As Memorial Day 2008 comes to a close with this writing, we Americans are resting after barbecues, parades, visits to relatives and (for those not in Southern California) beach trips (brrr!). Many of us stopped to think of and honor the sacrifices made by the members of our military who've died in our wars. We also think of those serving today in Iraq, Afghanistan and other far flung points on the globe.
The best way we can honor the present members of our armed forces, in my book, is to view events with clear eyes and open minds. We have to be willing to adapt our thinking as situations change on the ground, as they have so drastically in Iraq.
Five years after our invasion, we are now engaged in the war we need to be fighting -- and winning. The storyline has changed from toppling a brutal dictatorship and removing the near-empty threat of weapons of mass destruction to battling the forces that want to establish their harsh view of Islam across the Middle East and, if successful, beyond, into Asia, Africa and Europe. These are the ones who rained terror upon those in airliners above the eastern United States, and in New York City and Washingon, D.C., on 9/11.
We've gone from fighting Sunnis who simply wanted a return to the old status quo to the hardcore terrorists in the north, and are now confronting the Iranian-sponsored troublemakers in the south. The equation has totally changed.
We've been engaged in this new version of the war for well over a year now. Yet, to hear the debate among our national leadership, nothing has changed. The people who were against the war in March 2003 are the same people opposed in May 2008. There, of course, has been a drop in support in the war effort after so many bungled years and unfortunate casualties. Opponents of the war all talk about when they can bring the troops home. Supporters take each individual battle as signs that we're winning. Yeah, it's Vietnam all over again. One group wants us out but overlooks the importance of the mission. The other side says we're winning all the military battles but overlooked the large-scale issues that kept us from emerging victorious.
In Iraq, unlike Vietnam, the macro issues are starting to look favorable, however, as the Iraqi government has finally recognized and dealt with the threats posed by Shiite extremists and Iran. The successes in eradicating al Qaeda in Iraq in 2007 continue this year. The legislature is splintered but no longer completely broken. The pieces are all together now.
The best way we can honor today's military is to recognize that we now are taking on the real threat to our way of life and are doing a pretty good job of it. We have stop thinking in 2003 terms of whether we oppose or support the operation. We have to stop opposing the operation because it's Bush's war. We have to drop the lunatic conspiracy theories that it's all about oil because the Iraq war has done nothing to help us in that regard. We have to give our soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen all the support we can so victory can come about as soon as possible.
In short, we have to be adaptable in our thinking. There was a lot wrong with how we got into this war and how it was conducted for several years. Serious, major problems. There were good reasons to be against what we were doing. But that was then. This is now. Things have changed, and we have to change as well.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Quake to Change China?, Other Notes
Did it take an earthquake to change China?
I read an interesting article recently that featured individual Chinese who took it upon themselves to travel to the area devastated by the May 12 earthquake that may have killed 50,000 people and left 5 million homeless to provide assistance. There was a time that individual initiative was discouraged in this populous nation. That time might have passed.
If so, it leaves a changed China. A country filled with people who believe in doing the right thing will demand that its government do the same. Which leads to another example, President Wen Jiabao going to the scene of the destruction to comfort victims. No longer is the nation's leadership detached from the people.
These instances could bring profound changes to China, or they are examples of changes already well underway. Either way, they're an improvement.
---
It's been interesting to see the difference in news coverage of the disasters in China and Burma (Myanmar). People are ready to invade Burma in order to provide help. The coverage of China's disaster relief has been almost glowing, even though they themselves have restricted assistance from other countries.
---
I heard a radio talk show host, I think Sean Hannity, talk the other day about how the only way the Republicans can save their congressional election prospects this year will be a second "Contract With America."
Certainly the GOP is in big trouble with voters tired of their rule and the media dumping on them every chance they get, almost completely without challenge. It's even affecting the presidential chances of John McCain, who in a normal year would blow Barack Obama out of the water.
Voters, however, will see a new contract as an election year ploy, in order to keep the politicians in office so they can keep messing things up. It won't work. In fact, the Republicans recently lost a normally safe seat in Mississippi by trying to link the Democrat candidate with the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Huh? Nationalizing the election will do no good at all.
If the GOP is to hold on to powerful minority status able to prevent veto overrides or Senate cloture, it needs to run candidates who can campaign as strong individual leaders who can cut to the chase on issues and convince voters that they will act appropriately in office. They have to run against their opponents, not against the Rev. Wright or House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Finally, GOP candidates have to run as Republicans. Voters have a way of pigeonholing candidates, and if they don't fit the mold, they'll have a hard time. They want Republicans to hold fiscally conservative, low-tax, low-regulation and traditional social positions. There's a lot of wiggle room in there on individual issues. Where Republicans get in trouble is where they stray from expectations, such as spending the country into the poorhouse and building bridges to nowhere.
---
There's a lot in the news today about the new Reuters/Zogby poll showing Obama up on McCain 48-40 in this virtual start to the presidential campaign. The Rasmussen Daily Tracking Poll, which I frequently quote from, has had McCain up over Obama by margins of 1-3 points for the past couple of days, and the reverse for a few days last week.
---
Add me to the list of those who feel that Michelle Obama is a legitimate campaign target. As long as she is out making major speeches on the campaign trail, then she is -- get this -- A PART OF THE CAMPAIGN. If she acts like a wallflower, then she'll be treated like one.
I read an interesting article recently that featured individual Chinese who took it upon themselves to travel to the area devastated by the May 12 earthquake that may have killed 50,000 people and left 5 million homeless to provide assistance. There was a time that individual initiative was discouraged in this populous nation. That time might have passed.
If so, it leaves a changed China. A country filled with people who believe in doing the right thing will demand that its government do the same. Which leads to another example, President Wen Jiabao going to the scene of the destruction to comfort victims. No longer is the nation's leadership detached from the people.
These instances could bring profound changes to China, or they are examples of changes already well underway. Either way, they're an improvement.
---
It's been interesting to see the difference in news coverage of the disasters in China and Burma (Myanmar). People are ready to invade Burma in order to provide help. The coverage of China's disaster relief has been almost glowing, even though they themselves have restricted assistance from other countries.
---
I heard a radio talk show host, I think Sean Hannity, talk the other day about how the only way the Republicans can save their congressional election prospects this year will be a second "Contract With America."
Certainly the GOP is in big trouble with voters tired of their rule and the media dumping on them every chance they get, almost completely without challenge. It's even affecting the presidential chances of John McCain, who in a normal year would blow Barack Obama out of the water.
Voters, however, will see a new contract as an election year ploy, in order to keep the politicians in office so they can keep messing things up. It won't work. In fact, the Republicans recently lost a normally safe seat in Mississippi by trying to link the Democrat candidate with the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Huh? Nationalizing the election will do no good at all.
If the GOP is to hold on to powerful minority status able to prevent veto overrides or Senate cloture, it needs to run candidates who can campaign as strong individual leaders who can cut to the chase on issues and convince voters that they will act appropriately in office. They have to run against their opponents, not against the Rev. Wright or House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Finally, GOP candidates have to run as Republicans. Voters have a way of pigeonholing candidates, and if they don't fit the mold, they'll have a hard time. They want Republicans to hold fiscally conservative, low-tax, low-regulation and traditional social positions. There's a lot of wiggle room in there on individual issues. Where Republicans get in trouble is where they stray from expectations, such as spending the country into the poorhouse and building bridges to nowhere.
---
There's a lot in the news today about the new Reuters/Zogby poll showing Obama up on McCain 48-40 in this virtual start to the presidential campaign. The Rasmussen Daily Tracking Poll, which I frequently quote from, has had McCain up over Obama by margins of 1-3 points for the past couple of days, and the reverse for a few days last week.
---
Add me to the list of those who feel that Michelle Obama is a legitimate campaign target. As long as she is out making major speeches on the campaign trail, then she is -- get this -- A PART OF THE CAMPAIGN. If she acts like a wallflower, then she'll be treated like one.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Gay Marriage Ruling
I had three reactions after skimming through the opinion of the California Supreme Court that legalized gay marriage.
1. For cultural conservatives, the courts are not a friendly arena for the consideration of moral issues. The justices in California were looking at state law and the state constitution, not at what might be better for the moral health of the citizens. Law is all about determining the consequences of a comma or a period, or defining the word "is." Lawyers and judges have simply removed themselves from considering moral consequences.
2. The opinion strikes me as being pretty flimsy. It was 4-3 and the majority justices seemed almost apologetic at times. Their reliance on the lack of compelling constitutional arguments against gay marriage is not strengthened by the fact that there aren't any compelling constitutional arguments in favor of gay marriage, either. These cases have a way of coming back to the courts, so a different result at some point in the future -- though probably not near future -- would not be too surprising.
3. Same-sex couples will likely want to tie the knot before November, when voters will consider a ballot initiative that would amend the state constitution that the justices relied upon. If the ruling is indeed flimsy after further review, then this new initiative could pass just as strongly as did the now overturned Proposition 22, which was approved by about 61 percent of the voters.
Indeed, while the LGBT community was celebrating the ruling Thursday, their's could be a pyrrhic victory. The justices accepted their best and perhaps final argument, which was basically something like "why not?" If they're trumped in November, there might not be much to fall back on.
The best hope for gay marriage advocates might be to sit and watch the traditional values crowd self-destruct. My perception is that the feelings of California residents toward same-sex couples has softened since Prop. 22 passed eight years ago. Most folks are willing to accept civil unions that include the same financial and legal benefits that male-female marriages enjoy. The best argument employed by the anti-gay marriage activists is that it contributes to the breakdown of the nuclear family, that being that men and women were created to unify and produce and rear children to propagate the species. They can point to welfare policies that destroyed once-strong African-American families, the demise of powerful Hispanic families because of immigration and the overall damaging impacts of drug abuse and divorce for families of all backgrounds. But gay marriage is such a small part of the equation I wonder what sort of practical effect the argument would have in 2008.
If gay marriage opponents overplay their hand, they could find some resistance. This is the same state, after all, where voters allowed teenage girls to seek abortions without parental consent and approved of the medical use of marijuana.
Whether the same-sex marriage victories sweep through the other 48 states -- such rights are already available in Massachusetts -- is debatable. In fact, I would rather doubt it. If the vote was stronger than 4-3 and the justification better, then maybe you'd see something. Otherwise, outside of, say, Vermont and Hawaii, don't look for same-sex marriage rights to spread.
1. For cultural conservatives, the courts are not a friendly arena for the consideration of moral issues. The justices in California were looking at state law and the state constitution, not at what might be better for the moral health of the citizens. Law is all about determining the consequences of a comma or a period, or defining the word "is." Lawyers and judges have simply removed themselves from considering moral consequences.
2. The opinion strikes me as being pretty flimsy. It was 4-3 and the majority justices seemed almost apologetic at times. Their reliance on the lack of compelling constitutional arguments against gay marriage is not strengthened by the fact that there aren't any compelling constitutional arguments in favor of gay marriage, either. These cases have a way of coming back to the courts, so a different result at some point in the future -- though probably not near future -- would not be too surprising.
3. Same-sex couples will likely want to tie the knot before November, when voters will consider a ballot initiative that would amend the state constitution that the justices relied upon. If the ruling is indeed flimsy after further review, then this new initiative could pass just as strongly as did the now overturned Proposition 22, which was approved by about 61 percent of the voters.
Indeed, while the LGBT community was celebrating the ruling Thursday, their's could be a pyrrhic victory. The justices accepted their best and perhaps final argument, which was basically something like "why not?" If they're trumped in November, there might not be much to fall back on.
The best hope for gay marriage advocates might be to sit and watch the traditional values crowd self-destruct. My perception is that the feelings of California residents toward same-sex couples has softened since Prop. 22 passed eight years ago. Most folks are willing to accept civil unions that include the same financial and legal benefits that male-female marriages enjoy. The best argument employed by the anti-gay marriage activists is that it contributes to the breakdown of the nuclear family, that being that men and women were created to unify and produce and rear children to propagate the species. They can point to welfare policies that destroyed once-strong African-American families, the demise of powerful Hispanic families because of immigration and the overall damaging impacts of drug abuse and divorce for families of all backgrounds. But gay marriage is such a small part of the equation I wonder what sort of practical effect the argument would have in 2008.
If gay marriage opponents overplay their hand, they could find some resistance. This is the same state, after all, where voters allowed teenage girls to seek abortions without parental consent and approved of the medical use of marijuana.
Whether the same-sex marriage victories sweep through the other 48 states -- such rights are already available in Massachusetts -- is debatable. In fact, I would rather doubt it. If the vote was stronger than 4-3 and the justification better, then maybe you'd see something. Otherwise, outside of, say, Vermont and Hawaii, don't look for same-sex marriage rights to spread.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Are States Obsolete?
As I write this, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is providing an updated status report on the Golden State's fiscal woes. The mess in Sacramento has prompted me to wonder whether states have become obsolete. More to the point: are they a net asset or detriment to the public good?
Just about every local government agency in California is dependent on funding from the state, whether they be counties, municipalities, school districts or transportation organizations. Officials of all of them have been waiting for this day on pins and needles in hopes that The Terminator will announce that budget woes won't result in drastic reductions in Sacramento's largesse. Schwarzenegger's initial reaction to the state budget deficit was to propose a 10 percent decrease in projected spending across the board. Local officials have, in turn, planned to reduce their own spending. Tuesday night, the Board of Education in the city of San Diego voted to layoff 617 teachers. That followed the firings of 1,200 classified employees. Smaller districts around the county have also let workers go.
None of this was necessary. The state of California was given a valuable lesson in the early-2000s when the tech bubble burst, forcing the government to scramble to cover budget deficits. The legislature, governor and interest groups that back propositions all pushed spending into orbit when times were good, and the local governments gleefully grabbed their extra shares of cash. When the double whammy of the end of the tech bubble and 9/11 struck, they were out of luck. So when the housing bubble came along, did the state change the way it budgets its money? No. Spending increases under Schwarzenegger aren't much less than they were under his predecessor, who was recalled. Then the housing bubble burst and the slowing economy means that California is receiving exponentially larger sums of revenue each year.
So what we have in the Golden State is a great big mess. My more pointed question of whether the state has become an actual detriment to the public good is answered.
What actual services does the state of California provide?
-- It manages our driving through driver's licenses and patrols of freeways and rural highways, and manages highway construction and maintenance,
-- It provides rural fire protection and regionwide fire coordination and command,
-- It operates two large systems of universities, and manages K-12 education,
-- It manages state parks, waterways and wildlife,
-- And it manages the state courts and prison system.
There are hundreds of agencies, including some tasks we've assigned to the state such as the Bureau of Automotive Repair and the California Coastal Commission. Some are strictly duplicative of federal agencies -- see, we can do that, too! -- or are political fiefdoms like the High-Speed Rail Authority (we have no high-speed rail system and are unlikely to get one).
Let's take the major listed functions. I have no quibble with the Department of Motor Vehicles, but the California Department of Transportation might give less bang for the buck than any other state agency. Despite a flood of money, the freeways in California are in pitiful condition. Traffic jams are monstrous. Transportation planning is now done at the county level. With the federal government's interest in the Interstate Highway System, cutting the state out of the freeway business would greatly improve our transportation interests. If the federal government were to directly fund county governments, transportation problems would be reduced.
Like the DMV, I also have little problem with the agency now known as Cal Fire. In covering the San Diego County wildfires of 2003 and 2007, I came to highly respect the incident commanders and firefighters. The captains are great people. Their leaders in Sacramento suck, hampering local firefighting efforts with their policies -- not at the time of the fires but in their previous decisions. Many counties have their own fire departments that handle Cal Fire responsibilities.
The operation of public universities is a well-accepted state function. In California, they are run poorly. Community colleges are funded by the state but are actually operated by local districts.
California also funds K-12 education, which many people have come to believe is the most important thing the state does. However, the education activists who are pushing for ever greater state funding for their cause are the same ones who have made education a federal priority. This is where things get cloudy. I agree that education is one of the top five functions of government, but who is really in charge here? Local districts? Counties? The state which funds them? Or the federal government, which provides additional tax dollars?
Needless to say, there's a lot of layers here, which means too much money is going to administration and too little to classrooms.
The state park system and Department of Fish and Game are more agencies which duplicate federal functions or could be handled at the county level. Neither break the bank, though.
The state courts, except for the courts of appeal and the Supreme Court, are actually run by the counties.
The bogeyman for the state budget crisis is the Department of Corrections. Both Davis and Schwarzenegger have allowed massive pay increases to state prison guards, while a lot of money has gone toward building new penitentiaries, which become overflowing by the time they're open. And the education proponents claim that if they're funded better, the prisons would be less necessary. Of course, if the instruction they provided was effective, the prisons would also be unnecessary.
We've had dueling state and federal justice systems for two centuries. We can't change now. So what we have are states that fund educational systems for citizens who want to get ahead, and prisons for those who do not.
At any rate, go to the Web site of your state government and click on the link that lists all the agencies. If you don't say "huh?" at least three times, then you're officially a wonk. Unless the California Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind or Minnesota's Board of Podiatric Medicine are essential state functions and I'm just missing something.
The bottom line is that, at least in California, so much of the state government is unnecessary or duplicative and that which is needed is operated poorly. I'm sure the situation in many other states is similar, though maybe not as bad.
Other than a couple essential functions listed, states more than anything are becoming little more than giant funding distribution centers, sending money off to local jurisdictions and agencies much like a mother dog to her litter. We're getting to the point where states are going to have to justify their existence. If not in total, then at least for their budgets. California desperately needs to rebuild its structure and budget from the ground up and justify the existence of every department and function. Fortunately, new State Assembly Speaker Karen Bass seems to grasp that current budgeting practices are failing. As a politician, though, she will run into too many entrenched interests to effect real change. That will eventually have to be imposed by voters.
---
I have nothing against states or states' rights. Some of the state functions I listed are well-placed, if not well-executed.
I also think states can be useful in defining differences in geography and Americans as people. Arizona has the desert, Colorado the Rocky Mountains, Texas the plains and New Jersey the ... the ..., well, uh, never mind. As people, we have much in common, but there are also substantial differences between laid-back Southern Californian's and hard-driving New Yorkers, and between San Francisco wine-sippers and Texas oilmen.
That's why I think the Electoral College is brilliant and needs to be maintained, despite the occasional odd 2000 result. There are differences in priorities, needs and desires between people in the state of Washington and residents of Georgia. Presidential candidates would never visit North Dakota if its three electoral votes weren't critical.
So there's plenty to say for keeping states intact.
On the other hand, California might be too big. There's an axis between Los Angeles and San Francisco, no question. I've lived in the suburbs of both, so I know. San Diego has some obvious connections to LA but doesn't have any to the Bay Area as far as I can tell. The Padres and the Giants are both in the National League West, and that's all. America's Finest City has a far more significant relationship with Arizona.
You can divide California into three distinct states, really. Southern California. The Central Valley from south of Bakersfield to north of Sacramento. Northern California from San Luis Obispo north through the Bay Area.
---
Gov. Schwarzenegger announced the budget deficit is up to $17.2 billion but believes he can fully fund education requirements. We'll see.
Just about every local government agency in California is dependent on funding from the state, whether they be counties, municipalities, school districts or transportation organizations. Officials of all of them have been waiting for this day on pins and needles in hopes that The Terminator will announce that budget woes won't result in drastic reductions in Sacramento's largesse. Schwarzenegger's initial reaction to the state budget deficit was to propose a 10 percent decrease in projected spending across the board. Local officials have, in turn, planned to reduce their own spending. Tuesday night, the Board of Education in the city of San Diego voted to layoff 617 teachers. That followed the firings of 1,200 classified employees. Smaller districts around the county have also let workers go.
None of this was necessary. The state of California was given a valuable lesson in the early-2000s when the tech bubble burst, forcing the government to scramble to cover budget deficits. The legislature, governor and interest groups that back propositions all pushed spending into orbit when times were good, and the local governments gleefully grabbed their extra shares of cash. When the double whammy of the end of the tech bubble and 9/11 struck, they were out of luck. So when the housing bubble came along, did the state change the way it budgets its money? No. Spending increases under Schwarzenegger aren't much less than they were under his predecessor, who was recalled. Then the housing bubble burst and the slowing economy means that California is receiving exponentially larger sums of revenue each year.
So what we have in the Golden State is a great big mess. My more pointed question of whether the state has become an actual detriment to the public good is answered.
What actual services does the state of California provide?
-- It manages our driving through driver's licenses and patrols of freeways and rural highways, and manages highway construction and maintenance,
-- It provides rural fire protection and regionwide fire coordination and command,
-- It operates two large systems of universities, and manages K-12 education,
-- It manages state parks, waterways and wildlife,
-- And it manages the state courts and prison system.
There are hundreds of agencies, including some tasks we've assigned to the state such as the Bureau of Automotive Repair and the California Coastal Commission. Some are strictly duplicative of federal agencies -- see, we can do that, too! -- or are political fiefdoms like the High-Speed Rail Authority (we have no high-speed rail system and are unlikely to get one).
Let's take the major listed functions. I have no quibble with the Department of Motor Vehicles, but the California Department of Transportation might give less bang for the buck than any other state agency. Despite a flood of money, the freeways in California are in pitiful condition. Traffic jams are monstrous. Transportation planning is now done at the county level. With the federal government's interest in the Interstate Highway System, cutting the state out of the freeway business would greatly improve our transportation interests. If the federal government were to directly fund county governments, transportation problems would be reduced.
Like the DMV, I also have little problem with the agency now known as Cal Fire. In covering the San Diego County wildfires of 2003 and 2007, I came to highly respect the incident commanders and firefighters. The captains are great people. Their leaders in Sacramento suck, hampering local firefighting efforts with their policies -- not at the time of the fires but in their previous decisions. Many counties have their own fire departments that handle Cal Fire responsibilities.
The operation of public universities is a well-accepted state function. In California, they are run poorly. Community colleges are funded by the state but are actually operated by local districts.
California also funds K-12 education, which many people have come to believe is the most important thing the state does. However, the education activists who are pushing for ever greater state funding for their cause are the same ones who have made education a federal priority. This is where things get cloudy. I agree that education is one of the top five functions of government, but who is really in charge here? Local districts? Counties? The state which funds them? Or the federal government, which provides additional tax dollars?
Needless to say, there's a lot of layers here, which means too much money is going to administration and too little to classrooms.
The state park system and Department of Fish and Game are more agencies which duplicate federal functions or could be handled at the county level. Neither break the bank, though.
The state courts, except for the courts of appeal and the Supreme Court, are actually run by the counties.
The bogeyman for the state budget crisis is the Department of Corrections. Both Davis and Schwarzenegger have allowed massive pay increases to state prison guards, while a lot of money has gone toward building new penitentiaries, which become overflowing by the time they're open. And the education proponents claim that if they're funded better, the prisons would be less necessary. Of course, if the instruction they provided was effective, the prisons would also be unnecessary.
We've had dueling state and federal justice systems for two centuries. We can't change now. So what we have are states that fund educational systems for citizens who want to get ahead, and prisons for those who do not.
At any rate, go to the Web site of your state government and click on the link that lists all the agencies. If you don't say "huh?" at least three times, then you're officially a wonk. Unless the California Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind or Minnesota's Board of Podiatric Medicine are essential state functions and I'm just missing something.
The bottom line is that, at least in California, so much of the state government is unnecessary or duplicative and that which is needed is operated poorly. I'm sure the situation in many other states is similar, though maybe not as bad.
Other than a couple essential functions listed, states more than anything are becoming little more than giant funding distribution centers, sending money off to local jurisdictions and agencies much like a mother dog to her litter. We're getting to the point where states are going to have to justify their existence. If not in total, then at least for their budgets. California desperately needs to rebuild its structure and budget from the ground up and justify the existence of every department and function. Fortunately, new State Assembly Speaker Karen Bass seems to grasp that current budgeting practices are failing. As a politician, though, she will run into too many entrenched interests to effect real change. That will eventually have to be imposed by voters.
---
I have nothing against states or states' rights. Some of the state functions I listed are well-placed, if not well-executed.
I also think states can be useful in defining differences in geography and Americans as people. Arizona has the desert, Colorado the Rocky Mountains, Texas the plains and New Jersey the ... the ..., well, uh, never mind. As people, we have much in common, but there are also substantial differences between laid-back Southern Californian's and hard-driving New Yorkers, and between San Francisco wine-sippers and Texas oilmen.
That's why I think the Electoral College is brilliant and needs to be maintained, despite the occasional odd 2000 result. There are differences in priorities, needs and desires between people in the state of Washington and residents of Georgia. Presidential candidates would never visit North Dakota if its three electoral votes weren't critical.
So there's plenty to say for keeping states intact.
On the other hand, California might be too big. There's an axis between Los Angeles and San Francisco, no question. I've lived in the suburbs of both, so I know. San Diego has some obvious connections to LA but doesn't have any to the Bay Area as far as I can tell. The Padres and the Giants are both in the National League West, and that's all. America's Finest City has a far more significant relationship with Arizona.
You can divide California into three distinct states, really. Southern California. The Central Valley from south of Bakersfield to north of Sacramento. Northern California from San Luis Obispo north through the Bay Area.
---
Gov. Schwarzenegger announced the budget deficit is up to $17.2 billion but believes he can fully fund education requirements. We'll see.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Dollar on the Rise; Blame Venezuela For Oil Cost
There's two stories out there that are not getting wide play but are very important to our economic condition.
1. The value of the dollar is increasing, not decreasing. This trend was finally noted Monday and was partly responsible for the rise in the stock market.
2. Computer documents found in possession of a Colombian terrorist leader killed in that cross-border assault recently present clear evidence that Venezuela's Hugo Chavez is providing direct assistance to the FARC terror group and has offered even more help.
The greenback has, with some fits and starts, climbed against the Japanese Yen since it hit a low point on March 17. We're nowhere close to the highs of a couple of years ago, but it's a start. The dollar has climbed steadily against the Euro since a low struck on April 22. Again, there's a long way to go, but the direction is the correct one.
It was reported that when the U.S. Federal Reserve cut interest rates on the most recent occasion, there was a signal that it would be the last such reduction. The dollar has climbed since, since rate cuts depress investor interest in cash -- and an anticipated end to rate cuts would be considered favorably by those who direct their wealth that direction.
Therefore, the value of the dollar cannot account for the recent spike in the price of a barrel of oil to $126 -- which it reached today before slipping a couple bucks. So what was the cause?
Look to story number two, Venezuela and its support for FARC. About 11 percent of the oil imported from the United States comes from Venezuela. Think Citgo. The discovery of the documents according to some will make it nearly impossible to avoid some sort of a response from the Bush administration. If, for example, Venezuela is added to the list of state sponsors of terrorism, that 11 percent vanishes from the marketplace and the oil markets are scrambled.
So both stories, good and bad, are critical and deserve continued watching. You just might have to look hard to find information about them.
---
In March 2002, a barrel of crude oil cost $25 and the price of gas was under $2. Here's my rule of thumb on the responsibility for the increase.
-- $25 to $45 from increased demand by China, India and other developing nations.
-- $45 to $70 from the war in Iraq.
-- $70 to $80 from the confrontation with Iran over nuclear weapons.
-- $80 to $95 from speculation and the desire of oil producing countries to maximize prices.
-- $95 to $110 from the drop in the value of the dollar.
-- $110 to $123, where it closed Monday, because of Venezuela.
---
The situation in Venezuela shines more light on the failure of our national leadership. The speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, refuses to allow consideration of a trade deal with Colombia because her union backers are mad that some trade union officials have been killed in the South American country. I've heard that the union worries are overblown. I don't know the true situation.
Anyway, Colombia is the nation FARC has been revolting against for 50 years but now that the cocaine cartels have been removed, it's become one of the most stable and U.S. friendly countries in that part of the world. For the U.S. Congress to not even be allowed to consider a trade deal considered important to both sides borders on tragedy. And now that these documents have been uncovered, support for Colombia and other nation's targeted by Chavez, Peru and El Salvador, has to be greatly enhanced.
Yet, I checked some news sites and there's nothing about the trade pact being brought back to the table. No statements from Pelosi on her Web site about it.
In some ways, as I've passed along comments regarding the election and various political situations, I feel like I've ignored the overall thrust of this blog, which is that we need a complete overhaul of national leadership. The ignored Colombia trade pact is a great example of why such a thing is imperative.
1. The value of the dollar is increasing, not decreasing. This trend was finally noted Monday and was partly responsible for the rise in the stock market.
2. Computer documents found in possession of a Colombian terrorist leader killed in that cross-border assault recently present clear evidence that Venezuela's Hugo Chavez is providing direct assistance to the FARC terror group and has offered even more help.
The greenback has, with some fits and starts, climbed against the Japanese Yen since it hit a low point on March 17. We're nowhere close to the highs of a couple of years ago, but it's a start. The dollar has climbed steadily against the Euro since a low struck on April 22. Again, there's a long way to go, but the direction is the correct one.
It was reported that when the U.S. Federal Reserve cut interest rates on the most recent occasion, there was a signal that it would be the last such reduction. The dollar has climbed since, since rate cuts depress investor interest in cash -- and an anticipated end to rate cuts would be considered favorably by those who direct their wealth that direction.
Therefore, the value of the dollar cannot account for the recent spike in the price of a barrel of oil to $126 -- which it reached today before slipping a couple bucks. So what was the cause?
Look to story number two, Venezuela and its support for FARC. About 11 percent of the oil imported from the United States comes from Venezuela. Think Citgo. The discovery of the documents according to some will make it nearly impossible to avoid some sort of a response from the Bush administration. If, for example, Venezuela is added to the list of state sponsors of terrorism, that 11 percent vanishes from the marketplace and the oil markets are scrambled.
So both stories, good and bad, are critical and deserve continued watching. You just might have to look hard to find information about them.
---
In March 2002, a barrel of crude oil cost $25 and the price of gas was under $2. Here's my rule of thumb on the responsibility for the increase.
-- $25 to $45 from increased demand by China, India and other developing nations.
-- $45 to $70 from the war in Iraq.
-- $70 to $80 from the confrontation with Iran over nuclear weapons.
-- $80 to $95 from speculation and the desire of oil producing countries to maximize prices.
-- $95 to $110 from the drop in the value of the dollar.
-- $110 to $123, where it closed Monday, because of Venezuela.
---
The situation in Venezuela shines more light on the failure of our national leadership. The speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, refuses to allow consideration of a trade deal with Colombia because her union backers are mad that some trade union officials have been killed in the South American country. I've heard that the union worries are overblown. I don't know the true situation.
Anyway, Colombia is the nation FARC has been revolting against for 50 years but now that the cocaine cartels have been removed, it's become one of the most stable and U.S. friendly countries in that part of the world. For the U.S. Congress to not even be allowed to consider a trade deal considered important to both sides borders on tragedy. And now that these documents have been uncovered, support for Colombia and other nation's targeted by Chavez, Peru and El Salvador, has to be greatly enhanced.
Yet, I checked some news sites and there's nothing about the trade pact being brought back to the table. No statements from Pelosi on her Web site about it.
In some ways, as I've passed along comments regarding the election and various political situations, I feel like I've ignored the overall thrust of this blog, which is that we need a complete overhaul of national leadership. The ignored Colombia trade pact is a great example of why such a thing is imperative.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Hillary - Wrong Candidate at Wrong Time, Obama's Beer
There are a lot of post-mortems being written about the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign at the end of this week. Most have been pretty good about pointing out the symptoms but missed the disease.
Looking back on it, Clinton never had a chance once Barack Obama struck a chord with the hope and change theme. It's something I've been harping on ever since I started this blog a year ago. People want real substantive change in our national leadership. The candidate who tapped this desire best would win their party's nomination. Obama and McCain are where they are today for a reason.
Hillary Clinton is simply what people want a change from. Someone willing to swing wildly back and forth in her positions and talking points depending on which way the wind was blowing is not who we're looking for. Her connection with her husband's administration did her little good, and probably hurt more than helped. The Clinton and Bush presidencies were all about gaining political advantage over their opponents. Heck, Bill Clinton didn't even have a presidency. It was an eight-year campaign. Where Bush has been solid in putting the needs of the country first, in his response to 9/11, he screwed it up with his partisan wrangling and inability to clearly explain why we needed to use our military in the Middle East.
So Hillary was doomed no matter whether she was the candidate of the party bosses or the champion of the Pennsylvania farmer.
Now it looks like we're going to have a Republican candidate in John McCain who tells it as it is, like it or not, against a Democrat in Barack Obama with the ability to inspire. They represent what we want in the White House in the next four years -- though Obama's recent difficulties have dulled his previous luster.
Hillary Clinton in no way was going to be able to satisfy voter longing for change or plain talk. It wasn't possible and neither, as it turned out, was her nomination.
---
Obama, the noted candidate of the wine-and-cheese crowd, prominently positioned himself as a beer drinker Tuesday at a bar in Raliegh. He stopped in, reportedly scanned the selections and ordered the lowest-cost beer on the menu, Pabst Blue Ribbon.
You probably have seen photographs and video of the Illinois senator hoisting his beer with the crowd. Every image I've seen shows the beer glass FULL! I'm sure he had a sip or two. Finishing it probably would not have been a wise move, sure. But did he even go half way on his PBR? Inquiring minds want to know. Obama, who doesn't need to pander, hurts himself when he does so.
He's going to end up with some sort of Clintonesque "I smoked but I didn't inhale" tag. "I drank but my glass remained full" in his case.
I'm a craft beer guy, by the way. Fat Tire is the best. Many of the microbrews in San Diego County are awesome. I finish mine.
Looking back on it, Clinton never had a chance once Barack Obama struck a chord with the hope and change theme. It's something I've been harping on ever since I started this blog a year ago. People want real substantive change in our national leadership. The candidate who tapped this desire best would win their party's nomination. Obama and McCain are where they are today for a reason.
Hillary Clinton is simply what people want a change from. Someone willing to swing wildly back and forth in her positions and talking points depending on which way the wind was blowing is not who we're looking for. Her connection with her husband's administration did her little good, and probably hurt more than helped. The Clinton and Bush presidencies were all about gaining political advantage over their opponents. Heck, Bill Clinton didn't even have a presidency. It was an eight-year campaign. Where Bush has been solid in putting the needs of the country first, in his response to 9/11, he screwed it up with his partisan wrangling and inability to clearly explain why we needed to use our military in the Middle East.
So Hillary was doomed no matter whether she was the candidate of the party bosses or the champion of the Pennsylvania farmer.
Now it looks like we're going to have a Republican candidate in John McCain who tells it as it is, like it or not, against a Democrat in Barack Obama with the ability to inspire. They represent what we want in the White House in the next four years -- though Obama's recent difficulties have dulled his previous luster.
Hillary Clinton in no way was going to be able to satisfy voter longing for change or plain talk. It wasn't possible and neither, as it turned out, was her nomination.
---
Obama, the noted candidate of the wine-and-cheese crowd, prominently positioned himself as a beer drinker Tuesday at a bar in Raliegh. He stopped in, reportedly scanned the selections and ordered the lowest-cost beer on the menu, Pabst Blue Ribbon.
You probably have seen photographs and video of the Illinois senator hoisting his beer with the crowd. Every image I've seen shows the beer glass FULL! I'm sure he had a sip or two. Finishing it probably would not have been a wise move, sure. But did he even go half way on his PBR? Inquiring minds want to know. Obama, who doesn't need to pander, hurts himself when he does so.
He's going to end up with some sort of Clintonesque "I smoked but I didn't inhale" tag. "I drank but my glass remained full" in his case.
I'm a craft beer guy, by the way. Fat Tire is the best. Many of the microbrews in San Diego County are awesome. I finish mine.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Add to the Get it/Don't Get it List
I have additions today to the two Americas concept I brought up earlier this week, those who get it and those who are completely without a clue.
Gets it: San Diego State University President Dr. Stephen Weber, who responded to the fatal overdoses of a pair of coeds last year by providing support for university police, the Drug Enforcement Administration and District Attorney's Office in an undercover operation that resulted in 96 arrests, including 75 students. The initial announcement was something of an embarrassment for the school, but as more information came out about the way the operation was handled, Weber and SDSU look very good right now. Weber and the university saw a problem and attacked it head on. If Barack Obama were as upfront on critical issues as Weber was on this one, he'd be drafting his inaugural speech right now.
No clue: there were actually protesters Wednesday who complained against the "heavy-handedness" of the DEA and claimed the arrests created "a climate of fear" on campus. And get this, some of the protesters were PARENTS. That's all we need, a bunch of second-generation junkies who fall over dead in chemistry class. They actually set up 75 empty chairs to represent the 75 students who will no longer be able to graduate from SDSU. I'm serious.
---
So Hillary Clinton is not dropping out of the race for the Democrat presidential nomination. The question is why, since there's no way she'll gain enough delegates to defeat Obama.
The most logical reason is that she just wants to get through the last significant primaries through May 20 to let the voters have their say. She could go to the end on June 3, then back out. She might see it as an honorable course, like a golfer finishing 18 holes despite being hopelessly behind the leader. The idea that she might be able to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations and somehow eek out the nomination in Denver seems to be moot by now. There's talk of her maybe turning her focus to a vice-presidential appointment, but I have a hard time seeing that one work.
There's one more possibility. Maybe it's just me, but I've kind of assumed that between the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the terrorist fundraiser and Tony Rezko, all the skeletons in Obama's closet have been revealed. But we really don't know that for sure, do we? A lot of stuff seems to have come out of thin air, either from things not being reported previously or from the candidate or his wife making a mistake.
I can't believe Hillary Clinton would sit and wait for Barack Obama to make another error in judgment, or for Michelle Obama to come out and say something stupid again. Plus, his mistakes have not been too costly among Democrats. He's still leading, after all.
That leaves the nuclear option. The big one. Information to be leaked that would drive her opponent from the race. If the things that have hurt him with the general population aren't working with Democrats, how about something that shows him to be too conservative? Like an internal memo in which he suggests that we'll have to remain in Iraq?
I wouldn't count that out. I would not bet on it either. Of course, my betting track record so far in this election season isn't worth much. My guess is that the Clinton camp considered Wright to be their trump card and it didn't work.
Clinton probably just wants to finish the race with her head held high before she concedes.
Gets it: San Diego State University President Dr. Stephen Weber, who responded to the fatal overdoses of a pair of coeds last year by providing support for university police, the Drug Enforcement Administration and District Attorney's Office in an undercover operation that resulted in 96 arrests, including 75 students. The initial announcement was something of an embarrassment for the school, but as more information came out about the way the operation was handled, Weber and SDSU look very good right now. Weber and the university saw a problem and attacked it head on. If Barack Obama were as upfront on critical issues as Weber was on this one, he'd be drafting his inaugural speech right now.
No clue: there were actually protesters Wednesday who complained against the "heavy-handedness" of the DEA and claimed the arrests created "a climate of fear" on campus. And get this, some of the protesters were PARENTS. That's all we need, a bunch of second-generation junkies who fall over dead in chemistry class. They actually set up 75 empty chairs to represent the 75 students who will no longer be able to graduate from SDSU. I'm serious.
---
So Hillary Clinton is not dropping out of the race for the Democrat presidential nomination. The question is why, since there's no way she'll gain enough delegates to defeat Obama.
The most logical reason is that she just wants to get through the last significant primaries through May 20 to let the voters have their say. She could go to the end on June 3, then back out. She might see it as an honorable course, like a golfer finishing 18 holes despite being hopelessly behind the leader. The idea that she might be able to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations and somehow eek out the nomination in Denver seems to be moot by now. There's talk of her maybe turning her focus to a vice-presidential appointment, but I have a hard time seeing that one work.
There's one more possibility. Maybe it's just me, but I've kind of assumed that between the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the terrorist fundraiser and Tony Rezko, all the skeletons in Obama's closet have been revealed. But we really don't know that for sure, do we? A lot of stuff seems to have come out of thin air, either from things not being reported previously or from the candidate or his wife making a mistake.
I can't believe Hillary Clinton would sit and wait for Barack Obama to make another error in judgment, or for Michelle Obama to come out and say something stupid again. Plus, his mistakes have not been too costly among Democrats. He's still leading, after all.
That leaves the nuclear option. The big one. Information to be leaked that would drive her opponent from the race. If the things that have hurt him with the general population aren't working with Democrats, how about something that shows him to be too conservative? Like an internal memo in which he suggests that we'll have to remain in Iraq?
I wouldn't count that out. I would not bet on it either. Of course, my betting track record so far in this election season isn't worth much. My guess is that the Clinton camp considered Wright to be their trump card and it didn't work.
Clinton probably just wants to finish the race with her head held high before she concedes.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Agree That Obama's All but Sewed it Up
Most of the after-action reports from the North Carolina and Indiana primaries claim that Barack Obama, with an overwhelming win in the first state and a near-upset in the second, has all but sewed up the Democratic nomination -- and I have to agree.
Completely unlike Pennsylvania, which went just the way everyone thought it would and failed to advance the campaign plotline, the voters in Tuesday's states moved the party nomination decisively toward Obama.
Not only was the 56-32 victory in North Carolina by the Illinois senator larger than expected, his 51-49 loss in Indiana -- a result in doubt by late ballot-counting in the Chicago suburbs -- was closer than anticipated.
Those are just numbers, though. The bigger story is that Democrats are not making Obama pay for his association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright or other dubious Chicago political figures. Either they're okay with them, or they just don't see Hillary Clinton as an alternative for hope and change. What we'd expect to see under such conditions is Hillary closing the gap in North Carolina and winning Indiana by a wider margin. Neither happened.
That being the case, this race is over. Give her West Virginia and Kentucky and hand Oregon to Obama and be done with the primary campaign.
On to the general election, with McCain vs. Obama. If you'd offered me a bet last summer that this would be the match-up, first I'd have laughed at you and second I'd have accepted just about any wager. Good thing I don't gamble much.
---
I've mentioned several times why Obama's troubles haven't hurt him so far, the main issue being the Rev. Wright. First, the lack of an alternative candidate. Second, that liberals in the Democratic party hear this stuff from college professors or friends all the time and either roll their eyes or agree with it.
Here's a third explanation: people don't necessarily understand the nature of the issue. Take a political cartoon the other day by Mike Lukovich of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. It showed a couple people looking at images of high gas prices, a falling dollar and a foreclosed home, while a suited elephant representing a Republican taps on their shoulders and says "Look, it's Rev. Wright!"
Well, fine, except that Wright himself isn't the problem. It's how Obama conducted himself once the pastor's statements received publicity. He acted just like a politician. It wasn't what we'd seen previously from someone promising change in the way our leaders do things.
What the Wright issue, and other problems, show is that Obama is a typical politician masking himself in change's clothing. It looks like it'll work enough to hold on in the primaries. Whether it works in the general election is questionable.
---
Gas tax math: I thought that the idea of a summer federal gas tax holiday was a good idea to bring up for John McCain and Hillary Clinton, a way that they could show voters that they're trying to think outside the box and help struggling consumers. I'm not sure it's the best idea in the world.
Obama is pretty sure it's not a good idea. His claim is that for all the trouble it would cause, the average consumer would save just $25-30 over the three month period. However, assuming you pay 30 cents per gallon more than a few months ago, and figuring a once-a-week fill-up in an 18-gallon tank, the price increase means you'll shell out (sorry for the pun) an extra $70 for the 13-week summer season.
That amount is significant, but spread over three months, it won't break the middle class family budget. It's dinner for five at your average sit-down chain restaurant. So if saving $30 over 13 weeksisn't worth much, then forking over an extra $70 over the same period isn't really a political issue. You can't have it both ways.
Besides, the real beneficiaries aren't your 9-to-5 office workers who need to fill their tanks to get around. Those who will benefit are the small business guys who are hurting big time right now -- truckers, taxi drivers, deliverymen, etc. They need help as soon as they can get it, and the money they'll save this summer will be much more than $30.
---
Kicking himself right now is John Edwards. If he'd held on in the campaign, his home state of North Carolina might have propelled him to front-runner status.
---
I'm all for helping to alleviate the human suffering in Burma, but the price has to be regime change. Let's not tell the junta what this price is, since they obviously would not accept it, but I bet if some of the courageous nations in the world -- and their number is disappointingly few -- got together they could oust these dictators pretty easily and get these poor people back on the road to democracy.
Unfortunately, simple logistics and the vast scale of damage from the cyclone means that few of us will be able to help quickly. So we have to think long term. Besides the normal aid one delivers in emergencies, we should also deliver liberation. It's the best aid we could ever give them.
Completely unlike Pennsylvania, which went just the way everyone thought it would and failed to advance the campaign plotline, the voters in Tuesday's states moved the party nomination decisively toward Obama.
Not only was the 56-32 victory in North Carolina by the Illinois senator larger than expected, his 51-49 loss in Indiana -- a result in doubt by late ballot-counting in the Chicago suburbs -- was closer than anticipated.
Those are just numbers, though. The bigger story is that Democrats are not making Obama pay for his association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright or other dubious Chicago political figures. Either they're okay with them, or they just don't see Hillary Clinton as an alternative for hope and change. What we'd expect to see under such conditions is Hillary closing the gap in North Carolina and winning Indiana by a wider margin. Neither happened.
That being the case, this race is over. Give her West Virginia and Kentucky and hand Oregon to Obama and be done with the primary campaign.
On to the general election, with McCain vs. Obama. If you'd offered me a bet last summer that this would be the match-up, first I'd have laughed at you and second I'd have accepted just about any wager. Good thing I don't gamble much.
---
I've mentioned several times why Obama's troubles haven't hurt him so far, the main issue being the Rev. Wright. First, the lack of an alternative candidate. Second, that liberals in the Democratic party hear this stuff from college professors or friends all the time and either roll their eyes or agree with it.
Here's a third explanation: people don't necessarily understand the nature of the issue. Take a political cartoon the other day by Mike Lukovich of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. It showed a couple people looking at images of high gas prices, a falling dollar and a foreclosed home, while a suited elephant representing a Republican taps on their shoulders and says "Look, it's Rev. Wright!"
Well, fine, except that Wright himself isn't the problem. It's how Obama conducted himself once the pastor's statements received publicity. He acted just like a politician. It wasn't what we'd seen previously from someone promising change in the way our leaders do things.
What the Wright issue, and other problems, show is that Obama is a typical politician masking himself in change's clothing. It looks like it'll work enough to hold on in the primaries. Whether it works in the general election is questionable.
---
Gas tax math: I thought that the idea of a summer federal gas tax holiday was a good idea to bring up for John McCain and Hillary Clinton, a way that they could show voters that they're trying to think outside the box and help struggling consumers. I'm not sure it's the best idea in the world.
Obama is pretty sure it's not a good idea. His claim is that for all the trouble it would cause, the average consumer would save just $25-30 over the three month period. However, assuming you pay 30 cents per gallon more than a few months ago, and figuring a once-a-week fill-up in an 18-gallon tank, the price increase means you'll shell out (sorry for the pun) an extra $70 for the 13-week summer season.
That amount is significant, but spread over three months, it won't break the middle class family budget. It's dinner for five at your average sit-down chain restaurant. So if saving $30 over 13 weeksisn't worth much, then forking over an extra $70 over the same period isn't really a political issue. You can't have it both ways.
Besides, the real beneficiaries aren't your 9-to-5 office workers who need to fill their tanks to get around. Those who will benefit are the small business guys who are hurting big time right now -- truckers, taxi drivers, deliverymen, etc. They need help as soon as they can get it, and the money they'll save this summer will be much more than $30.
---
Kicking himself right now is John Edwards. If he'd held on in the campaign, his home state of North Carolina might have propelled him to front-runner status.
---
I'm all for helping to alleviate the human suffering in Burma, but the price has to be regime change. Let's not tell the junta what this price is, since they obviously would not accept it, but I bet if some of the courageous nations in the world -- and their number is disappointingly few -- got together they could oust these dictators pretty easily and get these poor people back on the road to democracy.
Unfortunately, simple logistics and the vast scale of damage from the cyclone means that few of us will be able to help quickly. So we have to think long term. Besides the normal aid one delivers in emergencies, we should also deliver liberation. It's the best aid we could ever give them.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Escapee, Softball Players Show Two Americas
Recent events in the news demonstrate how there really are two Americas, though the dividing line is not economic, as former presidential candidate John Edwards would have you believe. Rather, the line between the two Americas separates those who get it and those who don't have an f-ing clue.
You'd be hard-pressed to find a starker difference between supporters of a Michigan prison escapee who spent 32 years hiding as a wife and mother in the upscale San Diego suburb of Carmel Valley, and the softball players at Central Washington and Southern Oregon universities.
In the first story, Susan Lefevre was sentenced to 10-20 years in prison for selling heroin to an undercover policeman in Saginaw, Mich., which at the time was besieged by a drug war that had its murder toll approaching the recent annual number in San Diego, one of the largest cities in the United States. A year later, she escaped, and since lived as Marie Walsh in a posh neighborhood, an attractive 53-year-old mother of three. By all accounts, she'd left her previous way of life well behind her.
However, someone tipped off authorities to her true identity and in late-April, she was arrested. She's waived extradition and is due to be sent back to Michigan anytime now to serve out her sentence. Her family and her friends, as you might expect, are devastated.
What's disturbing is the outpouring of support that Lefevre-Walsh is receiving from the community. Although overblown news coverage probably makes her support look bigger than it really is, there appears to be a lot of people out there who think the authorities should just let her go. Forget the whole thing. She's been a clean, upstanding citizen for 32 years and it was "just" a drug crime. Let her go.
What is it that makes people think she shouldn't have to actually serve her debt to society? She wasn't dealing marijuana. She was selling heroin, which often kills people and has addictive properties that users never truly escape. The killings in Saginaw back in the mid-70s. Whether it was just a one-time thing as she claims or whether she was a big-time dealer as the prosecution said, I have no idea, but being involved in heroin in any way is awfully serious.
Letting her walk away from a prison commitment, and letting her get away with it, would make a mockery of our criminal justice system. But, hey, she's reformed herself. Those who died or have lifelong substance abuse issues because of her actions, directly or indirectly, well who cares about them? Talk about elitism.
Plus, just how reformed is this woman? Her original family was stuck wondering about her whereabouts all of these years. She played her husband for a fool and left her children wondering whether they can ever believe anything their mother ever said to them. What was her message to them about drugs? Those 32 years she was "clean," she was actually living a lie. We're just assuming she lived a clean adult life because we're told she did. Reporters who've interviewed her in jail say she's downplayed her actions in Michigan, so again, how reformed is she?
I in no way suggest that she go back to prison for what will amount to a significant chunk of her the remainder of her life. Lord knows she's not the only one in the world with a past that she'd rather leave behind. But there are better ways for her family, friends and other supporters can back her than to just plead for her to not have to be returned to prison.
Once she's settled back in prison in Michigan, her lawyer there will ask Gov. Jennifer Granholm to commute her sentence. While I question her honesty, her living within the law the last three decades does count for something within our legal system. While Granholm's record in granting clemency is reportedly not in Lefever's favor, it's doubtful that she's ever been presented with a case like this. That's where the support has to go. Her family and her friends should make sure that her lawyer has a strong case to give the governor.
There's a growing tendency among us to try to excuse the malfeasance of others. Look how we tried to understand the motivations of the 9/11 hijackers. Most of us wanted to understand them so we could prevent such a thing from happening again, but too many others wanted to use such knowledge to excuse their atrocities. Their attack on us was our fault, that sort of thing.
For Lefever, the line is that her offense was a drug crime long, long ago. Drug offenses are victimless crimes, too, aren't they? Well, no. That's just hiding your head in the sand because victims are all over the place, many in prison, many dead. More than anything else, they're often out of sight. I had a conversation with a very talented public defender a couple of months ago in which he said 90 percent of our jail cells could be emptied if people stopped using drugs and we, as a society, truly confronted mental illness. The fact of the matter is that drug use destroys lives. I'm not talking about pot, I'm talking about the hard stuff like heroin. Like what Susan Lefever once sold to an undercover cop.
She has to go to back to prison first. For her supporters not to understand this, or try to lessen the importance of drug crimes, is just wrong-headed. Strangely enough, Lefever herself seems to understand this better than those who back her.
On the other side of the ledger, here are some folks who get it. Sports fans already know the story. Here it is in a nutshell in case you don't: Southern Oregon softball senior Sara Tucholsky hit the first home run of her career last week to give the Wolves a victory over Central Washington and a spot in the Division II playoffs. The two runners already on base scored to tie the game but Tucholsky missed first base and collapsed in a heap when she turned around to touch the bag, a victim of a torn ACL. When umpires cited rules that teammates were not allowed to help Tucholsky circuit the bases, Central Washington first baseman Mallory Holtman and shortstop Liz Wallace picked her up and carried her around, lowering her to touch each base before dropping her off to her cheering teammates at home plate. The run gave Southern Oregon a 5-4 victory.
Some people are calling this the greatest act of sportsmanship they'd ever seen or heard of. I can't offhand think of one better. ESPN aired a story on the game Sunday night, and people were still crying when they discussed it (stories and video of it are all over the Internet if you run a search).
So what made Holtman and Wallace perform this extreme act of kindness when it guaranteed them defeat? Read Holtman's quotes on the subject. Trust me, there were no moral high principles or great ethics involved. These youngsters, very simply, have a firm foundation for understanding life and their place in it. They're not superstars, they're merely college students who enjoy playing softball. While umpires and coaches dithered around trying to figure out what to do, Holtman and Wallace took matters into their own hands and did the right thing. There was no prompting, no hope of reward when they were finished.
So many of us who are full of ourselves look at the young men and women who serve in Iraq, putting themselves at risk and separating themselves from home for such long periods of time, and wondering how they can do it. Let's be honest, most of them are there because they're ordered to and don't have a choice. But many of them sense that there are things in life bigger than themselves and that they've been given an opportunity to shape their world.
Holtman and Wallace are the same way. They could have watched Tocholsky writhe on the ground and done nothing, hoping that they could win the game and go to the playoffs themselves. The injured girl had hit a home run, however, and the game should really be over. That was clear. In a small way, life's events clarified the situation for the Central Washington players and they reacted accordingly. Just like, in a much bigger arena, people their age joined the military because of 9/11.
Those kids understand the way like works. The misguided supporters of a former heroin dealer do not. They may not be in different worlds, but they are in two Americas.
You'd be hard-pressed to find a starker difference between supporters of a Michigan prison escapee who spent 32 years hiding as a wife and mother in the upscale San Diego suburb of Carmel Valley, and the softball players at Central Washington and Southern Oregon universities.
In the first story, Susan Lefevre was sentenced to 10-20 years in prison for selling heroin to an undercover policeman in Saginaw, Mich., which at the time was besieged by a drug war that had its murder toll approaching the recent annual number in San Diego, one of the largest cities in the United States. A year later, she escaped, and since lived as Marie Walsh in a posh neighborhood, an attractive 53-year-old mother of three. By all accounts, she'd left her previous way of life well behind her.
However, someone tipped off authorities to her true identity and in late-April, she was arrested. She's waived extradition and is due to be sent back to Michigan anytime now to serve out her sentence. Her family and her friends, as you might expect, are devastated.
What's disturbing is the outpouring of support that Lefevre-Walsh is receiving from the community. Although overblown news coverage probably makes her support look bigger than it really is, there appears to be a lot of people out there who think the authorities should just let her go. Forget the whole thing. She's been a clean, upstanding citizen for 32 years and it was "just" a drug crime. Let her go.
What is it that makes people think she shouldn't have to actually serve her debt to society? She wasn't dealing marijuana. She was selling heroin, which often kills people and has addictive properties that users never truly escape. The killings in Saginaw back in the mid-70s. Whether it was just a one-time thing as she claims or whether she was a big-time dealer as the prosecution said, I have no idea, but being involved in heroin in any way is awfully serious.
Letting her walk away from a prison commitment, and letting her get away with it, would make a mockery of our criminal justice system. But, hey, she's reformed herself. Those who died or have lifelong substance abuse issues because of her actions, directly or indirectly, well who cares about them? Talk about elitism.
Plus, just how reformed is this woman? Her original family was stuck wondering about her whereabouts all of these years. She played her husband for a fool and left her children wondering whether they can ever believe anything their mother ever said to them. What was her message to them about drugs? Those 32 years she was "clean," she was actually living a lie. We're just assuming she lived a clean adult life because we're told she did. Reporters who've interviewed her in jail say she's downplayed her actions in Michigan, so again, how reformed is she?
I in no way suggest that she go back to prison for what will amount to a significant chunk of her the remainder of her life. Lord knows she's not the only one in the world with a past that she'd rather leave behind. But there are better ways for her family, friends and other supporters can back her than to just plead for her to not have to be returned to prison.
Once she's settled back in prison in Michigan, her lawyer there will ask Gov. Jennifer Granholm to commute her sentence. While I question her honesty, her living within the law the last three decades does count for something within our legal system. While Granholm's record in granting clemency is reportedly not in Lefever's favor, it's doubtful that she's ever been presented with a case like this. That's where the support has to go. Her family and her friends should make sure that her lawyer has a strong case to give the governor.
There's a growing tendency among us to try to excuse the malfeasance of others. Look how we tried to understand the motivations of the 9/11 hijackers. Most of us wanted to understand them so we could prevent such a thing from happening again, but too many others wanted to use such knowledge to excuse their atrocities. Their attack on us was our fault, that sort of thing.
For Lefever, the line is that her offense was a drug crime long, long ago. Drug offenses are victimless crimes, too, aren't they? Well, no. That's just hiding your head in the sand because victims are all over the place, many in prison, many dead. More than anything else, they're often out of sight. I had a conversation with a very talented public defender a couple of months ago in which he said 90 percent of our jail cells could be emptied if people stopped using drugs and we, as a society, truly confronted mental illness. The fact of the matter is that drug use destroys lives. I'm not talking about pot, I'm talking about the hard stuff like heroin. Like what Susan Lefever once sold to an undercover cop.
She has to go to back to prison first. For her supporters not to understand this, or try to lessen the importance of drug crimes, is just wrong-headed. Strangely enough, Lefever herself seems to understand this better than those who back her.
On the other side of the ledger, here are some folks who get it. Sports fans already know the story. Here it is in a nutshell in case you don't: Southern Oregon softball senior Sara Tucholsky hit the first home run of her career last week to give the Wolves a victory over Central Washington and a spot in the Division II playoffs. The two runners already on base scored to tie the game but Tucholsky missed first base and collapsed in a heap when she turned around to touch the bag, a victim of a torn ACL. When umpires cited rules that teammates were not allowed to help Tucholsky circuit the bases, Central Washington first baseman Mallory Holtman and shortstop Liz Wallace picked her up and carried her around, lowering her to touch each base before dropping her off to her cheering teammates at home plate. The run gave Southern Oregon a 5-4 victory.
Some people are calling this the greatest act of sportsmanship they'd ever seen or heard of. I can't offhand think of one better. ESPN aired a story on the game Sunday night, and people were still crying when they discussed it (stories and video of it are all over the Internet if you run a search).
So what made Holtman and Wallace perform this extreme act of kindness when it guaranteed them defeat? Read Holtman's quotes on the subject. Trust me, there were no moral high principles or great ethics involved. These youngsters, very simply, have a firm foundation for understanding life and their place in it. They're not superstars, they're merely college students who enjoy playing softball. While umpires and coaches dithered around trying to figure out what to do, Holtman and Wallace took matters into their own hands and did the right thing. There was no prompting, no hope of reward when they were finished.
So many of us who are full of ourselves look at the young men and women who serve in Iraq, putting themselves at risk and separating themselves from home for such long periods of time, and wondering how they can do it. Let's be honest, most of them are there because they're ordered to and don't have a choice. But many of them sense that there are things in life bigger than themselves and that they've been given an opportunity to shape their world.
Holtman and Wallace are the same way. They could have watched Tocholsky writhe on the ground and done nothing, hoping that they could win the game and go to the playoffs themselves. The injured girl had hit a home run, however, and the game should really be over. That was clear. In a small way, life's events clarified the situation for the Central Washington players and they reacted accordingly. Just like, in a much bigger arena, people their age joined the military because of 9/11.
Those kids understand the way like works. The misguided supporters of a former heroin dealer do not. They may not be in different worlds, but they are in two Americas.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Carrier, al Sadr, Mia Farrow in Hong Kong!
As something of an aviation buff, I watched each night's PBS presentation of the documentary "Carrier," which ended Thursday night. I enjoyed it a lot, but at the same time had quite a few quibbles with the program.
-- When the show ended, there was no crawl at the end to tell us what became of the sailors and Marines who were so intimately profiled. The show was taped on a 2005 deployment for God's sakes. So what's happened to them since? I did discover some partial answers on pbs.org.
-- I'm amazed that the Navy allowed it's personnel to be exploited so much. By the end of the show, I thought such a line had been crossed. Some of it had become too uncomfortable to watch, and many of the players did not come out looking good. In the same vein, there was far too much time spent on youngsters who were troubled and too little display of those who really had their acts together.
-- Practically an entire hour-long episode on a racist sailor? What a waste of time on a complete jerk. The fact that an aircraft carrier is a melting pot is interesting. That guy was not.
-- Some of the sailors didn't agree with the war in Iraq. There's a shock. By the end of the first episode, we had the idea. Still being fed those lines at the end was overkill. What was interesting was that so many of the opinions given by those in the junior ranks showed they had no idea what the war is about. Maybe those were just the only lines that the producers included. But if rank-and-file sailors don't have a real understanding of why they're being sent into harm's way, the Navy has to change the way it communicates. The sailors might still disagree with the war, who knows, but at least they will express their opinions with some degree of knowledge.
-- Do you mean to tell me there wasn't a sailor on that ship that knew that when they signed up for the Navy -- volunteering for service -- that they'd be sent on six-month deployments, and that this would cost them precious time with family? God knows, the separation is difficult, but this is what they signed up to do. The Navy is not about staying on shore your whole career while your ship is tied up to a dock in San Diego. And, for those who watched, the ordinance man's relationship with that messed-up pregnant girl did not end because he was deployed. It ended because of her. If he'd stayed home, they would have broken up and he'd be crying because he missed the deployment.
Anyway, good show, but there were things about it that I had to get off my chest. There was very little flag-waving patriotism -- which was good -- but you still got the impression that there were a lot of people who are willing to put up with difficult conditions in order to protect our freedom.
---
The narrative about the Iraqi military operation in Basra over the past month has been that it was a disastrous defeat marked by the desertions of numerous government soldiers.
That's now questionable with news this week that Muqtada al-Sadr, the radical Shiite cleric who leads the militant Mahdi Army, is trying to sue for peace. Those who are winning in battle don't seek peace unless they're offering to let their opponents surrender. That's not what is happening here.
Coupled with the Basra operation has been a major U.S.-Iraqi offensive in Sadr City, the Shiite-dominated slum in Baghdad. Reports from there indicate that progress has been slow but steady. Muqtada al-Sadr must be hurting, or else he would not be offering to lay down arms.
The alternative explanation is that Iran, which ultimately controls al-Sadr and his fighters, has concluded that the continued fighting is no longer in its best interests.
Whatever the reason, the narrative is changing.
---
Weird story of the week: actress Mia Farrow reportedly goes to Hong Kong to deliver a speech opposing China's relations with Sudan. She's stopped and questioned at the airport while higher officials decide whether to let her enter the island territory.
The background here is that the Olympic torch is scheduled to be in Hong Kong at the same time, and China has demanded that Hong Kong officials ensure that there will be no demonstrations over Tibet during that leg of the run. Complying with China's wishes, some pro-Tibet people were recently deported.
Mia Farrow's entry into the country was looked upon as a test of how free Hong Kong would be during the torch relay, according to a wire service report. Denying her entry would have released "a firestorm of criticism," the article read. She was eventually allowed in after she promised not to disrupt the torch relay.
Yay! Everything's just fine in Hong Kong, just great with China! The famous Hollywood actress got in to say her piece about Sudan. As for the pro-Tibet people. Uh, who?
-- When the show ended, there was no crawl at the end to tell us what became of the sailors and Marines who were so intimately profiled. The show was taped on a 2005 deployment for God's sakes. So what's happened to them since? I did discover some partial answers on pbs.org.
-- I'm amazed that the Navy allowed it's personnel to be exploited so much. By the end of the show, I thought such a line had been crossed. Some of it had become too uncomfortable to watch, and many of the players did not come out looking good. In the same vein, there was far too much time spent on youngsters who were troubled and too little display of those who really had their acts together.
-- Practically an entire hour-long episode on a racist sailor? What a waste of time on a complete jerk. The fact that an aircraft carrier is a melting pot is interesting. That guy was not.
-- Some of the sailors didn't agree with the war in Iraq. There's a shock. By the end of the first episode, we had the idea. Still being fed those lines at the end was overkill. What was interesting was that so many of the opinions given by those in the junior ranks showed they had no idea what the war is about. Maybe those were just the only lines that the producers included. But if rank-and-file sailors don't have a real understanding of why they're being sent into harm's way, the Navy has to change the way it communicates. The sailors might still disagree with the war, who knows, but at least they will express their opinions with some degree of knowledge.
-- Do you mean to tell me there wasn't a sailor on that ship that knew that when they signed up for the Navy -- volunteering for service -- that they'd be sent on six-month deployments, and that this would cost them precious time with family? God knows, the separation is difficult, but this is what they signed up to do. The Navy is not about staying on shore your whole career while your ship is tied up to a dock in San Diego. And, for those who watched, the ordinance man's relationship with that messed-up pregnant girl did not end because he was deployed. It ended because of her. If he'd stayed home, they would have broken up and he'd be crying because he missed the deployment.
Anyway, good show, but there were things about it that I had to get off my chest. There was very little flag-waving patriotism -- which was good -- but you still got the impression that there were a lot of people who are willing to put up with difficult conditions in order to protect our freedom.
---
The narrative about the Iraqi military operation in Basra over the past month has been that it was a disastrous defeat marked by the desertions of numerous government soldiers.
That's now questionable with news this week that Muqtada al-Sadr, the radical Shiite cleric who leads the militant Mahdi Army, is trying to sue for peace. Those who are winning in battle don't seek peace unless they're offering to let their opponents surrender. That's not what is happening here.
Coupled with the Basra operation has been a major U.S.-Iraqi offensive in Sadr City, the Shiite-dominated slum in Baghdad. Reports from there indicate that progress has been slow but steady. Muqtada al-Sadr must be hurting, or else he would not be offering to lay down arms.
The alternative explanation is that Iran, which ultimately controls al-Sadr and his fighters, has concluded that the continued fighting is no longer in its best interests.
Whatever the reason, the narrative is changing.
---
Weird story of the week: actress Mia Farrow reportedly goes to Hong Kong to deliver a speech opposing China's relations with Sudan. She's stopped and questioned at the airport while higher officials decide whether to let her enter the island territory.
The background here is that the Olympic torch is scheduled to be in Hong Kong at the same time, and China has demanded that Hong Kong officials ensure that there will be no demonstrations over Tibet during that leg of the run. Complying with China's wishes, some pro-Tibet people were recently deported.
Mia Farrow's entry into the country was looked upon as a test of how free Hong Kong would be during the torch relay, according to a wire service report. Denying her entry would have released "a firestorm of criticism," the article read. She was eventually allowed in after she promised not to disrupt the torch relay.
Yay! Everything's just fine in Hong Kong, just great with China! The famous Hollywood actress got in to say her piece about Sudan. As for the pro-Tibet people. Uh, who?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)