Beware of rogue nations that seek to export their brand of nationalism through military force, unilateral regime change, economic blackmail and intimidation. Such nations are a threat to world peace and a cancer upon the global society. They violate the very principles of democracy and sovereignty that lie at the foundation of a stable international community. [UN Speech concerning Col. Khadafy of Libya.] This caution is just as valid today. As to naming these present day rogue nations, it is sufficient to state that: “If the shoe fits, wear it.”
Today the United States formally announced that it was restoring full governmental relations and lifting embargoes and sanctions against the Palestinian Authority under President Mahmoud Abbas. In reality, only the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank will see these changes immediately because the Gaza Strip is now controlled by the Hamas faction of the Palestinian Authority. Abbas, in a legally questionable move, called for the dissolution of the Palestinian government and expelled the duly elected Hamas representatives to set up a new government controlled completely by the Fatah faction. The US has thus anointed its “leader” of the Palestinian people.
It is a reasonable question to ask whether or not the Palestinian people might be better off under the new government. The Palestinian Authority failed for years to break the deadlock with Israel concerning a durable peace or progress toward a two-state solution. However, the question misses a crucial point of democracy. If it were possible to state with certainty that the Palestinian people would be “better off” under the current government [it would depend upon whose viewpoint is considered] , it still would not excuse or cover up the manner in which the government came to power. The current coup d’état or regime change suggests that the President of the United States is better qualified to choose leadership for the Palestinians that the Palestinians themselves.
Hamas has shown little expertise for controlling its internal factions, serving the needs of the Palestinian people or making progress toward a lasting Peace with its neighbors. That party came to power because of frustration with the internal corruption and impotence of the Fatah led Palestinian Authority. Hamas has handled that opportunity with ineptitude and has failed to achieve substantial progress in making the lives of average Palestinians more secure or healthy. The militant wing of Hamas has often refused to follow the lead of the diplomatic wing with tragic and counterproductive results. But one does not need to laud Hamas to justify criticism of the current change in government. Democracy does not guarantee that the people will choose the “best” government [the US electoral system has proven that truth], but rather that the people will have the government that they themselves choose in a free and fair election. Paternalism is not democracy.
This is not new territory for US policy. It does not take a long memory to recall the Fatah leadership of Yassir Arafat to understand that installation of a US backed puppet faction creates an unstable alliance. At some point those puppets are deposed and burned in effigy by the people they rule, or they cut their own strings and turn against their former master puppeteer. Consider Khadafy, Noriega, Osama Bin Laden, Ferdinand Marcos and their ilk as example and object lessons. But George W, Bush was never a good student of anything, and history would definitely be one of his weaker subjects.
The basic point concerns the basic values of the American people? Do we embrace the belief that the ends justify the means and that might makes right? If so, then the US can act without caution or remorse when duplicitously proclaiming itself a “champion of freedom and democracy.” The truth of what we tell others is irrelevant. All that is relevant is that the US acts with force to impose the President's view of what is best for those most directly affected or what is in the US' own self interest [not necessarily in that order]. The US can praise the Palestinian people for conducting a free and fair election, and then act to depose the people’s chosen government [that the US President does not like] “for the Palestinian’s own welfare.” It makes the business of government less messy than in a true democracy. After all, if Abbas does not do what the Bush administration tells him to do, they can just as easily remove him without bothering to consult the Palestinian people.
The world and international relations would be so much simpler if it would just accept the President of a rogue nation as World Dictator [or is the "Decider"] , or else!
Monday, June 18, 2007
Friday, June 15, 2007
Bush’s Middle-East Bungling and Bankruptcy
No one doubts the tragic and senseless loss of life now taking place on the Gaza Strip in the Middle East as a result of the armed factional fighting and power struggle between Hamas and Fatah. In one sense, only the militant factions themselves are to blame for their inhumane reaction to their current plight and the resort to ruthless violence. It is a struggle to be "King of the Hill" in a situation where the "hill" is not worth conquering, certainly not at the cost of so many lives. Yet the conditions that have led to this crisis are a product of actions on a larger geopolitical scope.
"Five years ago this month, President Bush stood in the Rose Garden and laid out a vision for the Middle East that included Israel and a state called Palestine living together in peace. "I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror," the president declared." [Washington Post, 6/15/2007].
Within that declaration can be found the duplicitous intent marking the Bush Administration’s approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Bush may have given lip service to a “two-state” solution, but there has been no demonstrated commitment to actually achieving or promoting that objective. Bush called upon the Palestinians to conduct a free and fair election. They did so, but favored representation by the Hamas Party. Bush and the Israeli government really meant that the Palestinians should have a free election – as long as they chose to elect leaders that Bush and Tel Aviv considered preferable.
For their part, Hamas was probably as surprised as anyone by the outcome of the vote. They admitted that the Hamas Party was more of a reactionary community defense organization that had few seasoned “politicians” trained and ready to take the reins and govern the Palestinian Authority and to engage in foreign policy processes. Hamas reached out to Fatah for a coalition. But for the meddling intervention by the US and Israel, there might have been a chance for real progress. However, without at least trying tp respect the democratic vote of the Palestinians, the US and Israel immediately declared the Palestinian plebiscite illegitimate and refused to work with Hamas. Instead, they imposed harsh economic sanctions and withheld sorely needed taxes legitimately due the Palestinian people, pressure apparently intended to force the Palestinians to change their mind and make the "correct" choice about their elected representative.
Thus, through bungled attempts at threat and intimidation, a potential opportunity to foster a pragmatic moderation of Hamas views and behavior was ignored. The Bush Administration only reinforced the sense of injustice and oppression that led the Palestinian people to turn in desperation to Hamas in the first place. Now, after years without demonstrable progress and continued disrespect and suppression of the Palestinian people by Israel and the US, Hamas has taken the position that a coalition with Fatah has been a failure. If Hamas joined with Fatah to obtain a sense of international legitimacy and to support diplomatic initiatives, experience seems to indicate to them that Fatah has failed to deliver the promised goods. Keep in mind that Israel has continued to arrest attack and kill Hamas leaders even when they have no evidence that the individuals attacked have actually engaged in any terrorist actions. Therefore, why bother to allow Fatah to control the Palestinian Authority any longer when Hamas is the duly elected representative? While this thinking and change of position is unlikely to improve the situation for the Palestinian people, the true victims in this debacle, the frustration of Hamas is at least understandable.
The Bush Administration is prone to simplistic labels and sound bites, rather than careful and thoughtful analysis. The Administration seems unable or unwilling to embrace pragmatic policies that require hard work and courage. Rather than just label Hamas a “terrorist” organization [even though the military wing of the Hamas Party has shown proclivity for indiscriminate violence], the Bush Administration could have done the hard and honest work of analyzing why the Palestinian people turned to Hamas. The severely depressed economic conditions they have lived in, and the treatment from Israel that President Carter characterized as akin to “apartheid” policies, has fostered a deep sense of despair and frustration among Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Instead of approaching the situation in a thoughtful and constructive manner, Bush simply declared the democratic choice of the Palestinian people to be WRONG, and that the US would refuse to respect that choice. Bush encourages and supports Israel in its continued economic strangulation of the Palestinians.
Hamas portrayed itself as the only “champion” of the people. Whether or not that was an honest representation of Hamas motives, it was the best option or perhaps the only option that the Palestinian people could see on the horizon. When you have no hope, you tend to focus on today rather than tomorrow. Unfortunately, the Palestinian factions have turned on each other in their despair and sense of hopelessness and helplessness. Equally unfortunately, there are always opportunists who are ready to supply weapons in such situations rather than real aid and support. Guns are easier and more profitable to deliver than medical and humanitarian assistance.
Israel legitimately complains about rocket attacks by Palestinian militants and insurgents. These attacks are wrong, unjustifiable criminal acts. The current situation in Baghdad clearly demonstrates that when you have a near total breakdown of infrastructure, economic systems and political cohesion it is nearly impossible to control and eliminate rogue militant insurgent attacks. The situation in the Palestinian territories is not much different. To pretend that either Fatah or Hamas has complete control of such activities is like declaring that the streets of Baghdad are safe because Nouri Al-Maliki has been installed as the Iraqi Prime Minister. It is a foolish assertion.
The response by Israel of sending in attack helicopters to blow up buildings or tanks to kill children does more to worsen the problem than to decrease the bloodletting. There certainly is no leadership, pressure or encouragement from the Bush Administration counseling less reactionary measures. The decades of blood feuds and an ironic sense of complacency about chronic conflict provide limited constituency in Israel for supporting sustained peace initiatives at this time. And to do so is admittedly very difficult when it is hard to identify a reliable negotiating partner with whom to build a trusting and respectful relationship. Yet no such negotiating partner is likely to emerge unless the economic and humanitarian plight of the Palestinian people improves to the point where they perceive some hope for the future. And as long as the US encourages and supports military reactions rather than diplomatic and humanitarian initiatives, the situation will only deteriorate further [if that is even possible].
“After his reelection in 2004, Bush said he would use his "political capital" to help create a Palestinian state by the end of his second term. In his final 18 months as president, he faces the prospect of a shattered Palestinian Authority, a radical Islamic state on Israel's border and increasingly dwindling options to turn the tide against Hamas and create a functioning Palestinian state. “ [Washington Post 6/15/2007]
It is a further tragedy that Bush has no more political capital and has no clue as to why his inept foreign policy has contributed to the worsening state of affairs . The level of incompetence of the Bush Administration on so many fronts is truly astounding.
"Five years ago this month, President Bush stood in the Rose Garden and laid out a vision for the Middle East that included Israel and a state called Palestine living together in peace. "I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror," the president declared." [Washington Post, 6/15/2007].
Within that declaration can be found the duplicitous intent marking the Bush Administration’s approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Bush may have given lip service to a “two-state” solution, but there has been no demonstrated commitment to actually achieving or promoting that objective. Bush called upon the Palestinians to conduct a free and fair election. They did so, but favored representation by the Hamas Party. Bush and the Israeli government really meant that the Palestinians should have a free election – as long as they chose to elect leaders that Bush and Tel Aviv considered preferable.
For their part, Hamas was probably as surprised as anyone by the outcome of the vote. They admitted that the Hamas Party was more of a reactionary community defense organization that had few seasoned “politicians” trained and ready to take the reins and govern the Palestinian Authority and to engage in foreign policy processes. Hamas reached out to Fatah for a coalition. But for the meddling intervention by the US and Israel, there might have been a chance for real progress. However, without at least trying tp respect the democratic vote of the Palestinians, the US and Israel immediately declared the Palestinian plebiscite illegitimate and refused to work with Hamas. Instead, they imposed harsh economic sanctions and withheld sorely needed taxes legitimately due the Palestinian people, pressure apparently intended to force the Palestinians to change their mind and make the "correct" choice about their elected representative.
Thus, through bungled attempts at threat and intimidation, a potential opportunity to foster a pragmatic moderation of Hamas views and behavior was ignored. The Bush Administration only reinforced the sense of injustice and oppression that led the Palestinian people to turn in desperation to Hamas in the first place. Now, after years without demonstrable progress and continued disrespect and suppression of the Palestinian people by Israel and the US, Hamas has taken the position that a coalition with Fatah has been a failure. If Hamas joined with Fatah to obtain a sense of international legitimacy and to support diplomatic initiatives, experience seems to indicate to them that Fatah has failed to deliver the promised goods. Keep in mind that Israel has continued to arrest attack and kill Hamas leaders even when they have no evidence that the individuals attacked have actually engaged in any terrorist actions. Therefore, why bother to allow Fatah to control the Palestinian Authority any longer when Hamas is the duly elected representative? While this thinking and change of position is unlikely to improve the situation for the Palestinian people, the true victims in this debacle, the frustration of Hamas is at least understandable.
The Bush Administration is prone to simplistic labels and sound bites, rather than careful and thoughtful analysis. The Administration seems unable or unwilling to embrace pragmatic policies that require hard work and courage. Rather than just label Hamas a “terrorist” organization [even though the military wing of the Hamas Party has shown proclivity for indiscriminate violence], the Bush Administration could have done the hard and honest work of analyzing why the Palestinian people turned to Hamas. The severely depressed economic conditions they have lived in, and the treatment from Israel that President Carter characterized as akin to “apartheid” policies, has fostered a deep sense of despair and frustration among Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Instead of approaching the situation in a thoughtful and constructive manner, Bush simply declared the democratic choice of the Palestinian people to be WRONG, and that the US would refuse to respect that choice. Bush encourages and supports Israel in its continued economic strangulation of the Palestinians.
Hamas portrayed itself as the only “champion” of the people. Whether or not that was an honest representation of Hamas motives, it was the best option or perhaps the only option that the Palestinian people could see on the horizon. When you have no hope, you tend to focus on today rather than tomorrow. Unfortunately, the Palestinian factions have turned on each other in their despair and sense of hopelessness and helplessness. Equally unfortunately, there are always opportunists who are ready to supply weapons in such situations rather than real aid and support. Guns are easier and more profitable to deliver than medical and humanitarian assistance.
Israel legitimately complains about rocket attacks by Palestinian militants and insurgents. These attacks are wrong, unjustifiable criminal acts. The current situation in Baghdad clearly demonstrates that when you have a near total breakdown of infrastructure, economic systems and political cohesion it is nearly impossible to control and eliminate rogue militant insurgent attacks. The situation in the Palestinian territories is not much different. To pretend that either Fatah or Hamas has complete control of such activities is like declaring that the streets of Baghdad are safe because Nouri Al-Maliki has been installed as the Iraqi Prime Minister. It is a foolish assertion.
The response by Israel of sending in attack helicopters to blow up buildings or tanks to kill children does more to worsen the problem than to decrease the bloodletting. There certainly is no leadership, pressure or encouragement from the Bush Administration counseling less reactionary measures. The decades of blood feuds and an ironic sense of complacency about chronic conflict provide limited constituency in Israel for supporting sustained peace initiatives at this time. And to do so is admittedly very difficult when it is hard to identify a reliable negotiating partner with whom to build a trusting and respectful relationship. Yet no such negotiating partner is likely to emerge unless the economic and humanitarian plight of the Palestinian people improves to the point where they perceive some hope for the future. And as long as the US encourages and supports military reactions rather than diplomatic and humanitarian initiatives, the situation will only deteriorate further [if that is even possible].
“After his reelection in 2004, Bush said he would use his "political capital" to help create a Palestinian state by the end of his second term. In his final 18 months as president, he faces the prospect of a shattered Palestinian Authority, a radical Islamic state on Israel's border and increasingly dwindling options to turn the tide against Hamas and create a functioning Palestinian state. “ [Washington Post 6/15/2007]
It is a further tragedy that Bush has no more political capital and has no clue as to why his inept foreign policy has contributed to the worsening state of affairs . The level of incompetence of the Bush Administration on so many fronts is truly astounding.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
BLOGITOS: June 13, 2007
GUN REGISTRATION LAW: The House of Representative just passed a measure that will not only require states to automate and share information regarding individuals disqualified from legally purchasing handguns, but also provide limited funds to support the process of state level automation and information sharing. The FBI already maintains a database [NICS] of individuals barred from legal gun purchases. However, states do not routinely forward such information, for reasons of politics or antiquated record systems. So background checks are not terribly effective or reliable.
The gunman [terrorist?] in the Virginia Tech massacre was deemed mentally unstable and should have been prohibited from purchasing the two guns he used in the shooting. The unfortunate aspect of the measure is that it took a tragedy for Congress to act on a measure that is pure common sense and should have been addressed years ago. It is the typical government response of putting up a traffic light only after several people have gotten killed in accidents at a dangerous intersection.
HONESTY ALERT: A recent alert has been raised at the White House due to a major threat to the security of the Administration. It seems that there has been an insurgent movement of officials willing to actually tell the truth in public and for attribution. Despite strenuous efforts by White House functionaries to stamp out this emerging threat, the damage seems to be spreading as the alien menace grows. In a recent outbreak, the attempts by Vice President Cheney to plant false press stories alleging that the US military had caught Iranian agents “red handed” in the act of supplying arms to Iraqi and Afghanistan insurgents were foiled.
Secretary of Defense Gates publicly denied that any such capture had occurred. At best, he said, the interdiction suggested arms smuggling to drug dealers in Afghanistan, but there was NO EVIDENCE to connect the incident to formal or official Iranian government action. The NATO Command supported Secretary Gates and refuted the Cheney disinformation campaign. Unless checked, this outbreak of truth could cripple the Bush Administration apparatus and could even compel the President to deal honestly with Congress and the American people. Political and Psychology Experts seriously doubt that Bush and Cheney have the ability to tell the truth, and this could lead to a serious crisis for the Bush administration.
LET’S STAND HIM ON HIS HEAD: Many bystanders are scratching their heads about the lack of progress being achieved by the Iraqi Parliament toward the “benchmarks” established by the Bush Administration. Some of the confusion could be dispelled and better understanding gained by simply looking a bit more carefully at the specific “benchmarks” involved and the priority that the Bush Administration places on them.
The highest Bush priority seems to be approval of the draft legislation on oil revenue sharing. A fair question might be asked whether this should be the first order of business. The country is in such chaos that pumping and exporting oil is itself a dicey proposition. Is it truly most important how the revenue is dispersed when the revenue itself is under threat of being cut off? Looking behind the rhetoric about “power sharing” related to oil revenues, the real issue is forcing the vulnerable Iraqi Parliament to adopt a US drafted oil deal that grants to US and multinational oil companies rights and concessions far in excess of the licenses and leasing rights granted by any other OPEC nation.
The Iraqi Parliament has told US envoys that efforts to stabilize the country with some kind of unified security forces and to reduce factional violence are more appropriate priorities that oil legislation. But the Bush Administration will hear none of it. Cheney personally told Prime Minister Al-Maliki that the oil deal must pass soon or the US might be forced to withdraw its support of the current government. [Notice that Cheney DID NOT threaten to leave Iraq.] So the pressure to meet “benchmarks” debate is akin to standing the Iraqi government on its head and then kicking it when it falls down. Now doesn’t THAT make more sense?
MAKING THE LIST: Perhaps you cannot make it on the air as a candidate for the next American Idol or America’s Top Model or the like. It would appear, however, that you have a much better chance of making a different prestigious list - The FBI’s Terrorist Watch List. The most recent report indicates that there are now more than 509,000 currently on the List.
Since the US total population is slightly less than 300 million, and more than 1/3 of those are children, the basic math suggests that you have about a 1 in 400 chance of winding up on the Terrorist Watch List. Those odds are far better than any hope of securing a spot on a dream reality TV show. And let’s be frank, the usefulness of any screening list with more than a half million names is in serious doubt. If grabbing that fleeting chance for celebrity is your goal, then perhaps making the FBI Terrorist Watch List is your best hope.
The gunman [terrorist?] in the Virginia Tech massacre was deemed mentally unstable and should have been prohibited from purchasing the two guns he used in the shooting. The unfortunate aspect of the measure is that it took a tragedy for Congress to act on a measure that is pure common sense and should have been addressed years ago. It is the typical government response of putting up a traffic light only after several people have gotten killed in accidents at a dangerous intersection.
HONESTY ALERT: A recent alert has been raised at the White House due to a major threat to the security of the Administration. It seems that there has been an insurgent movement of officials willing to actually tell the truth in public and for attribution. Despite strenuous efforts by White House functionaries to stamp out this emerging threat, the damage seems to be spreading as the alien menace grows. In a recent outbreak, the attempts by Vice President Cheney to plant false press stories alleging that the US military had caught Iranian agents “red handed” in the act of supplying arms to Iraqi and Afghanistan insurgents were foiled.
Secretary of Defense Gates publicly denied that any such capture had occurred. At best, he said, the interdiction suggested arms smuggling to drug dealers in Afghanistan, but there was NO EVIDENCE to connect the incident to formal or official Iranian government action. The NATO Command supported Secretary Gates and refuted the Cheney disinformation campaign. Unless checked, this outbreak of truth could cripple the Bush Administration apparatus and could even compel the President to deal honestly with Congress and the American people. Political and Psychology Experts seriously doubt that Bush and Cheney have the ability to tell the truth, and this could lead to a serious crisis for the Bush administration.
LET’S STAND HIM ON HIS HEAD: Many bystanders are scratching their heads about the lack of progress being achieved by the Iraqi Parliament toward the “benchmarks” established by the Bush Administration. Some of the confusion could be dispelled and better understanding gained by simply looking a bit more carefully at the specific “benchmarks” involved and the priority that the Bush Administration places on them.
The highest Bush priority seems to be approval of the draft legislation on oil revenue sharing. A fair question might be asked whether this should be the first order of business. The country is in such chaos that pumping and exporting oil is itself a dicey proposition. Is it truly most important how the revenue is dispersed when the revenue itself is under threat of being cut off? Looking behind the rhetoric about “power sharing” related to oil revenues, the real issue is forcing the vulnerable Iraqi Parliament to adopt a US drafted oil deal that grants to US and multinational oil companies rights and concessions far in excess of the licenses and leasing rights granted by any other OPEC nation.
The Iraqi Parliament has told US envoys that efforts to stabilize the country with some kind of unified security forces and to reduce factional violence are more appropriate priorities that oil legislation. But the Bush Administration will hear none of it. Cheney personally told Prime Minister Al-Maliki that the oil deal must pass soon or the US might be forced to withdraw its support of the current government. [Notice that Cheney DID NOT threaten to leave Iraq.] So the pressure to meet “benchmarks” debate is akin to standing the Iraqi government on its head and then kicking it when it falls down. Now doesn’t THAT make more sense?
MAKING THE LIST: Perhaps you cannot make it on the air as a candidate for the next American Idol or America’s Top Model or the like. It would appear, however, that you have a much better chance of making a different prestigious list - The FBI’s Terrorist Watch List. The most recent report indicates that there are now more than 509,000 currently on the List.
Since the US total population is slightly less than 300 million, and more than 1/3 of those are children, the basic math suggests that you have about a 1 in 400 chance of winding up on the Terrorist Watch List. Those odds are far better than any hope of securing a spot on a dream reality TV show. And let’s be frank, the usefulness of any screening list with more than a half million names is in serious doubt. If grabbing that fleeting chance for celebrity is your goal, then perhaps making the FBI Terrorist Watch List is your best hope.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Common Sense and Politics - The Odd Couple
The raging controversy regarding US Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez and the US Senate is not an atypical circus event in the Nation’s Capitol. That is not to say that the events are made less significant by their theatricality. The Senate majority was able to indirectly express their symbolic “no confidence” in Gonzalez by a 53-38 margin. However, that vote was 2 short of the 60 votes required to gain cloture and send the measure to the floor for full debate. In effect, the GOP senators were successful in protecting Gonzalez from a full public airing of the misconduct and incompetence of his leadership of the Justice Department. The GOP faithful would not register their votes as supportive of Gonzalez, a step that would be extremely risky under the circumstances. Instead, they characterized the "no confidence" vote as non-binding and meaningless, since President Bush would not be obligated to take any action based upon the outcome of the vote.
The objective of the Democrats was to create an historic precedent by invoking a public censure of a Cabinet official. A rare occurrence in the history of the nation, it would represent a very significant step. The Democrats also sought to maneuver the GOP senators into casting a public vote representing either an affirmation or rejection of Gonzalez as the Chief Legal Officer of the nation. Of course, a lot of time and energy is spent by legislators in the Capitol attempting to avoid taking a public position on important public policy issues. While the GOP senators can attempt to “spin” the vote results as a purely procedural measure, it can still be effectively used by Democratic candidates to portray GOP senators who voted to block debate as a vote to protect the Attorney General. This latter agenda was properly characterized as “political,” but oddly makes common sense as well. The public and senatorial constituencies deserve to know where their elected representative stands on such an important issue. President Bush, the archetype oppositional and combative personality, has already stated publicly supports Gonzalez and stands by their friendship. More importantly, he will not allow the Senate to decide who is fit to serve in his Administration. Prior examples like Karl Rove and Scooter Libby show that even illegal conduct cannot force Bush to sack one of his loyal minions.
However, “political” was not always considered synonymous with bad. In its original sense, a political act is the effectuation of policy or purpose that furthers the will of the body politic. It is the engine that drives our system of government. The current usage of the term, however, has come to denote venal and self-serving behavior that distorts and abuses the public trust. In its original context, the “political” act of expressing “no confidence” in the Attorney General is a useful and important expression aiding the operation of the government. The Senate has expressed a majority opinion that it lacks faith and confidence in the integrity and competence of Alberto Gonzalez. Consequently, every action advanced by the Justice Department from this point forward bears the stigma attached to the distrust that the Senate holds regarding the competence and integrity of Gonzalez motives.
Keep in mind also that the vote of no confidence was not borne of partisan warfare, but instead based upon actions by Gonzalez that were viewed by members of both parties as of doubtful legality and unquestionably unethical. Members of the GOP have called for Gonzalez to step down. Thus, the “protection” of Gonzalez was a partisan endeavor, but the rebuke was not. In that sense, the Democrats have gained a campaign advantage over GOP incumbents. Any GOP candidate who voted to prevent debate on the “no confidence” measure can be properly cast as having sided with President Bush and supportive of the record of Gonzalez. That could be dangerous ground for a candidate, absent some miraculous recovery by Bush in the remaining months of his term.
As a practical matter, and based upon common sense, Alberto should resign. There is little question that nothing other than ego keeps him in his position. He cannot effectively lead the Justice Department. Many of the most talented lawyers within the management ranks of the agency have either resigned or tried to distance themselves from the Attorney General. Others with relatively lesser credentials have been elevated to positions of authority because of their political loyalty rather than their acumen or demonstrated qualifications. When former officials believe that they must demand immunity in order to testify under oath before Congress regarding their actions and communications with Gonzalez, common sense should dictate a departure of the Attorney General for the good of the Justice Department and the nation. However, the ethos of the Bush Administration has consistently placed personal power, arrogance and deceitful manipulation over the public welfare and effective ethical government.
President Bush has been informed by leaders of his own party that he has lost all credibility with Congress and the American people. Alberto Gonzalez is, if possible, in a position of even lower esteem. Yet both have vowed to stay the course. Sen. Charles Schumer, a sponsor of the “no confidence” resolution, stated: “When a majority of the Senate votes no confidence in a cabinet officer, it says a lot. He ought to have the decency himself to resign. Clearly, he is not up to the job.” Gonzalez rebuffed such criticism and stated that he intends to: “be focusing on what the American people expect of the attorney general of the United States and this great Department of Justice.” If that is true, it will perhaps be the first time in his tenure he will be doing so.
Monday, June 11, 2007
Lieberman’s Lunacy
Today’s announcement by Senator Joseph Lieberman, the former candidate for US Vice President, underscores the seriously defective process that yields national candidates in both major parties. Sen. Lieberman did little to endear himself to the American people during his bid for national leadership. His incoherent and often inconsistent views on policy issues left many with the feeling that he was lacking in firm principles and integrity. He was attacked unfairly because of his religion, but there were substantial other grounds for doubting his qualifications. His tenure in the Senate was touted as a solid credential, but that tenure seemed to lack any serious track record of legislative successes on initiatives relating to major national or foreign policy.
In his latest bid for re-election, Lieberman was deemed so out of touch with the mainstream Democratic electorate that he failed to garner the Democratic Party endorsement. He ran instead as an "independent"candidate with strong support from the GOP. His victory in the election has yielded an unpredictable vote in a Senate body astruggling to adjust to retaking the majority leadership. Lieberman has been allowed to caucus with Democrats, primarily because they hope for his support in pushing majority measures. However, he defects from that Democratic position as often as not, and cannot be counted upon to support measures that he previously has appeared to support. Obviously, the campaign process failed to properly expose to the public Lieberman's true character and leadership strengths and deficiencies.
The latest announcement has Sen. Lieberman suggesting that the United States should consider military action against Iran. Most diplomats and experienced military professionals deem the advocacy of a current unilateral military strike against Teheran to be the ravings of a lunatic. Not only is there a lack of proof that Iran presents a current and imminent threat to the US or its allies, but the US military is already overcommitted in its failing mission in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is little doubt that the US military forces could not sustain another major military engagement with any hope of success on any of the fronts. In short, we have our hands more than full trying to deal with the messes in which President Bush has already ensnared us.
Aside from the logistical and practical infeasibility, the fiasco in Iraq should have taught any rational leader that diplomacy has to be the device of first choice and military intervention the option of last resort in resolving such strategic differences so far from American shores. It is difficult to envision what constituency Lieberman believes he is speaking for in taking this outrageous and irrational position. There are some right wing extremists in Israel who profess to invite a military confrontation against Iran. It would provide an excuse for use of the advanced military weaponry that Israel could deploy against their Shiites enemies. However, that extremist faction is still trying to deal with the failure of its agenda in the recent Southern Lebanon conflict. The massive military superiority and blundering overconfidence led to humiliation. So championing the cause of those Israeli hawks would be folly.
Given the mounting doubrts and disaffection of the American public toward the Iraqi invasion and occupation, it is difficult to imagine what factions would follow the “leadership” Lieberman might provide for an assault on Teheran. If one is going to “lead,” it would seem logical that one needs followers. Who exactly are these followers of the Lieberman doctrine?
So it would seem that the American people dodged a bullet when Lieberman was defeated. Hindsight is very accurate perspective however. In dodging that bullet, the people seem to have stepped right into the path of a mortar shell named George W. Bush. How sad and dangerous that the current political process yields the least capable statesmen and leaders when the United States and the world need those that are the most capable.
In his latest bid for re-election, Lieberman was deemed so out of touch with the mainstream Democratic electorate that he failed to garner the Democratic Party endorsement. He ran instead as an "independent"candidate with strong support from the GOP. His victory in the election has yielded an unpredictable vote in a Senate body astruggling to adjust to retaking the majority leadership. Lieberman has been allowed to caucus with Democrats, primarily because they hope for his support in pushing majority measures. However, he defects from that Democratic position as often as not, and cannot be counted upon to support measures that he previously has appeared to support. Obviously, the campaign process failed to properly expose to the public Lieberman's true character and leadership strengths and deficiencies.
The latest announcement has Sen. Lieberman suggesting that the United States should consider military action against Iran. Most diplomats and experienced military professionals deem the advocacy of a current unilateral military strike against Teheran to be the ravings of a lunatic. Not only is there a lack of proof that Iran presents a current and imminent threat to the US or its allies, but the US military is already overcommitted in its failing mission in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is little doubt that the US military forces could not sustain another major military engagement with any hope of success on any of the fronts. In short, we have our hands more than full trying to deal with the messes in which President Bush has already ensnared us.
Aside from the logistical and practical infeasibility, the fiasco in Iraq should have taught any rational leader that diplomacy has to be the device of first choice and military intervention the option of last resort in resolving such strategic differences so far from American shores. It is difficult to envision what constituency Lieberman believes he is speaking for in taking this outrageous and irrational position. There are some right wing extremists in Israel who profess to invite a military confrontation against Iran. It would provide an excuse for use of the advanced military weaponry that Israel could deploy against their Shiites enemies. However, that extremist faction is still trying to deal with the failure of its agenda in the recent Southern Lebanon conflict. The massive military superiority and blundering overconfidence led to humiliation. So championing the cause of those Israeli hawks would be folly.
Given the mounting doubrts and disaffection of the American public toward the Iraqi invasion and occupation, it is difficult to imagine what factions would follow the “leadership” Lieberman might provide for an assault on Teheran. If one is going to “lead,” it would seem logical that one needs followers. Who exactly are these followers of the Lieberman doctrine?
So it would seem that the American people dodged a bullet when Lieberman was defeated. Hindsight is very accurate perspective however. In dodging that bullet, the people seem to have stepped right into the path of a mortar shell named George W. Bush. How sad and dangerous that the current political process yields the least capable statesmen and leaders when the United States and the world need those that are the most capable.
The Economic Dislocation of Executive Pay
There is a pervasive sense among the public that something is wrong with the system and the philosophy of executive pay in Corporate America. A recent report of executive compensation revealed that over half of CEO’s in large corporations are paid $7.1 million annually. The lowest paid in the survey was paid over $450,000. These figures do not necessarily include the value of all perks to these CEO's. The term “earned” lies at the foundation of the debate and thus is avoided for purposes of discussion here. Over the past decade, the disparity between top executive pay has widened to the point that CEO pay is in excess of 75 times the average pay of non-executive employees in the same companies. The debate goes beyond any “class warfare” arguments. The essential question goes to corporate governance and whether a responsible Board of Directors could rationally justify the high compensation and perks awarded to these CEO employees. This issue has come under increased scrutiny as executives are given tens of millions in “severance” package compensation when the company they were charged to lead experienced very substandard performance, in some instances bankruptcy.
Many of the arguments put forward to justify such compensation lack coherence and substance. No one argues that high levels of talent and performance should be denied high levels of compensation. However, there seems to be very limited positive correlation between the actual performance of the Companies and the level of compensation paid to the CEO. For example, the argument is used that corporations must pay very high compensation levels to attract and keep “star quality” executives. The example of pro athletes is advanced as a model. However, one would be hard put to find a pro athlete who is paid more than $71 million per year in salary alone. Athletes like LeBron James, Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods and others earn their high compensation levels through a combination of sports competition, performance incentives, sponsorship contracts and investment ventures. In addition, they must consistently perform at very high competitive levels that are evident to the public in order to maintain such high compensation levels. The CEO of Yahoo who was paid the highest compensation among those in the survey led a corporation whose stock and profit performance have consistently trailed that of Google.
Another area in which the purported justifications fail to hold water lies in the size of the gap in compensation. Companies that are laying off tens of thousands of employees still pay tens of millions of dollars to the CEO in annual compensation. A general sense of equity and logic suggest that the excess funds could be more effectively used for the benefit of the corporation and its shareholders by investing them in measures to improve plant and equipment, upgrades to technology or other steps to improve competitive performance rather than rewarding substandard performance of the chief executive.
In a simplistic sense, “executive” entails the inherent concept of “execute” or performance. If the CEO fails to develop and execute a profitable strategy, the diversion of corporate assets to an extremely high compensation package seems illogical. It is true that some strategies require time to develop and implement and stability of leadership is a valuable asset. Like any investment, the CEO should accept risk and receive reward based upon thye success of the venture. However, if the CEO lacks faith in his or her own strategy and ability to successfully implement that strategy, why should that CEO be rewarded and compensated in advance of demonstrated results?
Ultimately, the economic dislocation affects the entire economy and becomes a public interest issue. In general terms, it makes little sense for the government to get into the business of regulating executive pay. The mechanisms of corporate governance and shareholder accountability, if functioning properly, should rectify gross abuses. However, the public has seen too many examples of late where such accountability is not functioning and the resulting consequences have created havoc and serious damage to the public. The collapse of Worldcom and Enron and similar scandals demonstrate that the negative consequences of failed corporate governance fall on helpless pensioners, employees and government coffers. In this sense, the government is already “involved” in regulation at some level.
One way to encourage accountability is transparency. Recent statutory requirements that CEO’s and CFO’s sign and attest to the accuracy of financial reports is a sore point for many corporate executives, but does require an increased level of transparency for public companies. Another more aggressive approach might be to link the tax deductibility of executive pay as a “legitimate” business expense to some concrete measures of corporate capitalization and profitability. If a corporation was losing millions of dollars, for example, the IRS could simply prohibit the deduction of any CEO and senior management compensation beyond some level based upon minimum compensation to CEO’s of corporations of the same class. For example, the survey mentioned is based upon corporate reporting required by law. It showed salary compensation of the lowest paid CEO at around $450,000.
The suggested proposal would not prohibit a corporation that is losing money from paying a $10 million salary to its CEO. However, only $450,000 would be tax deductible as an expense. The Board of Directors would thus be required to justify to shareholders the basis for the excess compensation that cut into operating capital. Additionally, the level of deductibility could be tied to a percentage of corporate profits. The logic of the proposal is that the Board of Directors could fashion any level of compensation package they chose. However, the taxpayer subsidy for the compensation would be limited by actual performance by the executive. This is not undue government regulation; it is instead the limitation of government subsidies for irrational and undeserving purposes that provide no benefit to the public. It would represent sound tax policy to combat government welfare to the wealthy. Most of the public believe that getting by on $7 million per year, instead of $70 million, would not be an undue hardship for a CEO whose performance has not been shown to be stellar. Many would be ecstatic to "get by"on a tenth of that lesser amount.
Many of the arguments put forward to justify such compensation lack coherence and substance. No one argues that high levels of talent and performance should be denied high levels of compensation. However, there seems to be very limited positive correlation between the actual performance of the Companies and the level of compensation paid to the CEO. For example, the argument is used that corporations must pay very high compensation levels to attract and keep “star quality” executives. The example of pro athletes is advanced as a model. However, one would be hard put to find a pro athlete who is paid more than $71 million per year in salary alone. Athletes like LeBron James, Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods and others earn their high compensation levels through a combination of sports competition, performance incentives, sponsorship contracts and investment ventures. In addition, they must consistently perform at very high competitive levels that are evident to the public in order to maintain such high compensation levels. The CEO of Yahoo who was paid the highest compensation among those in the survey led a corporation whose stock and profit performance have consistently trailed that of Google.
Another area in which the purported justifications fail to hold water lies in the size of the gap in compensation. Companies that are laying off tens of thousands of employees still pay tens of millions of dollars to the CEO in annual compensation. A general sense of equity and logic suggest that the excess funds could be more effectively used for the benefit of the corporation and its shareholders by investing them in measures to improve plant and equipment, upgrades to technology or other steps to improve competitive performance rather than rewarding substandard performance of the chief executive.
In a simplistic sense, “executive” entails the inherent concept of “execute” or performance. If the CEO fails to develop and execute a profitable strategy, the diversion of corporate assets to an extremely high compensation package seems illogical. It is true that some strategies require time to develop and implement and stability of leadership is a valuable asset. Like any investment, the CEO should accept risk and receive reward based upon thye success of the venture. However, if the CEO lacks faith in his or her own strategy and ability to successfully implement that strategy, why should that CEO be rewarded and compensated in advance of demonstrated results?
Ultimately, the economic dislocation affects the entire economy and becomes a public interest issue. In general terms, it makes little sense for the government to get into the business of regulating executive pay. The mechanisms of corporate governance and shareholder accountability, if functioning properly, should rectify gross abuses. However, the public has seen too many examples of late where such accountability is not functioning and the resulting consequences have created havoc and serious damage to the public. The collapse of Worldcom and Enron and similar scandals demonstrate that the negative consequences of failed corporate governance fall on helpless pensioners, employees and government coffers. In this sense, the government is already “involved” in regulation at some level.
One way to encourage accountability is transparency. Recent statutory requirements that CEO’s and CFO’s sign and attest to the accuracy of financial reports is a sore point for many corporate executives, but does require an increased level of transparency for public companies. Another more aggressive approach might be to link the tax deductibility of executive pay as a “legitimate” business expense to some concrete measures of corporate capitalization and profitability. If a corporation was losing millions of dollars, for example, the IRS could simply prohibit the deduction of any CEO and senior management compensation beyond some level based upon minimum compensation to CEO’s of corporations of the same class. For example, the survey mentioned is based upon corporate reporting required by law. It showed salary compensation of the lowest paid CEO at around $450,000.
The suggested proposal would not prohibit a corporation that is losing money from paying a $10 million salary to its CEO. However, only $450,000 would be tax deductible as an expense. The Board of Directors would thus be required to justify to shareholders the basis for the excess compensation that cut into operating capital. Additionally, the level of deductibility could be tied to a percentage of corporate profits. The logic of the proposal is that the Board of Directors could fashion any level of compensation package they chose. However, the taxpayer subsidy for the compensation would be limited by actual performance by the executive. This is not undue government regulation; it is instead the limitation of government subsidies for irrational and undeserving purposes that provide no benefit to the public. It would represent sound tax policy to combat government welfare to the wealthy. Most of the public believe that getting by on $7 million per year, instead of $70 million, would not be an undue hardship for a CEO whose performance has not been shown to be stellar. Many would be ecstatic to "get by"on a tenth of that lesser amount.
Monday, June 04, 2007
Gullibles’ Travels – Chapter One
Once upon a time a people existed who were thought to be the most progressive, advanced and intelligent society on the planet. They had led the planet in technological advancement, were admired for their economic resourcefulness and were respected as strong and reliable allies. Internally, they enjoyed open and passionate debate over any and everything. Whether the topic was the best way to serve eggs for breakfast or the soundness of the country’s defense strategy, the debate was passionate and free.
These people, the “Gullibles” had a system of selecting their leaders that most of the people believed to be fair and reliable. Indeed, most of the people were so comfortable and complacent with the system, believing that the differences between the choices for leadership were so small, that they sometimes neglected to even cast their vote. From time to time, the people heard rumors that their leaders had been involved in unfairly exploiting other peoples, arguments that religion should be the driving force in government policies and theories that the rich should be heavily favored in government policies at the expense of the poor as opposed to measures designed to provide for the general welfare of the people. The Gullibles generally paid little attention to these rumors, believing them to be crackpot extremists that the majority of all Gullibles would never take seriously. There were even rumors that sinister ideological technology geeks were plotting to corrupt the system of selecting leaders to manipulate the outcomes of elections. Again, these rumors were dismissed as the ravings of conspiracy theorists.
There came a time when these people were caught up in a change of leadership. The newly elected leaders were chosen by a razor thin margin that even required the highest judicial sages of the land to decide who the actual winner of the election was. In several areas of the land, large groups of people complained that they had been discouraged or prevented from casting their vote for leadership. THey even brought forth proof of the mishandling of elections, flaws in the electronic machines that counted the votes and actions that intimidated poor and elderly voters from getting to the polls. These tended to be poor people and so their complaints were dismissed.
The new leadership took control and declared that there would henceforth be a "new way" of governing the people. According to the new President, taxes were cut for the richest of the people so that the economy would grow for the benefit of all. Economic resources for education, health care and relief to the poor would be cut in order to run a more efficient government, he said. If the poor needed help, he declared, religious organizations and charity should be the organizations to provide such help according to their beliefs. If the poor were not of the same religious beliefs, then they were obviously not deserving of aid. He declared that those people and governments in foreign lands that did not agree with his beliefs were “evil” and were enemies. To address this problem, the new President of the Gullibles increased the funding for the military.
Several groups of people on the planet had taken the advice of internationally respected scientists and came together to reach an accord on ways to reduce pollution and hydrocarbon emissions that were a long term threat to the welfare of all people on the planet. The new President of the Gullibles declared that there was no scientific evidence that such a problem existed. Although his lands were responsible for the single largest contribution of hydrocarbon emissions, he declared that the land of the Gullibles would not cooperate in the accord. The Vice President met secretly with the heads of the major oil and energy companies and developed an energy policy that would make their companies more profits. The President thanked the Vice President and ordered the Congress to approve this policy. Because the Congress was led by a majority of representatives of the president’s political party, Congress did as they were told. They ignored the cries of dissent that adopting such an important policy without allowing for the open debate that the people had previously enjoyed and expected was unwise and unfair. The critics were labeled as unpatriotic.
Some people expressed concern that the steps taken by the new President of the Gullibles were harmful to the people, to the diplomatic relationships around the planet and to the welfare of the planet itself. However, media channels that broadcast information to the people assured them that the President had declared that he, and only he, knew what was best for the Gullibles. He had stated that what he was doing was what the Gullible really wanted. If a media outlet broadcast a different viewpoint, the President no longer allowed members of that media organization into press conferences and cut off their access to news releases from the President’s office. So the media faithfully reported what the President told them to broadcast.
Believing that things were pretty much under his control and moving in the direction that he wanted, the President of the Gullibles started on his secret plans to attack leaders of other peoples that disagreed with him and that he considered personal enemies.
TO BE CONTINUED……
These people, the “Gullibles” had a system of selecting their leaders that most of the people believed to be fair and reliable. Indeed, most of the people were so comfortable and complacent with the system, believing that the differences between the choices for leadership were so small, that they sometimes neglected to even cast their vote. From time to time, the people heard rumors that their leaders had been involved in unfairly exploiting other peoples, arguments that religion should be the driving force in government policies and theories that the rich should be heavily favored in government policies at the expense of the poor as opposed to measures designed to provide for the general welfare of the people. The Gullibles generally paid little attention to these rumors, believing them to be crackpot extremists that the majority of all Gullibles would never take seriously. There were even rumors that sinister ideological technology geeks were plotting to corrupt the system of selecting leaders to manipulate the outcomes of elections. Again, these rumors were dismissed as the ravings of conspiracy theorists.
There came a time when these people were caught up in a change of leadership. The newly elected leaders were chosen by a razor thin margin that even required the highest judicial sages of the land to decide who the actual winner of the election was. In several areas of the land, large groups of people complained that they had been discouraged or prevented from casting their vote for leadership. THey even brought forth proof of the mishandling of elections, flaws in the electronic machines that counted the votes and actions that intimidated poor and elderly voters from getting to the polls. These tended to be poor people and so their complaints were dismissed.
The new leadership took control and declared that there would henceforth be a "new way" of governing the people. According to the new President, taxes were cut for the richest of the people so that the economy would grow for the benefit of all. Economic resources for education, health care and relief to the poor would be cut in order to run a more efficient government, he said. If the poor needed help, he declared, religious organizations and charity should be the organizations to provide such help according to their beliefs. If the poor were not of the same religious beliefs, then they were obviously not deserving of aid. He declared that those people and governments in foreign lands that did not agree with his beliefs were “evil” and were enemies. To address this problem, the new President of the Gullibles increased the funding for the military.
Several groups of people on the planet had taken the advice of internationally respected scientists and came together to reach an accord on ways to reduce pollution and hydrocarbon emissions that were a long term threat to the welfare of all people on the planet. The new President of the Gullibles declared that there was no scientific evidence that such a problem existed. Although his lands were responsible for the single largest contribution of hydrocarbon emissions, he declared that the land of the Gullibles would not cooperate in the accord. The Vice President met secretly with the heads of the major oil and energy companies and developed an energy policy that would make their companies more profits. The President thanked the Vice President and ordered the Congress to approve this policy. Because the Congress was led by a majority of representatives of the president’s political party, Congress did as they were told. They ignored the cries of dissent that adopting such an important policy without allowing for the open debate that the people had previously enjoyed and expected was unwise and unfair. The critics were labeled as unpatriotic.
Some people expressed concern that the steps taken by the new President of the Gullibles were harmful to the people, to the diplomatic relationships around the planet and to the welfare of the planet itself. However, media channels that broadcast information to the people assured them that the President had declared that he, and only he, knew what was best for the Gullibles. He had stated that what he was doing was what the Gullible really wanted. If a media outlet broadcast a different viewpoint, the President no longer allowed members of that media organization into press conferences and cut off their access to news releases from the President’s office. So the media faithfully reported what the President told them to broadcast.
Believing that things were pretty much under his control and moving in the direction that he wanted, the President of the Gullibles started on his secret plans to attack leaders of other peoples that disagreed with him and that he considered personal enemies.
TO BE CONTINUED……
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)