Wednesday, April 29, 2009
I See Your Specter Has Turned
A witty line uttered by James Bond to his nemesis Emilio Largo during a game of chermin de fer in the film Thunderball is a pretty good summary of today's political defection. Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Spector has left the Republican party and is now caucusing with the Democrats.
If Specter's official statement is credible, he feels that the party has moved too far to the right and abandoned him in the center. On certain social issues his argument is valid, seeing as how Specter has never been one of the social conservatives and never drew common cause with the so-called "religious right." At the same time, Arlen Specter has brazenly offended the fiscal conservatives and libertarian-leaning Republicans through his deference to the Obama budget and "stimulus" package. Should we consider Repoublican resistance to trillion-dollar defecits a sign that the party has moved too far too the right? Apparently Arlen Specter thinks so. Multi-generational theft and corporate welfare are now considered "moderate" and "centrist" in the new political parlance.
Arlen Specter has given Senate Democrats a filibuster-proof majority (with Al Franken's victory in Minnesota all but assured.) But is that any change from the status quo? Specter stood with Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and the Senate Democrats in supporting the stimulus package. Arlen Specter was never a reliable Republican vote, nor has he ever been a staunch supporter of fiscal discipline or limited government.
The Specter defection boils down to one thing" re-election. In 2010, Arlen Specter would have faced a stiff challenge from conservative Republican Pat Toomey. The same battle took place in 2004, and Specter needed President Bush's support to squeeze out a tight victory. With Specter's leftward shift, there's no way he could have beaten Toomey in 2010. The change in caucuses assures that Pat Toomey would run as the Republican challenger against Specter (as either a Democrat or Independent. But it's unlikely the Dems would run anybody against an independent Specter to avoid splitting the vote.)
If Republicans want to gain abck seats in 2010 and 2012, they need to bury their socially-conservative past. Instead, they must embrace a common-sense message of limited government and balanced budgets, framed in a way that appeals to most Americans. There are signs the Republicans are starting to recognize this, although the American public has yet to comprehend the imminent dangers of Obama economic policies. Arlen Specter was never part of that solution, and the Republican party is better off without him. Good riddance to yet another big-spending, corporatist political hack.
If Specter's official statement is credible, he feels that the party has moved too far to the right and abandoned him in the center. On certain social issues his argument is valid, seeing as how Specter has never been one of the social conservatives and never drew common cause with the so-called "religious right." At the same time, Arlen Specter has brazenly offended the fiscal conservatives and libertarian-leaning Republicans through his deference to the Obama budget and "stimulus" package. Should we consider Repoublican resistance to trillion-dollar defecits a sign that the party has moved too far too the right? Apparently Arlen Specter thinks so. Multi-generational theft and corporate welfare are now considered "moderate" and "centrist" in the new political parlance.
Arlen Specter has given Senate Democrats a filibuster-proof majority (with Al Franken's victory in Minnesota all but assured.) But is that any change from the status quo? Specter stood with Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and the Senate Democrats in supporting the stimulus package. Arlen Specter was never a reliable Republican vote, nor has he ever been a staunch supporter of fiscal discipline or limited government.
The Specter defection boils down to one thing" re-election. In 2010, Arlen Specter would have faced a stiff challenge from conservative Republican Pat Toomey. The same battle took place in 2004, and Specter needed President Bush's support to squeeze out a tight victory. With Specter's leftward shift, there's no way he could have beaten Toomey in 2010. The change in caucuses assures that Pat Toomey would run as the Republican challenger against Specter (as either a Democrat or Independent. But it's unlikely the Dems would run anybody against an independent Specter to avoid splitting the vote.)
If Republicans want to gain abck seats in 2010 and 2012, they need to bury their socially-conservative past. Instead, they must embrace a common-sense message of limited government and balanced budgets, framed in a way that appeals to most Americans. There are signs the Republicans are starting to recognize this, although the American public has yet to comprehend the imminent dangers of Obama economic policies. Arlen Specter was never part of that solution, and the Republican party is better off without him. Good riddance to yet another big-spending, corporatist political hack.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
GM: Government Motors
This past week has given the American people adrmatic glimpse of the future for the domestic auto industry. General Motors is ending the Pontiac brand after 83 years of production, laying off 21,000 workers, and perhaps most importantly, may see the $13+ Billion it's received from the US government turn into an ownership stake in the company.
The story isn't much different at Chrysler. After taking billions in bailout cash from the feds, the smallest of the Big Three is scrambling to meet the government's April 30 deadline for restructuring so it can get more bailout money. Chrysler's creditors will likely accept a pittance in exchange for the debt. The United Auto Workers will likely own 55% of Chrysler while Fiat will take another 35%, leaving just a sliver open to the public (assuming the government doesn't buy the remaining 10%.)
And for all the government intervention, all the taxpayer-funded life support, and all of the restructuring, there's still a very good chance that at least one of the two auto companies will still undergo a surgical bankruptcy. And all this time, the government (particularly the president and house speaker) have been telling us how unfathomable a bankruptcy would be.
The dropping of brands like Pontiac shouldn't be surprising. After all, the 1980's marked a shift from distinct brands to "badge engineering," where a Pontiac G6 was a Chevy Malibu was a Saturn Aura. The car was the same, the sheet metal and name were different. Layoffs shouldn't be surprising either. They're an inevitable yet painful part of any slowdown in production.
What's really different here (although not surprising in light of the current president and congress) is the degree of government intervention. The White House essentially fired GM CEO Rick Wagoner. The government may soon own a good chunk of GM. The government is essentially controlling the fate of Chrysler with all of its stipulations on bailout money. And part of that manipulation is making the United Auto Workers (who have yet to make serious concessions to make their companies more competitive,) the majority-owners of Chrysler. And the government can justify this abuse of power to the people by claiming that bankruptcy is intolerable when in fact it may be inevitable.
The government will soon own GM and it's already calling much of the shots. The "proletariat" will soon own a majority of Chrysler. In spite of the rhetoric about those evil "corporatist" Republicans, it's our Democrat President and congress who are melding corporate and government power. Is this much different from Soviet Russia where the people supposedly owned thje means of production? Is this different from Mussolini's "syndicates" where the corporation and the goverenment were inseparable from each other? In spite of the Republican party's flaws, at least they pay lip-service to the idea of free markets and letting economics, not an interventionist government, decides who wins and loses in business.
The story isn't much different at Chrysler. After taking billions in bailout cash from the feds, the smallest of the Big Three is scrambling to meet the government's April 30 deadline for restructuring so it can get more bailout money. Chrysler's creditors will likely accept a pittance in exchange for the debt. The United Auto Workers will likely own 55% of Chrysler while Fiat will take another 35%, leaving just a sliver open to the public (assuming the government doesn't buy the remaining 10%.)
And for all the government intervention, all the taxpayer-funded life support, and all of the restructuring, there's still a very good chance that at least one of the two auto companies will still undergo a surgical bankruptcy. And all this time, the government (particularly the president and house speaker) have been telling us how unfathomable a bankruptcy would be.
The dropping of brands like Pontiac shouldn't be surprising. After all, the 1980's marked a shift from distinct brands to "badge engineering," where a Pontiac G6 was a Chevy Malibu was a Saturn Aura. The car was the same, the sheet metal and name were different. Layoffs shouldn't be surprising either. They're an inevitable yet painful part of any slowdown in production.
What's really different here (although not surprising in light of the current president and congress) is the degree of government intervention. The White House essentially fired GM CEO Rick Wagoner. The government may soon own a good chunk of GM. The government is essentially controlling the fate of Chrysler with all of its stipulations on bailout money. And part of that manipulation is making the United Auto Workers (who have yet to make serious concessions to make their companies more competitive,) the majority-owners of Chrysler. And the government can justify this abuse of power to the people by claiming that bankruptcy is intolerable when in fact it may be inevitable.
The government will soon own GM and it's already calling much of the shots. The "proletariat" will soon own a majority of Chrysler. In spite of the rhetoric about those evil "corporatist" Republicans, it's our Democrat President and congress who are melding corporate and government power. Is this much different from Soviet Russia where the people supposedly owned thje means of production? Is this different from Mussolini's "syndicates" where the corporation and the goverenment were inseparable from each other? In spite of the Republican party's flaws, at least they pay lip-service to the idea of free markets and letting economics, not an interventionist government, decides who wins and loses in business.
Monday, April 13, 2009
But I Don't Want to be a Pirate!
Whether Americans realize it or not, this past week's engagement between the US Navy and Somali pirates is the opening salvo in a long-term war against high-seas piracy.
I've seen several media outlets heaping praise upon President Obama's handling of the situation. The reality is that the choice in this instance was pretty cut-and-dry, and that future battles on the high seas will truly put the president to the test. The pirate standoff lasted far longer than it needed to. Lethal force should have been authorized from the get-go, as long as the safety of hostage Richard Phillips could be assured during the operation. The US government should never entertain the option of paying a ransom to criminals such as the Somali pirates.
Because pirates are not lawful combatants under the Geneva Conventions, the status of the captured pirate creates the first test of the Obama Administration’s post-Gitmo policy towards detained combatants. The federal courts in New York and Washington are both fighting to put the surviving pirate on trial, with Kenyan courts remaining an option.
The rise of piracy in the waters off the coast of Africa represents no less than another front in the Global War on Terrorism (or whatever the Obama Administration is currently calling it.) There is no doubt that Somali pirates will declare war against American vessels after three pirates were killed by Navy snipers this weekend. The inevitable US Navy response to increased piracy will be increased patrols against pirate vessels. More incidents like the one this past week will surely follow, and American casualties will be inevitable. But this standoff is the inevitable result of shipping companies who have been too willing to pay ransoms, incentivizing piracy in a country that has known only warfare and stark poverty for most of its history. Ultimately the US may need to readdress the failed state that is Somalia to solve the underlying issues that are driving the recent trends in piracy.
If this seems like history repeating, that’s because it is. The new war against the Somali pirates has many historical parallels with Thomas Jefferson’s war against the Barbary Pirates. We can only hope President Obama has the same resolve in his first major test as commander-in-chief.
I've seen several media outlets heaping praise upon President Obama's handling of the situation. The reality is that the choice in this instance was pretty cut-and-dry, and that future battles on the high seas will truly put the president to the test. The pirate standoff lasted far longer than it needed to. Lethal force should have been authorized from the get-go, as long as the safety of hostage Richard Phillips could be assured during the operation. The US government should never entertain the option of paying a ransom to criminals such as the Somali pirates.
Because pirates are not lawful combatants under the Geneva Conventions, the status of the captured pirate creates the first test of the Obama Administration’s post-Gitmo policy towards detained combatants. The federal courts in New York and Washington are both fighting to put the surviving pirate on trial, with Kenyan courts remaining an option.
The rise of piracy in the waters off the coast of Africa represents no less than another front in the Global War on Terrorism (or whatever the Obama Administration is currently calling it.) There is no doubt that Somali pirates will declare war against American vessels after three pirates were killed by Navy snipers this weekend. The inevitable US Navy response to increased piracy will be increased patrols against pirate vessels. More incidents like the one this past week will surely follow, and American casualties will be inevitable. But this standoff is the inevitable result of shipping companies who have been too willing to pay ransoms, incentivizing piracy in a country that has known only warfare and stark poverty for most of its history. Ultimately the US may need to readdress the failed state that is Somalia to solve the underlying issues that are driving the recent trends in piracy.
If this seems like history repeating, that’s because it is. The new war against the Somali pirates has many historical parallels with Thomas Jefferson’s war against the Barbary Pirates. We can only hope President Obama has the same resolve in his first major test as commander-in-chief.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Death on a Tree, Life from a Tomb
I wanted to wish my readership a Happy Easter and briefly talk about some of the stories published this week about the "historical Jesus." For the skeptics of basic Christian theology, the rather shocking revelations about the historical Jesus represent some kind of tangible discrediting of Christianity. As a believer, I don't view the "historical Jesus" as a contradiction of the Gospel message. The Gospels serve as a record of Jesus's words and deeds. The historical Jesus has often been contradicted by the societal norms followed by Christian groups over time, but it doesn't invalidate the message of love preached by Jesus of Nazareth. If all people took the lead of Jesus, we could build a more just and humane society.
It was interesting to read that within the Roman Empire, crucifixion was a rare punishment, reserved for those revolutionaries who threatened the empire. It was also considered the greatest humiliation that the state could mete out to an individual. Does that mean the crucifixion story was a fabrication of gospel writers who needed to sell the faith to a Jewish community that sought a militant leader? Could the Pharisees & Saducees have framed Jesus as a militant leader when presenting their case to Pontius Pilate? I think a strong case can be made for the latter. After all, the inscription on the crucifix charged Jesus for declaring himself "King of the Jews."
The irony of Jesus's story is that Jesus truly was a revolutionary, not one of swords and shields but able to win hearts and minds nonetheless. Christianity overcame the Roman Empire slowly but steadily, validating the faith of the believers in the early church. As a Christian, it serves as a further reminder that Jesus was truly God became man, word becoming flesh. Not only did he humbly subject himself to human suffering, but he chose the most humiliating death of all. For the masses who were not sold on the teachings of Jesus, they may have viewed the crucifixion as the repudiation of yet another false messiah in a Jewish community that desperately sought one. Yet somehow the Christian message perservered in spite of the humiliation, in spite of the persecution. To me, that's not a coincidence of a messianic cult's success. The spread of Christianity is validation of what C.S. Lewis called "the true myth." Christianity beat the odds and beat the Roman Empire. That's all I need to justify my faith.
It was interesting to read that within the Roman Empire, crucifixion was a rare punishment, reserved for those revolutionaries who threatened the empire. It was also considered the greatest humiliation that the state could mete out to an individual. Does that mean the crucifixion story was a fabrication of gospel writers who needed to sell the faith to a Jewish community that sought a militant leader? Could the Pharisees & Saducees have framed Jesus as a militant leader when presenting their case to Pontius Pilate? I think a strong case can be made for the latter. After all, the inscription on the crucifix charged Jesus for declaring himself "King of the Jews."
The irony of Jesus's story is that Jesus truly was a revolutionary, not one of swords and shields but able to win hearts and minds nonetheless. Christianity overcame the Roman Empire slowly but steadily, validating the faith of the believers in the early church. As a Christian, it serves as a further reminder that Jesus was truly God became man, word becoming flesh. Not only did he humbly subject himself to human suffering, but he chose the most humiliating death of all. For the masses who were not sold on the teachings of Jesus, they may have viewed the crucifixion as the repudiation of yet another false messiah in a Jewish community that desperately sought one. Yet somehow the Christian message perservered in spite of the humiliation, in spite of the persecution. To me, that's not a coincidence of a messianic cult's success. The spread of Christianity is validation of what C.S. Lewis called "the true myth." Christianity beat the odds and beat the Roman Empire. That's all I need to justify my faith.
