Old Generals Don't Die...

They just get quoted by Rolling Stone.

My two cents on the RS General McCrystal profile: In a rational, substance driven world, the most damaging parts of Michael Hastings' piece are the ones that are pretty much already common knowledge:

1) We cannot decisively defeat Al Queda by fighting in Afghanistan.

2) Any strategy we pursue will cost more in money and blood than most Americans feel is warranted.

Hastings is not the first and won't be the last to point this out in print. And, as far as I can tell, no one is even denying any of the substantive aspects of the piece. What gets everyone's panties in a bunch is Hastings recorded McCrystal and his staff criticizing civilian leadership and generally acting inappropriate.

So, essentially, these guys drink, curse and sometimes disagree with their bosses. Not exactly gripping stuff and, to my mind, not particularly demeaning to McCrystal. Whatever you may think of his plans for Afghanistan or his potty mouth, at least he isn't a cynic or a glad-hander. The only question is why he did any of this in front of a reporter.

I'm not disagreeing with the President's Personnel choices either. If I woke up to that Rolling Stone article I would have fired McCrystal too, but that is not nearly as important a decision as our path forward in the quagmire that was accurately described in the article.

Is Obama going to pretend to have a plan in Afghanistan for about 12 more months and then begin pulling out troops regardless of the nearly inevitable inadequacies of the Afghan government and military? Or is July 2011 a bait and switch and we will really be there for the next hundred years trying to build a nation from scratch? Neither is a very attractive position.

Afghanistan is not Iraq; there are reasonable arguments for us to be there. There have even been times when I felt that the invasion was warranted by the Taliban's support for Al Queda. But ultimately, you have to ask yourself, would I die for this cause? Anyone who claims to support the war but has not signed up for military service is voting with their feet.

Up Come Abubblin' Crude

It certainly is one plum of a pickle

Rand Paul may have stumbled on a genuinely honest statement about the BP oil spill: "accidents happen" and we shouldn't play the "blame game".

At first blush it sounds appallingly dismissive of an evironmental and economic disaster. And it also overlooks the admittedly preliminary evidence that BP, Transocean, Halliburton and Federal regulators were all turning a blind eye to short cuts that caused this spill. Certainly there should be a criminal as well as civil investigation, but there probably won't be. And BP will probably pay the cost of clean up, but not nearly all the actual costs of the spill. There is no hope for justice when so much money is involved. Remember the consequences for Exxon after their now quaint-seeming mishap in Alaska.

But none of this is really the point. No matter how many safety regulations the fed actually enforces, as Paul says, "accidents happen". It is inevitable that off-shore drilling will involve some catastrophes of this kind. And what would justice really amount to in this situation? What amount of money would "make whole" the people whose livelihood depends on the Gulf?

We may be spending a lot on the clean up, but how much are tax payers going to spend on unemployment and other social services for Gulf fisherman, and tourism business owners and staff; how much wealth evaporated in lost real estate value? Not just now, but for decades, possibly a century, this will have a depressive effect on the economy of the Gulf states. How could anyone shoulder that cost? The people of the Gulf states and every US citizen are gong to find out.

But Paul doesn't like the "blame game", and he is right. It doesn't matter who we blame; it matters what we do about it. Obama and Congress's role isn't to catharticly channel our collective anger, their job is to enact policies that have practical benefits to our country.

"Pro-drillers" like Sarah Plain, Rand Paul and the President argue that off-shore oil drilling is an economic imperative. Any real economic evaluation of the price of oil needs to include all these costs. In comparison, an enormous investment in green energy seems like a deal.

Poltifact.com is an interesting site that provides a much needed breath of honest air in our national political debate. But they seem to lean away from the President bias-wise. One example: in calling out his "lie" that he wouldn't raise taxes on anyone making less than 250K they point out that the Health Care Reform bill imposes some forms of taxes on behaviors irrespective of income. To my mind they seem to be reaching. Here is one gem of analysis that particularly stood out:

Obama has made the case that the tax penalty for people who decline to buy insurance should not be considered a broken promise on taxes. If that tax, better known as the individual mandate, were the only new measure we were considering, we might be inclined to rate this a Compromise. But the fact is, if you're a happily uninsured smoker who likes to tan, you are facing a triple whammy.

Now, this may technically make a fibber out of the President, but it also seems like about the most reasonable policy I can imagine. As a tax-payer, I definitely want take a little something up front from this theoretical citizen (Charlie Christ by Christmas?) before they inevitably end up getting their chemo/radiation/oxygen/melanectomy/skin-graft/death-panel referral, etc. through the county ER.

The Cat Shepherd

When Liberals talk about the President there is plenty of having it both ways. We get so upset at his scathing betrayals because he is the Second Coming. Lately the needle has been swinging to the negative. There seems to be a flurry of “his first year sucked”, and “his agenda is stalled”, but I see a very different picture.

There is plenty to complain about, but it's important to remember that it could be so much worse. Theoretically, with the Presidency and a Super-majority in Congress, a much larger Stimulus, a public health plan, lawful adjudication of terrorists, meaningful banking reform, repeal of DADT, etc. should have been a matter of paperwork. The problem is that Obama isn’t fighting the Republicans. And by that I don't mean that he isn't fighting against the GOP with enough ardor. I mean the GOP is not the obstacle to his agenda. They have made it clear that they would filibuster a resolution to declare puppies cute, but that doesn't really matter, or at least it didn't for most of the last year.

The GOP has whole-heartedly embraced their irrelevance with proposals like a spending freeze, less banking regulation, and a “shadow budget” that raises most people’s taxes. If there was any chance of them being able to achieve these overwhelmingly unpopular, ill-advised objectives, I doubt they would still want to. And yet there are plenty of people listening to their cable news antics. The Stupacks and the Lincolns hear them loud and clear and are digging their heels in to have something to tell their angry, conservative-leaning constituents in November. When Obama talks about compromise and bipartisanship it means trying to placate both Democrats and conservative Democrats.

And yet Obama is actually accomplishing something. His policies have immediate benefits: a soldier comes home alive, a teacher keeps their job, a bridge doesn’t collapse. It is difficult to get excited about things being “less bad”, but it is none the less real. We are still waiting on health insurance reform, but it feels like we are going to get something, if not the public option that the vast majority of Obama's supporters, not to mention most Americans want. When HCR passes everyone who's been predicitng doom and gloom since Scott Brown's election will suddenly remember just how superhuman Obama is. Of course they will still be wrong.

I'd describe him as a cautiously effective centrist. Rahm Emanuel knows that the tasks set before his boss are too important to tackle boldly. It is more like a vicious uphill slog that we are slowly, painfully winning. Clearly everything that happens in Washington is a deal with the Devil, and it seems that Obama has made a calculation that to successfully fight the Neocons, health insurance providers, GM’s management, the Religious Right,and the conservative wing of his own party, he desperately needs the support of the pharmaceutical industry, the investment bankers and the military contractors. With friends like these…

Why Health Care Reform Is Difficult

Talking Points Memo put up an interesting post on why national Democrats are often ineffective when it comes to big policy goals, like health care reform. The commentor's point is that Democrats represent a large number of interest groups and are better at acting in opposition to policies that a wide majority of their constituents dislike, than they are at crafting policies that please enough of their backers without alienating anyone.

He also accuses Obama of missing a strategic opportunity in the wake of one of the most unpopular presidents in history, to consistently paint the entire GOP as "Bush Republicans".

His critique is probably accurate. It also is another way of saying that Democrats act like adults who represent large portions of our society's interests, with the corollary that Republican stock in trade is ad hominem attacks to push the agenda of a very narrow group.

The Obama Report Card

Iraq: C-
Plans to reduce troops to 50K. Much more than the 10K he spoke of on the campaign trail, but a step in the right direction. We are pulling out of the cities, which is to say, instead of being targets in a slow-burning civil war, we will now be sitting idly on the sidelines. So what are those 50K troops for? Secure Iraq’s (Exxon’s) oil fields? Keep employment numbers up? Make funny faces at Iran?

Afghanistan: B-
Will increase troops and try to implement a smarter policy that relies less on bombs and more on engaging (bribing?) local leaders and securing (depopulating?)border with Pakistan. That would be nice. Maybe if instead of 40K more soldiers than promised were left in Iraq, he sent 40K engineers to Afghanistan to build infrastucture, we might have more luck winning hearts and minds. Apparently is far too much to ask that Afghanistan be democratic or that women be given any civil rights or that it not flood the world with cheap heroin. If we could accomplish the single task of not allowing Al Queda a safe-haven, we would at least be looking out for our own interests, if not the Afghanis’.

Torture: C-
Has (re)outlawed torture, but will not pursue an investigation to put the crimes of the previous administration into the public record, much less bring charges against anyone. At least now when the CIA tortures people, they are supposed feel bad about it.

Energy: B+
Strong support for the Cap/Trade Energy bill in the House. Conservative critics say it is too expensive and liberal critics say it is too weak. So, by the Goldilocks theory of political negotiation, it is probably just right. The question is, will it make it though the Senate? Hopefully it will work in tandem with the Stimulus Bill's promotion of green entrepreneurship. If we can export cutting edge energy technology to Europe, Asia and burgeoning economies around the world, and the Energy Bill puts some modicum of brakes on carbon emissions, we can save the world and our own bottom line.

Government Secrecy: F
Has already used the same twisted logic that Bush’s lawyers came up with to stonewall judicial orders. As with our presence in Iraq and the CIA’s actual torture policies, it is a foregone conclusion that the President is above the law. It doesn’t matter how obviously unconstitutional it is, how many Americans disagree with it or whether a Democrat, a Republican, or for that matter a Whig is in office, they will always lie, cheat and steal.

TARP/Bailout: F
I don't have a problem with Obama giving money to the States to spend on our country as our citizens see fit. It is all the money going to private businesses (GM, AIG, Goldman Sachs, Fannie Mae, etc...) that I find criminal. FOX News calls Obama a “Socialist”, but that implies our cash was buying us some control over these companies that are supposedly so necessary. Honestly, at this point, a little genuine populist tyranny would be refreshing. But I don’t see anyone making decisions about the use of private capital for public good; I just see old friends divvy up almost a trillion dollars between themselves. The Federal Reserve/Treasury/FDIC’s power-grab isn’t ambitious enough to be real Socialism or even Fascism, it’s more like cronyism hiding in plain sight: you scratch my back and I cut you a check from the public til. To put it another way, if giving away a couple hundred billion dollars gave Obama the political leverage to give the SEC some teeth, you could call the TARP the price of doing business, but it seems like there will never be the resources to investigate even obvious fraud, rating agencies and auditors will always operate with systematic (profitable) conflicts of interest and the guy asleep at the wheel will always have a 24 karat air-bag. Where is Naomi Klein with a little outrage at the manipulation of a national crisis for narrow personal gain?

Guantanamo: F
Will eventually close our Carribean gulag. Has already made it clear that a change of venue will not affect the underlying policy of holding foreigners in solitary confinement forever without any due process because our immoral, illegal, counter-productive policies have made it impossible to convict them in even the most biased court.. A the end of the day he seems to be saying: “I didn’t make this mess, so you can’t really hold it against me if I can’t fix it”. Possibly things will change on a “going forward” basis, but that would require the CIA to act thoughtfully in the interest of our national security.


North Korea: A
Unlike the “hawkish” previous administration that shot our wad occupying the one place in the Middle East we knew Bin Laden isn’t hiding, the one place that actually lets UN inspectors in, the one place where we already maintained a no-fly zone and a tight embargo, Obama is using our navy against a country that actually has WMDs and is dying to sell them to the highest bidder. If we start policing North Korean shipping, will they retaliate against South Korea or Japan? How committed should we be if the North Koreans try to escalate the issue? Conversely, will our best efforts at interdiction be enough to stop them from selling missles or nerve gas? And while we are playing bad cop with one hand, should we also send them food aid to relieve some of the pressure on their government and move them towards something like détente, or is that just encouraging dangerous actions? It is a complicated situation that has real consequences for our long-term security and I am not sure what the right answer is, but at least the policy bears some relationship to it’s stated aims.

Health Care: B+
This, along with energy policy, is his real test. He seems to be standing firm on his support of a publicly funded competition to HMOs, which is probably the straightest line to decent medical coverage for every citizen. Like the energy bill, we’ll have to see what happens in the Senate. If he can lead the Congress to some version of socialized medicine, that will be his permanent legacy and all else will most likely be forgiven. If he fails the history books will only have a sentence or two about his background and his eloquence, characteristics that are incidental to leadership. But if he succeeds he will be remembered as an FDR with a jump shot, or a JFK with actual accomplishments... BHO, a man for the ages. I am not holding my breath, but I am keeping my fingers crossed.

It's Hard Out There For a Pimp

Actually, I doubt that. Watch American Pimp for substantiation, the central premise of which seems to be that The Game is in fact incredibly easy. You gotta wonder though, would the struggling pimps agree to an interview? If they did, would they admit their hardships? The question casts more than a shadow of doubt. Do pimps, maybe even the successful ones, ever wake up in the middle of the night and wonder what might have been?

For all of us, even the L7s, the big existential questions loom. Our choices about friendship, education, love, career, family, all the big stuff, are spilling over with personal meaning, but the decisions can also feel weighed down by a lack of moral purpose. Do I do these things solely for my benefit? If it is just about me, what is the point of personal sacrificc, and what will it all mean when I am gone? Do I do the way my family wants me too? How God tells me too? Do I just do what seems to work for my friends? Putting your shoes on in the morning for those reasons seems like the definition of Socrates’ “unexplored life”. So how do you operate with integrity in a seemingly hollow world? These capital-B-Big concerns can definitely lose you some sleep, but they have also inspired a lot of great writing. Many times I have thought about how my life choices stack up against the problems faced by the characters in Shakespeare, Faulkner, Hemingway, Joyce, Schulz, etc.

But really a writer doesn’t know anything more about the truths of human existence than you. They are just better able to pry their own opinions and prejudices into a pleasing narrative. So in a way, writing fiction is a little like being a pimp. Whether the fantasy is packaged in fake fur and plastic pumps or realistic dialogue and surprising plot twists, both are false and fleeting constructions. The reader gets a cheap thrill as the story builds and then the last page turns, she reapplies her lipstick, and you don’t really know anything more about the world or yourself than you did before. Or even worse, you think you do. I guess, to stretch the metaphor, that is like believing a working girl when she says she really likes you. So if even the classics are starting feel as fake as a stripper’s D cups, what is left? Paul Krassner once said, “irreverence is my only sacred cow,” but you gotta wonder, just where then does the man get his milk?

While we’re on the topic of prostitution, watching the news, even reading the NY Times, is starting feel like a trip to opposite-world, where borrowing more money than you could ever even intend to pay back is fiscally responsible and sending other peoples’ children to die takes courage. The politicians' and pundits' only real ability is to pull themselves into a a miniskirt and smile like it isn’t 35 degrees in the DC night air. At least this go around there is Obama, who seems like a relatively straight shooter. Plus he is like Rocky Marciano in negative: the great black hope. Wouldn’t it be crazy if a black man was president?

Well, not if he is compromised by corporate money, professional handlers and his own burning desire to triangulate to the middle of opinion polls. Is he just Hillary in black face? Probably, but either one will seem like a savior. Obama is definitely a thoughtful, articulate speaker and he has some genuine policies, like health care that you or your employer could afford, and not nuking countries that we aren’t at war with. What a nutcase-liberal that guy is huh?

But at the end of the day Obama is a politician. He gets ahead by telling us whatever it is we want to hear. It reminds me of a conversation I had with my father a few years back when I was doing volunteer work for Ralph Nader. HeMy dad smirked at my idealism, blaming it on my youth. “You young people think you’re so special, looking for a political candidate that has real integrity. Just hold your nose and pick the best looking whore, like the rest of us”. Not the worst advice I have ever heard.