I tend to agree that Roland Burris is a lying sack of crap whose time in the Senate should be over. I'm not sure exactly the legal means to make that happen, however. As I understand it, the reason he was allowed to be sworn in was basically because nobody had the power to stop him. The sole appointment power was in the Governor's hands, even though he was on the way out. Without getting too much into the constitutional thicket, I think the only power the Senate has to keep an appointed senator from being seated relates to his qualifications for the job in the sense that, if the person is 35 years old and a resident of the state he wants to represent, the senate has no way to say no to him. On the other hand, I know there are more ways to kick a senator out once he's in. I don't know what the standard is, but I think that the senate can effectively kick their own members out due to moral turpitude. The simplest way for all this to get done would be for the Illinois legislature, or whoever is responsible for such things under IL state law, to impeach Burris. Impeach everybody!
As for making public service no longer amenable to corruption, that's a pretty tall order. Unlike some, I tend to think that most politicians act in good faith on the basis of what they think either their constituents would want them to do, what they think is the best thing to do for their state or the country, or some combination of the two. For the others, I'm not sure there's any recourse except elections and the occasional (or not so occasional) impeachment.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Roland, Roland, Roland Down the River
Roland Burris' brief stint in the Senate has already been too long. It's time for him to go. I was a more than a little confused by Congress' willingness to swear him in in the first place. Although he asserted the legality of his claim to the seat, I never understood what leg he had to stand on.
Now my doubts are being proven legitimate. In grand political fashion, he's already been exposed as a liar after dodging questions about campaign fundraising. Are the American people so stupid as to believe that his indiscretions end there?
Well, ok...they are, but still- we need to stop this nonsense. I'm tired of scandals being sniffed out, uncovered, and resolved on a case-by-case basis. How are these swindlers even able to rise to level of power that they enjoy? In Burris' case, it was obvious that something was seriously amiss, and yet nothing was done.
Again, I put it to President Obama. Although this issue falls farther from his purview than even the vetting of certain tax evading cabinet members, he's the one who promised change. Nothing that's happened so far has lived up to that promise. Burris is only the latest failure.
I know it's not the President's fault or responsibility, but it does indicate that it's business as usual in D.C.
In any event, step one is to eject Burris should he refuse to resign. Step 2 is to proverbially burn Illinois politics to the ground and start over. Step 3- and perhaps most important- is to implement a SYSTEM that will prevent things like this from happening. Public service should not be a route to success via corruption any more.
Now my doubts are being proven legitimate. In grand political fashion, he's already been exposed as a liar after dodging questions about campaign fundraising. Are the American people so stupid as to believe that his indiscretions end there?
Well, ok...they are, but still- we need to stop this nonsense. I'm tired of scandals being sniffed out, uncovered, and resolved on a case-by-case basis. How are these swindlers even able to rise to level of power that they enjoy? In Burris' case, it was obvious that something was seriously amiss, and yet nothing was done.
Again, I put it to President Obama. Although this issue falls farther from his purview than even the vetting of certain tax evading cabinet members, he's the one who promised change. Nothing that's happened so far has lived up to that promise. Burris is only the latest failure.
I know it's not the President's fault or responsibility, but it does indicate that it's business as usual in D.C.
In any event, step one is to eject Burris should he refuse to resign. Step 2 is to proverbially burn Illinois politics to the ground and start over. Step 3- and perhaps most important- is to implement a SYSTEM that will prevent things like this from happening. Public service should not be a route to success via corruption any more.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
My Scathing Rebukes Are Bi-Partisan
With regard to the appointment of Michael Steele as RNC chair, I say this:
Are you guys **** serious?
The former Lt. Governor may be highly qualified. But I find hard to believe that you would have appointed him had we not just elected a Democrat as the first African-American POTUS.
Honestly, I just about fell off my chair laughing when the announcement was made.
Now, in the interests of equal opportunity, I will lambaste the Dems.
Mr. President, you know you were my guy throughout the campaign. I'm not a Dem, but I rallied behind you and your various messages and platforms from the get-go. I was especially supportive of your promises of transparency and change. Heck, I was even ok with Hillary Beelzebub Clinton as SoS.
But again, I am forced to say:
Are you guys **** serious?
Let's start with Timothy Geithner, the new Secretary of the Treasury. This guy is now the top financial officer in all the land. The same guy who just had his dirty laundry aired.
Among other indiscretions, he failed to pay his taxes properly. When asked about the error, he said:
"These were careless mistakes, they were avoidable mistakes but they were unintentional. I should have been more careful."
Um...really? You were the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and that lame-ass pseudo apology is the best you can do?
I'm just a regular workaday schlub who has to pay his taxes or get in big trouble. I'm not an accountant, or a financial expert, or a bank officer, or a tax attorney, and yet somehow I've managed to avoid mistakes on my taxes.
But let's say I did make an error. Call me crazy, but in my opinion that would go a long way toward disqualifying me from ever holding an office such as Sec'y of the freaking Treasury.
Now we find out that DHHS appointee Tom Daschle also made "unintentional" mistakes by forgetting to properly pay HIS taxes. The prototypical Democrat has tax dollars running through his veins in lieu of blood, and you two really expect the American people to believe your excuses?
Even if we were to believe them, accepting that there may be reasons for your idiocy doesn't mean you should be absolved of any responsibility. Nor does it mean that such behavior shouldn't have consequences.
Governor Bill Richardson steps down from a potential appointment because of a semi-legitimate investigation that has produced no accusations and no proof of wrongdoing. And President Obama, you supported (if not required) his withdrawal.
However, two TOP officials admit to failing to pay taxes, and you're cool with that? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!
And so Mr. President I would like an honest, TRANSPARENT answer: How you can allow the confirmation of Timothy Geithner and Tom Daschle? Because from where I'm sitting, this does NOT represent CHANGE. This smacks of the same cronyism and lying that we've be subjected to for years.
**EDITOR'S NOTE: Immediately following this post, it was brought to my attention that Daschle withdrew from consideration. I respect that, though he's still a tax cheat. I hope he can manage to feed his family on his existing fat, fat perk-laden government salary.***
Are you guys **** serious?
The former Lt. Governor may be highly qualified. But I find hard to believe that you would have appointed him had we not just elected a Democrat as the first African-American POTUS.
Honestly, I just about fell off my chair laughing when the announcement was made.
Now, in the interests of equal opportunity, I will lambaste the Dems.
Mr. President, you know you were my guy throughout the campaign. I'm not a Dem, but I rallied behind you and your various messages and platforms from the get-go. I was especially supportive of your promises of transparency and change. Heck, I was even ok with Hillary Beelzebub Clinton as SoS.
But again, I am forced to say:
Are you guys **** serious?
Let's start with Timothy Geithner, the new Secretary of the Treasury. This guy is now the top financial officer in all the land. The same guy who just had his dirty laundry aired.
Among other indiscretions, he failed to pay his taxes properly. When asked about the error, he said:
"These were careless mistakes, they were avoidable mistakes but they were unintentional. I should have been more careful."
Um...really? You were the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and that lame-ass pseudo apology is the best you can do?
I'm just a regular workaday schlub who has to pay his taxes or get in big trouble. I'm not an accountant, or a financial expert, or a bank officer, or a tax attorney, and yet somehow I've managed to avoid mistakes on my taxes.
But let's say I did make an error. Call me crazy, but in my opinion that would go a long way toward disqualifying me from ever holding an office such as Sec'y of the freaking Treasury.
Now we find out that DHHS appointee Tom Daschle also made "unintentional" mistakes by forgetting to properly pay HIS taxes. The prototypical Democrat has tax dollars running through his veins in lieu of blood, and you two really expect the American people to believe your excuses?
Even if we were to believe them, accepting that there may be reasons for your idiocy doesn't mean you should be absolved of any responsibility. Nor does it mean that such behavior shouldn't have consequences.
Governor Bill Richardson steps down from a potential appointment because of a semi-legitimate investigation that has produced no accusations and no proof of wrongdoing. And President Obama, you supported (if not required) his withdrawal.
However, two TOP officials admit to failing to pay taxes, and you're cool with that? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!
And so Mr. President I would like an honest, TRANSPARENT answer: How you can allow the confirmation of Timothy Geithner and Tom Daschle? Because from where I'm sitting, this does NOT represent CHANGE. This smacks of the same cronyism and lying that we've be subjected to for years.
**EDITOR'S NOTE: Immediately following this post, it was brought to my attention that Daschle withdrew from consideration. I respect that, though he's still a tax cheat. I hope he can manage to feed his family on his existing fat, fat perk-laden government salary.***
Friday, January 30, 2009
New Post Mania
Wow, a new post. That blog post about pirates and the USN was a little intense for a layman (and landlubber) such as myself, but ever since these pirate attacks started kicking up, I was wondering when we were going to start taking it a little more seriously, or whether we'd just leave it up to other countries that perhaps have an equal or greater interest in keeping that area of the ocean safe from shipping to take on the responsibility.
On an unrelated note, I see that the Republicans are voting on their "na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na LEADER" (to paraphrase Homer) today. Does anyone else find it a little coincidental that in a party that doesn't have more than a handful of elected officials at any level that are black, and which abhors affirmative action as a general principle, two of the five top candidates for RNC leader and arguably the favorite (Steele)are black? It reminds me a little of when that guy who was married to "7 of 9" from Star Trek Voyager dropped out of his Senate race against Obama a few years back because of scandal, the Republican braintrust decided that the best person to fill in for him as Senator from IL was Alan Keyes, a man who was woefully short on IL cred (having never lived there) and elective office experience (having never held one), but conveniently high on melanin count in his skin considering his opponent.
Discuss.
On an unrelated note, I see that the Republicans are voting on their "na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na LEADER" (to paraphrase Homer) today. Does anyone else find it a little coincidental that in a party that doesn't have more than a handful of elected officials at any level that are black, and which abhors affirmative action as a general principle, two of the five top candidates for RNC leader and arguably the favorite (Steele)are black? It reminds me a little of when that guy who was married to "7 of 9" from Star Trek Voyager dropped out of his Senate race against Obama a few years back because of scandal, the Republican braintrust decided that the best person to fill in for him as Senator from IL was Alan Keyes, a man who was woefully short on IL cred (having never lived there) and elective office experience (having never held one), but conveniently high on melanin count in his skin considering his opponent.
Discuss.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Not At All Like Jack Sparrow
I think the return of piracy as a global issue has shocked most people and who can really blame them. After all, we have a romanticized Hollywood vision of what piracy is. We associate it with names like Blackbeard, Captain Blood and think of terms like "swashbuckler" and "buccaneer". The sad truth is that piracy never vanished but has actually maintained a persistence presence in key parts of the globe. Piracy has thrived in South East Asia, reared its head in Latin America and has absolutely exploded in the Horn of Africa. I find it slightly more than humorous that the USN is in 2009 filling one of its original missions that necessitated its return in 1805 after being disbanded after the revolution.
The following is a blog posting from the US Naval Institute page. http://blog.usni.org/?p=753
Observing The Establishment of CTF151
The US Navy has established a new multinational task force focused solely on counter-piracy operations in and around the Gulf of Aden, Arabian Sea, Indian Ocean and the Red Sea. The name of this new task force is Combined Task Force 151 (CF-151). Despite the previous rhetoric otherwise from 5th Fleet and the political forces in Washington, including Condoleeza Rice at the United Nations, this is the first tangible action taken by the United States Navy to address the piracy problems emanating from Somalia. Previous efforts have consisted solely in information sharing and assistance response to mariners under threat. These are my observations of the political, tactical, and strategic thinking behind this action by the US Navy.
Combined Task Force 151 (CTF-151) will operate from the USS San Antonio (LPD 17) which will act as a command ship, and initially will be supported by two unnamed warships. It will be interesting to see what kind of helicopters we see flying off the USS San Antonio (LPD 17), we have recently seen AH-1s and UH-1s on the flight deck (click image above and look at it in hi-res), and it will be interesting to see if it becomes Marine airmen who become the sharp end of the spear. I also noted the announcement that the Boxer ESG will deploy Friday, which includes both the USS New Orleans (LPD 18) and the new UH-1Y Huey’s. Go back and read my conversation with Expeditionary Strike Group 5 leadership, including the transcript of the whole conversation. The announcement today puts a lot of that conversation in context, making me think they kind of knew this was coming. As a consistent vocal fan of the San Antonio class, this is exactly the scenario that I have so often discussed this ship… as the flexible sea-air-land nGW maritime domain command ship (mothership). It will be interesting to observe whether reality confirms or discredits my theories through this implementation.
One final note on this, the Boxer ESG only has 2 warships and 1 Coast Guard Cutter. If this ESG replaces the Iwo Jima ESG in the 5th Fleet operating theater, the net effect is a reduction of one warship. It is interesting we are setting up a new command to be resourced by ships at a time the Navy appears to be gradually reducing the number of ships in the region. This could be telling us something about the Navy’s obligations being reduced as it relates to the Iraq war theater.
Depending upon your point of view, or world view, the reasons regarding why the US Navy is developing CTF-151 may very. The Europeans, in particular the Germans, believe this is a reaction to the German Navy taking over command of Task Force 150 next week. The German Navy has a very specific mandate in the region regarding action against piracy, and German command over Task Force 150 coalition forces that take proactive steps to curb piracy could create political problems, and disrupt what has been a very successful coalition effort dealing with other security issues maritime forces are operating to address in the region.
While it is an interesting theory, that would not explain why the US Navy’s commitment to date fighting piracy has been lackluster at best, so it wouldn’t explain why the US Navy decided to all of a sudden take a more proactive approach against piracy simply because Germany is taking command of Task Force 150. The fundamental change here has nothing to do with the Germans, the fundamental change is a shift in strategy towards piracy. Without the decision to adjust the Navy’s fundamental strategic approach to fighting piracy, the US Navy would be quite content operating in Task Force 150 under German command.
I also think CDR Salamander couldn’t be more off the mark with his analysis that this represents the US Navy going it alone in theater. The US Navy has talked tough about piracy and has intentionally NOT done the job of the Europeans in protecting their trade for a long time now. In my opinion, the result of the pirate problem is that pirates have become the solution to developing a multinational approach to solving the difficult challenges in Somalia, and has built the largest collection of warships in the 21st century dedicated to the single purpose of curbing piracy against global trade in a concentrated region. There are 3 Saudi frigates and 3 Chinese ships missing from my last Order of Battle for the 5th Fleet. I’m stunned that the CDR believes as we observe another prerequisite for the framework required in developing a Global Maritime Partnership, he sees it as a sign the US Navy is abandoning the maritime strategy that has so brilliantly shaped these conditions? The patience that has been demonstrated, particularly given the incredibly harsh criticism of the US Navy by so many people on both the CDRs blog and mine, has been extraordinary, and the results in the form of a shared international responsibility against the difficult challenge of piracy has been well worth the wait.
CTF-151 will have a one-star Admiral in command, Rear Adm. Terry McKnight, which I think is exactly the right approach towards building this force for the long haul. After all, I suggested it would be the right approach towards coalition building for a multinational approach to piracy back in December after the U.N. Security Council unanimously passed UNSCR 1846.
My only concern by the pick of Rear Adm. Terry McKnight is that I am surprised the Navy picked an Admiral from the Atlantic Fleet. Expeditionary Strike Group 2, last I heard, was associated with the USS Bataan (LHD 5). I am sure Rear Adm. Terry McKnight is capable, but I was just expecting leadership to come from the Pacific Fleet. Put another way, I expected the Navy to pick someone with experience and familiarity dealing with the PLA Navy.
There is another reason the Navy may be forming CTF-151 besides taking a unilateral approach or because the Germans are taking Command of Task Force 150. This week the PLA Navy entered the action curbing piracy against regional commerce off the coast of Somalia. While the establishment of Combined Task Force 151 might represent the tactical development of an infrastructure to fight the pirate problem originating from Somalia, a problem everyone agrees is on land more than sea; the establishment of Combined Task Force 151 also represents a long term strategy towards the ends of linking the national security strategies of CENTCOM and PACOM looking into the future. Consider for a moment what CTF-151 looks like in the context of an image posted by EagleOne the other day, what I’m calling in the spirit of Thomas Barnett, the Navy’s New Map in the first term of the Obama administration.
The tactical purpose of Combined Task Force 151 (CTF-151) might be to establish “a multinational task force focused solely on counter-piracy operations,” but the strategic purpose has larger ends. Combined Task Force 150 represents a mostly Western approach to nGW in the maritime domain in and around the Gulf of Aden, Arabian Sea, Indian Ocean and the Red Sea. The nations that contribute to Task Force 150 are European and North American, but also made up of regional partners including Pakistan. If there is any vision behind Combined Task Force 151, the number one priority of Rear Adm. Terry McKnight is to build an Eastern approach to nGW in the maritime domain in and around the Gulf of Aden, Arabian Sea, Indian Ocean and the Red Sea. Essentially, Rear Adm. Terry McKnight priority from day 1 should be to recruit China, Russia, India, Malaysia, and Saudi Arabia into CTF-151, all of whom have already committed ships with the intent to fight piracy. If or when Japan and South Korea send ships, recruit them as well.
The US Navy has absolutely nothing to gain in creating maritime competitions in fighting piracy, indeed the Maritime Strategy is about creating maritime coalitions in dealing with maritime challenges. With the creation of Combined Task Force 151 (CTF-151) the US Navy continues to evolve at the pace of the international community towards the development of a cooperative approach to dealing with the problems in Somalia. The strategy here has been absolutely brilliant in my opinion. By not solving the piracy problem for others, a problem that has no economic impact whatsoever to the United States; by encouraging and assisting coalition partners with existing resources; and by remaining patient but engaged in the slowly evolving political process (UNSCR 1846) the United States Navy now finds itself with the internal infrastructure, regional participants, enabled by evolving international political and legal frameworks, and the right tactical resources to address a maritime nGW problem with an international, coalition approach.
For better or worse, the US Navy’s Maritime Strategy has put the US Navy exactly in the position the maritime strategy states it is designed to do. It is now up to our national leadership, both political and inside the Navy, to close the deal with the opportunities at hand. In this bloggers opinion, there is some irony the success in developing a coalition approach to deal with Somalia will fall to the new Secretary of State, one Hillary Clinton. She, more than anyone, understands the challenges of military activities in Somalia. The question is whether that is an advantage, or a burden in the process. Time will tell.
The following is a blog posting from the US Naval Institute page. http://blog.usni.org/?p=753
Observing The Establishment of CTF151
The US Navy has established a new multinational task force focused solely on counter-piracy operations in and around the Gulf of Aden, Arabian Sea, Indian Ocean and the Red Sea. The name of this new task force is Combined Task Force 151 (CF-151). Despite the previous rhetoric otherwise from 5th Fleet and the political forces in Washington, including Condoleeza Rice at the United Nations, this is the first tangible action taken by the United States Navy to address the piracy problems emanating from Somalia. Previous efforts have consisted solely in information sharing and assistance response to mariners under threat. These are my observations of the political, tactical, and strategic thinking behind this action by the US Navy.
Combined Task Force 151 (CTF-151) will operate from the USS San Antonio (LPD 17) which will act as a command ship, and initially will be supported by two unnamed warships. It will be interesting to see what kind of helicopters we see flying off the USS San Antonio (LPD 17), we have recently seen AH-1s and UH-1s on the flight deck (click image above and look at it in hi-res), and it will be interesting to see if it becomes Marine airmen who become the sharp end of the spear. I also noted the announcement that the Boxer ESG will deploy Friday, which includes both the USS New Orleans (LPD 18) and the new UH-1Y Huey’s. Go back and read my conversation with Expeditionary Strike Group 5 leadership, including the transcript of the whole conversation. The announcement today puts a lot of that conversation in context, making me think they kind of knew this was coming. As a consistent vocal fan of the San Antonio class, this is exactly the scenario that I have so often discussed this ship… as the flexible sea-air-land nGW maritime domain command ship (mothership). It will be interesting to observe whether reality confirms or discredits my theories through this implementation.
One final note on this, the Boxer ESG only has 2 warships and 1 Coast Guard Cutter. If this ESG replaces the Iwo Jima ESG in the 5th Fleet operating theater, the net effect is a reduction of one warship. It is interesting we are setting up a new command to be resourced by ships at a time the Navy appears to be gradually reducing the number of ships in the region. This could be telling us something about the Navy’s obligations being reduced as it relates to the Iraq war theater.
Depending upon your point of view, or world view, the reasons regarding why the US Navy is developing CTF-151 may very. The Europeans, in particular the Germans, believe this is a reaction to the German Navy taking over command of Task Force 150 next week. The German Navy has a very specific mandate in the region regarding action against piracy, and German command over Task Force 150 coalition forces that take proactive steps to curb piracy could create political problems, and disrupt what has been a very successful coalition effort dealing with other security issues maritime forces are operating to address in the region.
While it is an interesting theory, that would not explain why the US Navy’s commitment to date fighting piracy has been lackluster at best, so it wouldn’t explain why the US Navy decided to all of a sudden take a more proactive approach against piracy simply because Germany is taking command of Task Force 150. The fundamental change here has nothing to do with the Germans, the fundamental change is a shift in strategy towards piracy. Without the decision to adjust the Navy’s fundamental strategic approach to fighting piracy, the US Navy would be quite content operating in Task Force 150 under German command.
I also think CDR Salamander couldn’t be more off the mark with his analysis that this represents the US Navy going it alone in theater. The US Navy has talked tough about piracy and has intentionally NOT done the job of the Europeans in protecting their trade for a long time now. In my opinion, the result of the pirate problem is that pirates have become the solution to developing a multinational approach to solving the difficult challenges in Somalia, and has built the largest collection of warships in the 21st century dedicated to the single purpose of curbing piracy against global trade in a concentrated region. There are 3 Saudi frigates and 3 Chinese ships missing from my last Order of Battle for the 5th Fleet. I’m stunned that the CDR believes as we observe another prerequisite for the framework required in developing a Global Maritime Partnership, he sees it as a sign the US Navy is abandoning the maritime strategy that has so brilliantly shaped these conditions? The patience that has been demonstrated, particularly given the incredibly harsh criticism of the US Navy by so many people on both the CDRs blog and mine, has been extraordinary, and the results in the form of a shared international responsibility against the difficult challenge of piracy has been well worth the wait.
CTF-151 will have a one-star Admiral in command, Rear Adm. Terry McKnight, which I think is exactly the right approach towards building this force for the long haul. After all, I suggested it would be the right approach towards coalition building for a multinational approach to piracy back in December after the U.N. Security Council unanimously passed UNSCR 1846.
My only concern by the pick of Rear Adm. Terry McKnight is that I am surprised the Navy picked an Admiral from the Atlantic Fleet. Expeditionary Strike Group 2, last I heard, was associated with the USS Bataan (LHD 5). I am sure Rear Adm. Terry McKnight is capable, but I was just expecting leadership to come from the Pacific Fleet. Put another way, I expected the Navy to pick someone with experience and familiarity dealing with the PLA Navy.
There is another reason the Navy may be forming CTF-151 besides taking a unilateral approach or because the Germans are taking Command of Task Force 150. This week the PLA Navy entered the action curbing piracy against regional commerce off the coast of Somalia. While the establishment of Combined Task Force 151 might represent the tactical development of an infrastructure to fight the pirate problem originating from Somalia, a problem everyone agrees is on land more than sea; the establishment of Combined Task Force 151 also represents a long term strategy towards the ends of linking the national security strategies of CENTCOM and PACOM looking into the future. Consider for a moment what CTF-151 looks like in the context of an image posted by EagleOne the other day, what I’m calling in the spirit of Thomas Barnett, the Navy’s New Map in the first term of the Obama administration.
The tactical purpose of Combined Task Force 151 (CTF-151) might be to establish “a multinational task force focused solely on counter-piracy operations,” but the strategic purpose has larger ends. Combined Task Force 150 represents a mostly Western approach to nGW in the maritime domain in and around the Gulf of Aden, Arabian Sea, Indian Ocean and the Red Sea. The nations that contribute to Task Force 150 are European and North American, but also made up of regional partners including Pakistan. If there is any vision behind Combined Task Force 151, the number one priority of Rear Adm. Terry McKnight is to build an Eastern approach to nGW in the maritime domain in and around the Gulf of Aden, Arabian Sea, Indian Ocean and the Red Sea. Essentially, Rear Adm. Terry McKnight priority from day 1 should be to recruit China, Russia, India, Malaysia, and Saudi Arabia into CTF-151, all of whom have already committed ships with the intent to fight piracy. If or when Japan and South Korea send ships, recruit them as well.
The US Navy has absolutely nothing to gain in creating maritime competitions in fighting piracy, indeed the Maritime Strategy is about creating maritime coalitions in dealing with maritime challenges. With the creation of Combined Task Force 151 (CTF-151) the US Navy continues to evolve at the pace of the international community towards the development of a cooperative approach to dealing with the problems in Somalia. The strategy here has been absolutely brilliant in my opinion. By not solving the piracy problem for others, a problem that has no economic impact whatsoever to the United States; by encouraging and assisting coalition partners with existing resources; and by remaining patient but engaged in the slowly evolving political process (UNSCR 1846) the United States Navy now finds itself with the internal infrastructure, regional participants, enabled by evolving international political and legal frameworks, and the right tactical resources to address a maritime nGW problem with an international, coalition approach.
For better or worse, the US Navy’s Maritime Strategy has put the US Navy exactly in the position the maritime strategy states it is designed to do. It is now up to our national leadership, both political and inside the Navy, to close the deal with the opportunities at hand. In this bloggers opinion, there is some irony the success in developing a coalition approach to deal with Somalia will fall to the new Secretary of State, one Hillary Clinton. She, more than anyone, understands the challenges of military activities in Somalia. The question is whether that is an advantage, or a burden in the process. Time will tell.
Friday, December 12, 2008
All Kennedys Are Criminals, But Not All Criminals Are Kennedys
The Caroline thing was pretty funny. And by funny, I mean a sad commentary on the state of American politics.
The assumption seems to be that if someone in your family was/is an effective politician (or reasonable facsimile thereof) then obviously you yourself can do just as well.
However, in defense of the Caroline-as-Senator idea, I'll say that she'd probably be a better choice, or at least no WORSE a choice, than Fran Drescher.
Seriously? Fran Fucking Drescher? Pardon my French, but whaaaa??
Similar to problem of nepotism is the problem of parlaying fame into political fortune. Jesse Ventura, The Governator, Heath Shuler...people are famous for a reason that has nothing whatsoever to do with governance or legislation, then BOOM. Like John Madden eating a turducken, they use that notoriety to quickly and easily consume a political office.
So as long as we're making ourselves aware of the problem of families in politics, can we spare a thought or two on why our love of a TV star should translate to that person having a campaign advantage?
Thanks.
The assumption seems to be that if someone in your family was/is an effective politician (or reasonable facsimile thereof) then obviously you yourself can do just as well.
However, in defense of the Caroline-as-Senator idea, I'll say that she'd probably be a better choice, or at least no WORSE a choice, than Fran Drescher.
Seriously? Fran Fucking Drescher? Pardon my French, but whaaaa??
Similar to problem of nepotism is the problem of parlaying fame into political fortune. Jesse Ventura, The Governator, Heath Shuler...people are famous for a reason that has nothing whatsoever to do with governance or legislation, then BOOM. Like John Madden eating a turducken, they use that notoriety to quickly and easily consume a political office.
So as long as we're making ourselves aware of the problem of families in politics, can we spare a thought or two on why our love of a TV star should translate to that person having a campaign advantage?
Thanks.
Verbal Diarrhea: Great for Your Lawn, not so Great for Hiding Bribery
I am agnostic on the question of whether JJJ (Jesse Jackson Jr.) was himself or through his cronies involved in offering to pay for Obama's Senate Seat. I agree, however, that he comes off pretty badly in this clip. There are all the signs that he's lying, including the excessive blinking and the "protesting too much."
On a more general note, however, I'm kind of sick of this whole "family business" thing that we've got going on in politics. I understand that it's always been the case that sons of politicians have an easier path to becoming politicians, but it seems like that trend should be decreasing over time, not increasing. Most recently, it struck me the wrong way when Caroline Kennedy's name came up as a frontrunner to be appointed Senator from NY for no apparent reason other than that her last name is Kennedy. It may be that she'd be a good Senator, and she seems smart and capable from what little I know of her, but is that really the way that someone who has never held public office before should become a U.S. Senator, through appointment? At least in the case of the shenanigans in DE where a placeholder was appointed so that Biden's son (the current state AG who is serving in Iraq) can run in 2 years, Biden will still actually have to win the spot in a fairly contested election. He'll be at a big advantage there, but he's still got to win (this reminds me a little of the good ol' days when Kennedy got elected president and he and his father pressured the governor to appoint his college roomate so that Ted Kennedy could run when he turned 35 with no entrenched incumbent).
All these are far from the only examples. In fact, Andrew Cuomo seems to be another front runner for the NY Senate spot primarily because of his name, though he too at least has been serving in public office for a while. I'm not sure where this really leads except to the point that, it's easy enough already for relatives of politicians to win elections based on little more than their names, do we really need to be appointing them to the offices they might seek and make it even easier? I'm personally leaning towards a suggestion I've seen out there that there should be no such thing as governors appointing senators and that all vacant senate seats should be required to be filled within a fairly short amount of time by a special election, with another regular election scheduled (in the case of the Senate) for 2 years after the initial special election to allow the public to make a more considered choice. The current system is just begging to be abused, though usually not so blatantly as the way the Illiois governor did.
On a more general note, however, I'm kind of sick of this whole "family business" thing that we've got going on in politics. I understand that it's always been the case that sons of politicians have an easier path to becoming politicians, but it seems like that trend should be decreasing over time, not increasing. Most recently, it struck me the wrong way when Caroline Kennedy's name came up as a frontrunner to be appointed Senator from NY for no apparent reason other than that her last name is Kennedy. It may be that she'd be a good Senator, and she seems smart and capable from what little I know of her, but is that really the way that someone who has never held public office before should become a U.S. Senator, through appointment? At least in the case of the shenanigans in DE where a placeholder was appointed so that Biden's son (the current state AG who is serving in Iraq) can run in 2 years, Biden will still actually have to win the spot in a fairly contested election. He'll be at a big advantage there, but he's still got to win (this reminds me a little of the good ol' days when Kennedy got elected president and he and his father pressured the governor to appoint his college roomate so that Ted Kennedy could run when he turned 35 with no entrenched incumbent).
All these are far from the only examples. In fact, Andrew Cuomo seems to be another front runner for the NY Senate spot primarily because of his name, though he too at least has been serving in public office for a while. I'm not sure where this really leads except to the point that, it's easy enough already for relatives of politicians to win elections based on little more than their names, do we really need to be appointing them to the offices they might seek and make it even easier? I'm personally leaning towards a suggestion I've seen out there that there should be no such thing as governors appointing senators and that all vacant senate seats should be required to be filled within a fairly short amount of time by a special election, with another regular election scheduled (in the case of the Senate) for 2 years after the initial special election to allow the public to make a more considered choice. The current system is just begging to be abused, though usually not so blatantly as the way the Illiois governor did.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Am I Five, or Just Retarded?
I don't know if anyone caught Jesse Jackson Jr. speaking about his possible connection to the investigation of Governor Blagojevich. If you haven't seen it, check this video. Particularly, the segment beginning at 1:55 in.
Nevermind the fact that he speaks as though he's either reading from note cards or is a badly programmed robot. Nevermind the fact that he addresses the press like their a bunch of partially-deaf five year-olds with developmental delays.
As I was watching this on ABC News, my bullshit-meter went off like a smoke alarm.
To be fair, said meter was primed and ready given that I was watching the son of the King Bullshitter himself. So maybe there's a bit of guilt by association going on here. If so, my apologies to you, Congressman Jackson. On the other hand, were it NOT for that association I doubt you'd BE a Congressman. So maybe we're all even.
Anyhoo, when he got to the word 'impossibility', a huge red flag went up. A red flag labeled SKEPTICISM. My next reaction was to think that he's so full of crap, I could squeeze him to fertilize my lawn.
To be clear, I'm not saying he did anything wrong, although if he is indeed Senate Candidate #5, there may be evidence to persuade me. I just can't understand why he was talking like that.
Other reactions?
Nevermind the fact that he speaks as though he's either reading from note cards or is a badly programmed robot. Nevermind the fact that he addresses the press like their a bunch of partially-deaf five year-olds with developmental delays.
As I was watching this on ABC News, my bullshit-meter went off like a smoke alarm.
To be fair, said meter was primed and ready given that I was watching the son of the King Bullshitter himself. So maybe there's a bit of guilt by association going on here. If so, my apologies to you, Congressman Jackson. On the other hand, were it NOT for that association I doubt you'd BE a Congressman. So maybe we're all even.
Anyhoo, when he got to the word 'impossibility', a huge red flag went up. A red flag labeled SKEPTICISM. My next reaction was to think that he's so full of crap, I could squeeze him to fertilize my lawn.
To be clear, I'm not saying he did anything wrong, although if he is indeed Senate Candidate #5, there may be evidence to persuade me. I just can't understand why he was talking like that.
Other reactions?
Monday, December 08, 2008
Pharmacists, the ultimate moral authorities
I hadn't read that particular story prior to now, but I was aware of the SD law and the proposed Bush administration regulation. They're really two completely seperate means towards the same goal, encroachin on the constitionally protected right to an abortion (whether you agree that it should be a right or not, it is and, thanks to the latest election results, is likely to stay that way for the forseeable future).
The SD law is just a case of forcing doctors to lie to their patients. At the very least, nothing that the law requires the doctors to say is "true" in the sense that it has either been objectively proved or reflects an objective reality in any way. A fetus, at least prior to the third trimester, is not a seperate person, otherwise abortion wouldn't be legal. The purported facts regarding suicide, etc. in the aftermath of abortions also are not true. My understanding of what studies have shown is in accord with what the article says, that there's no difference in suicide rates among women who have had abortions versus those that haven't. The misuse of statistics is rampant here and akin to those who might cite a study showing that those who used computers as children are more likely to attend college as proof that computer use causes that increase in likelihood of attending college (obviously it's just socioeconomics, not the computer use).
As for the moral/ethical out from the need to do their jobs, I don't even think we need to go as far down the slippery slope as Matt to see the problems. It's just so amazingly ambiguous, it allows a pharmacist or a doctor to pass on serving a patient for almost any reason. The most common example, and the one that this regulation is designed to handle, is to allow pharmacists not to prescribe the morning after pill. It can also be used to refuse to prescribe The Pill or other birth control, or even to refuse to sell tylenol to someone with a hangover if I don't approve of drinking. If something like this happens in the middle of NYC or Boston or even around where I live in Maine, it's no big deal. I just go someplace else to get my meds where the pharmacist isn't such a self righteous douchebag. But if I'm a 16 year old girl looking for birth control in rural South Dakota for example, where I might have to travel hours by car to get to the nearest alternative pharmacist (or doctor), you complying with your own personal ethics has just de facto made your ethics my ethics, which I suppose is part of the whole point and hope of Bush in enacting this regulation.
The SD law is just insane and I'm not convinced it will stand up to court review in the long run. In the meantime, women will be misled unfortunately. As for the Bush regulation, I have a couple of comments. First, at least Obama will be able to undo it, though it will create a needless distraction for him from the vocal minority that would like to see such a regulation remain permanent. More to the point, though, if Bush felt so strongly about doing this, why the hell didn't he do it earlier, like from day 1? Could it be that he really doesn't care and that this is just a craven political move designed to create the aformentioned distraction for Obama? Either the regulation is a good idea or a bad idea. If it was a good idea, he should have done it earlier. If it's a bad idea, I guess why should some of the final things he does be anything less than bad ideas given all the other bad ideas that he has followed through on throughout his presidency.
The SD law is just a case of forcing doctors to lie to their patients. At the very least, nothing that the law requires the doctors to say is "true" in the sense that it has either been objectively proved or reflects an objective reality in any way. A fetus, at least prior to the third trimester, is not a seperate person, otherwise abortion wouldn't be legal. The purported facts regarding suicide, etc. in the aftermath of abortions also are not true. My understanding of what studies have shown is in accord with what the article says, that there's no difference in suicide rates among women who have had abortions versus those that haven't. The misuse of statistics is rampant here and akin to those who might cite a study showing that those who used computers as children are more likely to attend college as proof that computer use causes that increase in likelihood of attending college (obviously it's just socioeconomics, not the computer use).
As for the moral/ethical out from the need to do their jobs, I don't even think we need to go as far down the slippery slope as Matt to see the problems. It's just so amazingly ambiguous, it allows a pharmacist or a doctor to pass on serving a patient for almost any reason. The most common example, and the one that this regulation is designed to handle, is to allow pharmacists not to prescribe the morning after pill. It can also be used to refuse to prescribe The Pill or other birth control, or even to refuse to sell tylenol to someone with a hangover if I don't approve of drinking. If something like this happens in the middle of NYC or Boston or even around where I live in Maine, it's no big deal. I just go someplace else to get my meds where the pharmacist isn't such a self righteous douchebag. But if I'm a 16 year old girl looking for birth control in rural South Dakota for example, where I might have to travel hours by car to get to the nearest alternative pharmacist (or doctor), you complying with your own personal ethics has just de facto made your ethics my ethics, which I suppose is part of the whole point and hope of Bush in enacting this regulation.
The SD law is just insane and I'm not convinced it will stand up to court review in the long run. In the meantime, women will be misled unfortunately. As for the Bush regulation, I have a couple of comments. First, at least Obama will be able to undo it, though it will create a needless distraction for him from the vocal minority that would like to see such a regulation remain permanent. More to the point, though, if Bush felt so strongly about doing this, why the hell didn't he do it earlier, like from day 1? Could it be that he really doesn't care and that this is just a craven political move designed to create the aformentioned distraction for Obama? Either the regulation is a good idea or a bad idea. If it was a good idea, he should have done it earlier. If it's a bad idea, I guess why should some of the final things he does be anything less than bad ideas given all the other bad ideas that he has followed through on throughout his presidency.
The Clever Moralist
For anyone who hasn't seen it:
http://www.slate.com/id/2206042/
The article discusses efforts by opponents of abortion to strengthen their position through the proposal and passage of various laws and regulations designed to make it more difficult to obtain abortions.
I marvel at how said opponents attempt to disguise these efforts as helpful or appropriate measures when in fact they are nothing more than sneaky stabs at circumventing federal law.
I'm sure that you've seen discussions of South Dakota's law before- the one requiring medical personnel to read a script to any woman desiring to get an abortion. Nevermind that information contained in the script is at best debatable and at worst utterly fraudulent. Nevermind that it purposefully ignore exisitng language and definitions in favor of terms less clearly defined.
That was bad enough.
Now add to it a proposed law allowed medical professionals to refuse service on ground of moral objection. If provision of a service countermands one's own moral beliefs, one may refuse said service to a prospective patient...REALLY?? Is THAT what we've come to? Pro-lifers are content to undo the very principles of the Hippocratic Oath to impose their will on the masses- a will that has already been addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Anti-abortionist, meet Slippery Slope. What happens with a child molester arrives at an ER for treatment? Or a death row inmate? Or a Neo-Nazi? Or a Satanist? You'll no doubt argue that it the procedure, not the patient, which the medical professional must find objectionable in order to refuse service. But surely you're not so naive that you can't see where this is going.
Absurd.
All of this comes on the heels of a controversy over gift certificates issued by Planned Parenthood. Gift certificates that may be used for any of the health services the organization provides.
Opponents immediately identified the certificates as "lethal", calling them "gift certificates for abortion". Nice.
How are these any different than a gift certificate to a grocery store? I could use THAT to buy cigarettes or alcohol and damage my body!
What's that? Cigarettes and alcohol aren't morally objectionable or illegal?
Abortion isn't illegal either my friends. Despite your efforts to the contrary. Accept it. As for the moral objection, that is subjective- I could no doubt find plenty of folks who find the purchase of tobacco or booze equally impermissable.
The world is full of people who disagree with you. Your outrage is neither justifiable nor acceptable. And attempts to undo existing law go against the very basics of what the country stands for.
http://www.slate.com/id/2206042/
The article discusses efforts by opponents of abortion to strengthen their position through the proposal and passage of various laws and regulations designed to make it more difficult to obtain abortions.
I marvel at how said opponents attempt to disguise these efforts as helpful or appropriate measures when in fact they are nothing more than sneaky stabs at circumventing federal law.
I'm sure that you've seen discussions of South Dakota's law before- the one requiring medical personnel to read a script to any woman desiring to get an abortion. Nevermind that information contained in the script is at best debatable and at worst utterly fraudulent. Nevermind that it purposefully ignore exisitng language and definitions in favor of terms less clearly defined.
That was bad enough.
Now add to it a proposed law allowed medical professionals to refuse service on ground of moral objection. If provision of a service countermands one's own moral beliefs, one may refuse said service to a prospective patient...REALLY?? Is THAT what we've come to? Pro-lifers are content to undo the very principles of the Hippocratic Oath to impose their will on the masses- a will that has already been addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Anti-abortionist, meet Slippery Slope. What happens with a child molester arrives at an ER for treatment? Or a death row inmate? Or a Neo-Nazi? Or a Satanist? You'll no doubt argue that it the procedure, not the patient, which the medical professional must find objectionable in order to refuse service. But surely you're not so naive that you can't see where this is going.
Absurd.
All of this comes on the heels of a controversy over gift certificates issued by Planned Parenthood. Gift certificates that may be used for any of the health services the organization provides.
Opponents immediately identified the certificates as "lethal", calling them "gift certificates for abortion". Nice.
How are these any different than a gift certificate to a grocery store? I could use THAT to buy cigarettes or alcohol and damage my body!
What's that? Cigarettes and alcohol aren't morally objectionable or illegal?
Abortion isn't illegal either my friends. Despite your efforts to the contrary. Accept it. As for the moral objection, that is subjective- I could no doubt find plenty of folks who find the purchase of tobacco or booze equally impermissable.
The world is full of people who disagree with you. Your outrage is neither justifiable nor acceptable. And attempts to undo existing law go against the very basics of what the country stands for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
