the flood of Mexican immigration to the U.S. (which is almost as explosive an issue in Mexico due to the 20 billion in remittances immigrants send home) are political projects that are past due to be addressed. Rather than demonizing or worrying about Obrador, Progressives should embrace him as one of us, and even the American right wing should embrace him. Reform within Mexico to keep potential immigrants at home will be much more effective at daming the raging river of illegal immigrants than any chain link fence could possibly be.

US Soldiers Spying and Nuclear Bombing in Iran?

Via Informed Comment:

The question of US intelligence on Iran is very much an item of interest these days. Sy Hersh's revelation that the U.S. military is doing operational planning for a possible nuclear strike on Iran to preempt a civilian nuclear program that is still years away from the possibility of building a nuclear weapon caused a firestorm (pardon the imagery) of interest. Of course, a superpower does a lot of planning, and evey option is considered. But the Penatgon tried to remove the option of using tactical nukes from operational plans for Iran, but where ordered not to by the White House.

We are of course talking about a direct, preemptive targeting of a non-nuclear nation that presents no threat to Americans and would cause massive civilian casualties. This is causing a lot of tension between the military leadership and the civilian leadership, with the possibility of several senior command officers retiring in protest. The bellicosity of the Bush Administration is stunning and may be pushing nuclear proliferation rather than containing it, and may harm prospects for peaceful reform in Iran, especially should there be a military strike by America or Israel.

Veteran CIA Middle East analyst Ray Close reacted to rumors that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld may have already sent Special Operations forces into Iran on intelligence missions. (One clarification: in popular parlance we speak of CIA "agents." But in the intelligence world, an "agent" is actually a local person recruited by an intelligence field officer.)

Close writes:

Dumbest. Move. Ever.

Link: The Raw Story | MSNBC confirms: Outed CIA agent was working on Iran.

"INTELLIGENCE SOURCES SAY VALERIE WILSON WAS PART OF AN OPERATION THREE YEARS AGO TRACKING THE PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS MATERIAL INTO IRAN. AND THE SOURCES ALLEGE THAT WHEN MRS. WILSON'S COVER WAS BLOWN, THE ADMINISTRATION'S ABILITY TO TRACK IRAN'S NUCLEAR AMBITIONS WAS DAMAGED AS WELL."

So not only was the outing of Plame, politically motivated, stupid, unethical, and illegal, it is also now hampering our efforts to conduct negotiations with Iran regarding their nuclear power technology and its alleged misuse for WMD proliferation. The very intel we need in order to negotiate a reasonable outcome in Iran has been chucked out like trash and we might end up mistakenly or hastily taking military action against Iran as a result. One might suspect a certain species of deep and devious planning to be involved if it weren't so patent that this Administration is incapable of that level of competence, even in doing evil.

Outside of Iraq, which is obviously the gravest current threat to American security, Iran is certainly among our most important immediate security concerns, and these jackasses in Bush Administration have willfully destroyed a key asset for managing that threat? Not to mention that outing Plame may have compromised other counter-proliferation agents who have used Brewster-Jennings & Associates for non-official cover.

It was bad before, now it's just downright treasonous...

Bolton compares Iran threat to Sept 11 attacks

Link: Bolton compares Iran threat to Sept 11 attacks

I'm surprised Bush's PR assault on Iran has jumped the shark so soon. People are going to be, rightfully, offended and dismayed at such an obvious lunge for Americans' rhetorical jugulars. But there you have it.

On Nightline Bolton said, "Just like September 11, only with nuclear weapons this time, that's the threat. I think that is the threat." This is coming from the same guy who was screaming a few years ago that Cuba has biological weapons and is ready to use them on us.

I think this Administration's transparent ploy to put one of their chief WMD cranks in the UN to shout "j'accuse" at the Iranians is going to arrive on Americans' ears with a resounding thud. They simply have no credibility left to burn. And not even pulling the trusty old 9/11 card will win this hand.

Bush Arbitraging Nuclear Non-Proliferation

President Bush’s announcement of a cooperative agreement with India on nuclear power generation technology should have come as no surprise. As early as 2001 the Bush Administration was looking at ways of expanding the American relationship with India. The 2004 India-U.S. Next Step initiative suggested a ‘presumption of approval’ for American dual use nuclear equipment exports to India, and that policy is essentially what the Bush Administration’s agreement with India attempts to accomplish.

However, the Administration’s initiative is not legal under current American law, and poses a significant danger of collapsing the core obligations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NNPT) – the central source of authority for global non-proliferation, and the very treaty under which the Administration currently seeks to refer Iran to the Security Council. In order for the Administration to open India to American exports of nuclear technology, the Congress will have to pass a concurrent resolution waiving several provisions of the Atomic Energy Act. (for details Download CRS Report).

There are significant reasons why Congress should not do so. The most salient being the damage it would do international reliance on core commitments of the NNPT, and the resulting encouragement of nuclear proliferation and regional escalation, especially in Asia.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard Questions War in Iraq

Another leader in the 'Coalition of the Willing', Hon. John Howard, the Prime Minister of Australia, has apparently had his eyes forced open and is now seeing reality more clearly. I don't think I've ever seen a more heartfelt description of a man's conscience moving him from advocating for and participating in an atrocity, to having deep and fundamental doubts about the wisdom and utility of the whole enterprise.

John Howard is certainly no peacenik; he has been one of President Bush's most reliable allies on Iraq. A crack of this size in the Coalition represents an unavoidable challenge to the continued legitimacy of American military prescence in Iraq. Democratic leaders and candidates should certainly seize upon this statement an its contents to push harder for complete withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.

Of course, I and others like me, will disagree still with Howard that the invasion could ever have been a success if only executed with greater planning and intelligence. I think that the very idea of invading another country that was not an immediate military threat to us or our allies is not only a stragetic blunder of monstrous proportions, but monstrously immoral.

The poor fiction that our government honestly thought Iraq an immediate threat to international peace and American security is now revealed as a tissue of barely plausible lies, as was apparent to so many from the begining. Like any enterprise founded upon lies and mendacity, Bush's Iraq policy had to collapse under its own weight with such a false foundation. The tragedy, and the horrible crime, of Iraq is the thousands of our fellow citizens and innocent Iraqis claimed and maimed by that collapse. Bush is a criminal fully culpable for all those honored dead, and all those still yet to die as his monster lumbers forward inexorably. He deserves the same fate as that criminal Ossama bin Laden, for he surely has as much innocent blood on his hands, if not more.

The world took another step closer to accepting the hard and terrible truth that Iraq has been a tragic mistake with Howard's appologia. Tomorrow, perhaps it can start to step past such a passive definition, and begin to see it for what it truly is: one of the greatest war-crimes of our time.

12 March 2006

TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIME MINISTER
THE HON JOHN HOWARD MP