Haiti

During the last few weeks we have seen horrifying images coming from Haiti. We saw crying children, mountains of rubble, a destroyed capitol building, and a level of destruction in Port-au-Prince that we have not seen in recent memory. The real tragedy, however, is that even before this earthquake, this country was in a very desperate situation.

Many people have wondered how a country could be so poor and so desperate. Some have even suggested that a pact with the devil is the only explanation for Haiti’s misfortunes. Others would say the Haitians have just been a very unlucky people. I would say luck had very little to do with it.

Haiti is on the island of Hispaniola. Christopher Columbus landed on this island on December 5, 1492. The Spanish enslaved the native population to mine the gold and the natural resources of this island. After the native population was virtually wiped out by smallpox, the Spanish imported African slaves to augment their gold mining endeavors.

Eventually, the French came to rule this island, and they continued many of the practices of their Spanish predecessors. By the late 1700s, the French empire was in ruin. It could no longer hold onto many of its possessions in the New World. In 1804, Haiti won its independence from France and became a nation. France’s response to this was to make Haiti pay reparations. France claimed that if Haiti was independent, France would loose the investment that they had made in the slave population of Haiti. If Haiti did not want to fight a prolonged war, they would have to PAY NOT TO BE SLAVES. France charged this new nation of Haiti (which had no money) 21 billion dollars plus interest. For the next 90 years, 80% of Haiti’s economy was being used to pay back the French. When they couldn’t keep up this pace, they took other loans from other countries to pay this debt. They were even loaned money by the United States in 1922, and had to pay that off as well.

As of last year, Haiti still owed 1.8 billion dollars. This amount seems reasonable when you consider that the U.S. debt is in the trillions. The difference is that 80% of Haiti’s population has an annual salary of less than 100 dollars per year. In fact, after the earthquake, Haiti was LOANED more money (not given) to rebuild the infrastructure of the country.

Add to this situation a genocide that took place in 1922 when the US established a border between Haiti and the Dominican Republic. The response of the Dominican dictator Rafael Trujillo was to execute 20,000 Haitians on the Dominican side of the border. For the next 50 years there were policies put in place that fostered discrimination toward the Haitian people. I am not excusing the corrupt government that existed in Haiti in recent times, but this county is not cursed or unlucky, but rather the result of economic and social policy.

This story is repeated all around the world. When you look at the countries in Africa, Asia and South America you can observe a similar pattern. The people in these countries are often categorized as lazy and unmotivated. I will acknowledge that greed and corruption on the part of their governments has often played a part in the lack of development in these countries. I also admit that the destiny of these countries is ultimately in the hands of their citizens. I also am of the belief that the history of exploitation and colonialism of these countries is something that Europe and America should realize.

This history should be taken into account when forming both opinion and policy regarding the developing nations. There is no greater example of this than the continent of Africa. The African slave trade has not existed in the world to the extent that it did in the 17th century. Although the practice is no longer tolerated as an institution, its effects are felt even today. Imagine you live in an African country in the 1600s. The youngest and strongest members of your population are taken away on ships. The smartest people in your population are executed. All of the scientists, teachers, craftsmen, and political figures are killed are imprisoned. This is done for a period of hundreds of years. How long do you think it would take the people that are left to rebuild this country? In addition to that, the process of colonialism strips your land of all of its natural resources during the course of the next 100 years. Even if the remaining population wants to build an industry, the country has been stripped of its natural resources. Add to that the psychological effect of slavery and colonization through generations. When some of these countries such as Haiti do manage to win their freedom, they will face considerable challenges.

Variations of this theme have played in Indo-China and South East Asia as well as in Central and South America, and in countries in the Caribbean like Haiti. I do not think that it is helpful for developing nations to foster a guilt complex in the psyche of the west. I think that is ultimately not good for anyone. I do think that Western Europe and America must share in the responsibility of aiding these countries. We must realize our hand in their misfortune.

There are several countries around the world that are in desperate situations (East Timor, Central African Republic, Guinea-Bissau, Congo, Solomon Islands, Liberia, and on and on). There are a whole list of countries that bear the scars of slavery and colonialism. They have desperate economic challenges that stem from a crushing debt that they have no hope of paying back. I am not suggesting that America and Europe have to help all of them. I am suggesting that it is in our long term best interests to help many of them. Decreasing the amount of suffering in this world ultimately makes us all safer. It is in our best interest to help the people of Haiti, but it is also in our best interests to help other countries that need our help. Jeff Sachs in his book “The End of Poverty” makes several suggestions of how to end extreme poverty. He makes the point that industrialized nations rarely take this opportunity seriously. He also points out that America gives more than any other country but that is still 0.16 of 1% of our GDP.

When we see this interconnected world that we live in and we see the results of the devastation in places like Haiti, I must ask, “Is 0.16 of 1% enough?” When we consider the role that failed states play in our national security I must ask “Is 0.16 of 1% enough?” I believe that the people in these societies must ultimately decide to help themselves, but I do think that we as the only super power have a very important role to play. I wonder if we can effectively play this role when we commit less than 1% of our resources. I still think that if the world works together we can solve all our problems. For the first time in history we have the technology, knowledge, and the resources to fix many of these problems. The question is "Do we as a country and as a planet have the will to fix them?"

As I am writing this article I cannot shake the sense of inadequacy and guilt that I am feeling. I do not feel this way because of American indiscretions. I do not feel guilty because I have so much and others have so little. I feel inadequate because I do not feel I am doing enough. I gave to the Red Cross, I did the text message thing, and I gave to the missionaries that a community church is sending to Haiti next month. I am going to give to the clothing drive at the place I work. I wonder when those Red Cross workers see the insurmountable circumstances all around them if they feel they are doing enough. I wonder if doctors who go to these areas think they can ever do enough. In light of these observations I have to come to the conclusion that I could do more – but I choose not to. Then I come to the conclusion that the people I care most about an even respect and admire could do more but have made the same choice I made. Finally, I come to the conclusion that this country that I love so much could do so much more and makes the same choice that I have.

Addendum

As I trail off to sleep after writing this article, I am reminded of the power of the individual. In the wake of all this suffering, it would be easy for me to see the futility of my efforts and the efforts or others. The idea from which I can derive some hope and get 4 hours of sleep is the idea that collectively our good works – no matter how small – can be significant. I cannot rewind time and fix the wrongs of America’s past. I cannot undo hundreds of years of racism and oppression. I cannot undo the earthquake. I can only hope that my efforts – no matter how small – when teamed with the small (and not so small) efforts of others can bring about a change for good in this world.

ROLL TIDE

On Thursday January 7^th the 2009-10 college football season came to an end. It was a very competitive matchup even though Texas lost its QB on the first drive of the game. Alabama will be crowned the national champion by virtue of winning this championship game. While I agree they should be the national champion I think a few other schools have a very good argument. I have been saying for years that the only fairest way to decide the national championship is to have a playoff. While this year seems to have worked out fairly I think this system is still flawed and still want to see a playoff. This is the article that I posted last year about a college football division 1 playoff and I will post it every year until I see a playoff. Happy New Year everyone.

---

There are many (including myself) who would like to see a playoff system decide college football. People who oppose the playoff system site several reasons. The first reason against a playoff system is that it would make a very long season longer. College football is one of the most expensive sports to maintain. Adding time to already costly season would be devastating to most programs. The second thing to consider is that the student athlete would be affected by extending the length of the season. Another reason against a playoff system is that the money generated by a playoff would not equal the money generated by the bowl games. Yet another argument is that having a playoff would reduce the importance of the games at the end of the year. Having said all these things I still think there is a way to have a meaningful play off and still have some remnant of the bowl system. Here is what I would do.

I would start the season 3 weeks later. August 28 is way too early to start the football season. I would play 10 games with one bye and every conference plays a championship game. That gives every one between 10 and 11 games and the regular season would be done by the first week of December. The next thing I would do is cut the number of bowl games. There are just way too many. I would have enough minor bowl games to play a game or two every day between Christmas and New Years Eve. We could still have the same number of bowl games but keep in mine we are going to play 8 more playoff games at the end of the year.

On New Years Eve play the Cotton and Gator Bowls. On New Year’s Day play the Rose, Sugar, Orange and Fiesta Bowls. After that I would have the top 8 teams play in a single elimination playoff. This would take 3 weeks. I would also assign the first round games to regions of the country. I would have a game in the Southeast, a game in the Midwest, a game on the west coast, and a game in the northeast (in a dome of course because it is January). When the final 2 teams were done playing we would have a definitive national championship.

This system I think would have many merits. First we would have a definite national. A champion that was decided in games and not by a bunch of computers and writers. Second it would get rid of all the cupcake games at the beginning of the year. It may also encourage coaches to schedule competitive games at the beginning of the year. In the current system there is no reason for a team in a power conference to play a tough opponent in the beginning of the year. Teams are currently in a system where two losses completely eliminates a team from the national title picture. In a playoff system it would be advantageous to schedule a tough opponent in the beginning of the year to give your team tournament experience. Also an early season loss wouldn’t completely ruin your national championship chances as it does in the current system.

The second advantage to this system is that every bowl game could affect the outcome of the national championship picture. In the current system the BCS game is the only one that really affects the outcome of the national title. If teams were playing their bowl games to get one of the 8 playoff positions every game would mean something. All of a sudden that garbage bowl on December 28 with the #9 team in the country is a HUGE game with national championship implications. The bowl games are more important not less with a playoff system.

We still have all the tradition and pageantry of the bowl games. The bowl people are making money. The season isn’t any longer because we cut the beginning of the season. We could be done by the time most schools opened for the spring semester. We replaced non competitive games that didn’t really matter with meaningful ones. TELL ME WHY THIS CAN’T BE DONE!!!!!!

THE BIG A (messy and long in both form and content,be warned)

We as a country are facing a tremendous amount of challenges. The headlines during the past year have been dominated by health care, the economy, unemployment rates and a host of other things. The the Iraq war has significantly impacted the news cycle during the last eight years. But, there is one subject of prime importance that I feel has not gotten its due attention from the American press or the American people: the war in Afghanistan.

This is one of the biggest situations that President Obama has been stuck with. Having said that, there are some issues with how I think the President has handled this situation so far. To put it more directly, I think there is a high probability that Obama will “F” THIS UP.

Before I discuss my criticism of Mr. Obama, I feel it necessary to remind everyone that THIS IS GEORGE BUSH’S FREAKIN’ MISTAKE!!!!! On September 12, 2001 most of the world was on our side. Even people who are normally unsympathetic to America sympathized with our plight (or at the very least said they did). Most western societies recognized the danger of global terrorism and religious fanaticism. Most of the world was on our side. The response of the Bush administration to this action was to put 28,000 troops into Afghanistan. This seemed sensible to many because a lot of the organizational structure of the terrorist organization that attacked us was in Afghanistan. A year later we decide that a place that had nothing to do with al Qaeda or 9-11 was the next theater to wage the war on terror. The Bush administration decided that Iraq, not Afghanistan, was a place that we should commit 250,000 troops. WE PUT 10 TIMES AS MANY TROOPS IN THE PLACE THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11!!!!

At the same time, the Bush administration blew off the UN and most of its allies and fostered a “go it alone” mentality. To the rest of the world, this invasion was the final straw in a relationship with America that had already been strained. From all of this, several negative affects developed with regard to our situation in Afghanistan.

First, the invasion of Iraq diverted our focus away from Afghanistan. One could make the argument that if we put 10X as many troops in Afghanistan we would have increased our chances of finding Osama bin Laden. We would not have had to outsource efforts to catch Bin Laden to Afghan troops with less training and who may have been less loyal. I would contend that this diversion of resources into Iraq also effected the troop levels of our allies. If we would have committed close to 300,000 troops, our allies conceivably would have committed more. At the start of the Iraq invasion, 9,200 troops were committed by England. England also committed 45,000 troops to Iraq. It is logical to assume that if we weren’t planning to invade Iraq we could have had many more allied troops in Afghanistan.

The political consequences were two-fold. First, a war that most of the world did not agree with strained our relationship with most of our allies. The fact that we were willing to go to war with Iraq without a consensus kept us from asking for help in Afghanistan. If we would have gone to war with 400,000 troops (US + England + other allies) and had reasonable success, we could have gone back to our allies (the ones who did not contribute troops) and asked them to help rebuild Afghanistan. Maybe they would not have sent troops, but they could have done other things to help the effort. Instead, we pissed away what ever good will was left in Western Europe when we invaded Iraq making our traditional allies less willing and less able to help us in Afghanistan.

The second political consequence of Iraq was that it gave Al Qaeda some sense of legitimacy in the moderate Muslim world. On September 11th, most Muslim governments denounced Al Qaeda's actions. I am of the opinion that in every group of people there are minorities on the extremes whose course cannot be changed. Most people lie in the middle. In my mind (these numbers are not legitimate), 20% of the Muslim world will always hate America and 20% will love the good things American idealism can achieve. The 60% in the middle just want to live their lives and really don’t care about us. They can be won over by our good efforts, and they can be disillusioned by our bad efforts, or the deleterious efforts of others. By waging a war that was so unpopular, it allows Al Qaeda to go to the 60% of Muslims in the middle and say “look at all the evil that America is doing in Iraq.” When America is unable to initially secure the infrastructure and meet the needs of the average Iraqi, it allows Al Qaeda to make a good argument to the moderate Muslim world. Abu Ghraib, Blackwater and outsourcing torture also give legitimacy to the Al Qaeda position. This is an argument that they would have had trouble making if we were only fighting in Afghanistan with a more legitimate coalition.

It also gave Al Qaeda a second front. If you are fighting a guerrilla war against a superior enemy, you want as many fronts as possible so that you can move your troops from one place to another. By fighting the Allies in two places, Al Qaeda is able to use its inherent flexibility to put up more of a fight where it matters – consider the surge in Iraq. Most Republicans say that this is a wonderful thing and Iraq is a better place because of this effort. I disagree. Let’s assume that terrorists have televisions and that they are not stupid. If you put more troops in Iraq, they are going to leave Iraq and go to Afghanistan. If you put more troops in Afghanistan, they are going move to Pakistan. When we put troops in Pakistan, the terrorist are going to go back to Iraq. Are we prepared to go into Yemen and Somalia and fight Al Qaeda when they move again? The more fronts we operate on, the easier it will be for Al Qaeda to wage war against us.

Now it is EIGHT YEARS LATER. The war has been underfunded and neglected for EIGHT YEARS. For EIGHT YEARS the Bush administration has let this situation go into the CRAPPER while they put most of their efforts into Iraq. Now, after EIGHT YEARS of a crap strategy and criminal neglect, the Obama administration has to try to fix this mess.

There are several things that the Obama administration is doing that I think are good. First this administration seems to realize that you cannot deal with Afghanistan without dealing with Pakistan, so to link both of these together is sound. This administration is also doing a better job of realizing that Afghanistan did not attack us on 9/11, Al Qaeda did. The Taliban is a group that is indigenous to Afghanistan who sometimes has the same agenda as Al Qaeda. This administration is doing a much better job of defining who exactly the enemy is. I also think that the administration is wise to consider what strategy they are going to use and not just to throw more money and troops at the problem. History may have shown us that the “shoot from the hip Texas” approach doesn’t always work. I think this administration also gets that this is a war of ideas as much as it is a war of resource. In a war of ideas, popular opinion and what third parties think of you, MATTER. We are not fighting a state or a country or a flag or a group of people, but rather, we are competing for the minds of people. Convincing people that your way is best cannot (at least in the long term) be done with military might. I think that is something this administration understands. I must point out that I believe both this administration and the previous one both love this country.

There are several strategic options that the white house is considering. I fundamentally differ with the administration in the sense that I only see to options even worth considering. Having said that I think the Obama administration is operating on many flawed assumptions.

The first thing that I am not sure that this administration realizes is that Iraq is not Afghanistan. There is a prevailing assumption that the strategy that seems to have succeeded in Iraq will work in Afghanistan. In my opinion there are several factors that make these two theaters not comparable.

At the start of Operation Dessert Storm in August of 1990, Iraq was one of the most advanced countries in the Mid East. They had some of the best technology and they had one of the highest standards of living in the region as well as the second largest military. They did have a ruthless dictator running these things, but they also had some of the best infrastructure in the Muslim world. Years of economic sanctions left many of these state of the art facilities without being upgraded. Afghanistan was at war with the Russians all through the 80s. There was no reconstruction effort, and no economic recovery. Iraq had a functioning central government. Granted it was run by an evil dictator, but it was a functioning government. Afghanistan has a government that is not centralized. The central government exerts very little authority on the outlying sections of the country. Even if you did install a central government in Afghanistan, it would not have any immediate influence in the outlying provinces. The mountainous terrain is another major difference between Iraq and Afghanistan. This terrain further isolates the outlying provinces. The indigenous population also has a tactical advantage. The mountains provide cover for a small guerrilla force and at the same time make it difficult for a large army to supply itself.

The strategy behind the surge was to put extra troops into Baghdad and secure the city. Securing the people of Baghdad would give time for the political forces in Iraq to be effective. This surge in theory also had the effect of making it harder for terrorist groups to operate. This strategy will not work in Afghanistan because the terrorists are not in Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, but rather in the outlying areas. Securing Kabul will not help the political element because Afghanistan never has had a central government. Kabul has little if any effect of on the lives of the people in the distant areas.

Another strategy tried in Iraq was to buy off some of the less radical elements. I think this will only be moderately effective in Afghanistan because that country is a lot more tribal than Iraq. People in Afghanistan view tribal and local affiliations more importantly then being Afghan. I know that is a gross generalization and I have never been there, but it appears that this approach would involve buying more people than in Iraq. For this strategy to work, the US is going to have to get in bed with some pretty horrible people. We are going to have to cut deals with drug dealers and less radical elements of the Taliban to control the provinces. The most glaring thing about the political part of this war is that the government that we are dealing with is completely corrupt. They have no ability to control most of the population, which lives in villages. Recent events even bring into question if this government is actually legitimate. If we are going to be successful, we need an Afghan government that we can work with. This government is far from that.

A counter terrorism strategy will not work because most of the terrorists are no longer in Afghanistan, they are in Pakistan. A counter insurgency strategy will not work because the population is not in the cities but in villages. In many villages the Taliban is the government. So who are you protecting the native population from? What are the ramifications if you are at war with the people providing civil service to the population?

I see two options going forward in Afghanistan. Option one is that we commit this country’s full military and industrial might to Afghanistan. We send upwards of 200,000 troops to Afghanistan. We use all of our resources to ensure the men and women that we put in harms way have everything they need to have success. We commit our selves to completely building (rebuilding would imply that it was there when we started) Afghanistan’s infrastructure. We build new schools, new roads, and we commit all of our know how into making Afghanistan successful. We fight their war on drugs and destroy all the poppy fields. We use our resources to stimulate their economy. We build Afghanistan’s police, fire, military and civil service departments. We totally commit this country’s resources to fixing the mess that we have made in Afghanistan. We commit our troops and our treasure for the next 10 years to make sure Afghanistan is fixed. If we are not willing as a country to commit 250,000 troops and one trillion dollars during the next 10 years then the second option is to GET OUT NOW!!!!!!!!!!

This second option will no doubt devastate Afghanistan. This will be a failure of the United States. The resulting bloodshed will be OUR FAULT. We will be ignoring a moral obligation to make the world a better place. We as a county will have to put abandoning Afghanistan on a long list of immoral acts done by our country. How moral is it to keep putting American forces into a war that we know we ultimately will loose? It is wrong of us to send troops to fight without giving them what they need for a chance at victory. It is wrong to send troops into a situation where their best efforts will result in a corrupt government, more poor people and not really making us any safer. The bravest and maybe the hardest thing we could do as a country is to admit that we are in over our heads.

In the late 60s, America continued to pump hundreds of thousands of troops into Vietnam even though the outcome was already decided. How can we with any conscience continue to spend money and lives in Afghanistan if we cannot define a successful strategy? It is wrong for us as a country to ask people to go on three and four tours of duty without even defining what success is. We should not blame the military for fighting a war that we asked them to fight. We should blame ourselves. If we continue on a strategy without having a higher expectation of success then that is the most immoral thing we as a country can do.

The other argument against leaving is that the security of America will worsen. I argue that every year that we are in Afghanistan and we are failing, that will give the anti-American argument more legitimacy. Every innocent civilian killed in Afghanistan is another example that al Qaeda can use to recruit the native population against us. Everyone that has a mother/father/sister/brother/wife/husband that is killed is a potential recruit for al Qaeda. Every accidental death on the news or YouTube is instantly turned into an al Qaeda propaganda video. Even if we mean well, even if our soldiers do everything right, there is the potential for the enemy to twist our best efforts to their advantage. Everyday that we are unsuccessful in Afghanistan we will be reminding the world of our past mistakes and will undermine all of the good that we are trying to do. We undermine all of our efforts to spread democracy every second that we use our military to prop up a phony, corrupt government that has no legitimacy. Every minute that we are in a protracted war with no realistic chance of success we are less secure as a country, not more.

There are many who would say that we have not yet put in our best effort and we should give it one more shot before we leave. Eight years ago this invasion may have been successful. If we had not let the situation deteriorate it is very possible that Afghanistan would be an American success story and a win for democracy. It is conceivable that if we had not FREAKED UP the last eight years, our troops would be coming home right now and Afghanistan would be a wonderful example of the problems we can fix as a planet if we work together. The reality is this is now a disaster. Once you see this situation for the mess that it is, there are only two clear options. I get the sense that the White House will not pick either one of them.

Our prestige as a country will be damaged, but how much more damage will we do by staying in a protracted war? It is a very uncomfortable thing to admit a mistake whether it is us personally, or collectively as a society. However, I do believe that once you realize you are wrong that you correct your course of action. I hope I am wrong. I hope 20 years from now Afghanistan is a stable democracy. I hope it is a progressive country. I hope the Taliban is defeated. I hope in the process that al Qaeda is dismantled. I hope women can go to school without acid being thrown in their face. I hope the government in Afghanistan does all it can to provide a high quality of life for its citizens. I am not like Rush Limbaugh. I do not hope that Obama fails or the American military fails. I hope that I am wrong. I hope that some middle ground can be reached where we can empower the many good people in Afghanistan to fix their own problems. I hope when this is all over that the world will be a better place because of our efforts, not in spite of them.

In 1964, Lyndon Johnson won a landslide presidential victory. He came into office with the highest approval rating in history. He had a huge social agenda. His presidency was predicted to be transformative. The Vietnam War completely derailed his presidency. In three years his approval rating was in the toilet and he couldn’t even run for a second term because we were in such a pickle. American has a lot of problems that need fixing. I believe it is going to take all of this country’s resolve to fix our problems. I hope our current president truly makes his presidency transformative and does not step on the same landmines that his predecessor did.

I know you are, but what am I?

Recently, the most prolific images on the network news has been the town hall meetings all across this country. The idea behind the town hall meetings is that elected officials would go back to their constituents to hear their wishes and concerns. The idea that we can have differing opinions and present them to our elected officials in person without fear of legal reprisal is something that makes this country truly wonderful.

In most years, town hall meetings go unnoticed, but this year is very different. This year these meetings have become increasingly more volatile. The issue that has dominated many of these meetings has been the issue of health care. There have been several people at these meetings who have called the President and his supporters “fascist.” There have been a whole host of images with the president in an SS uniform with a Hitler mustache and so forth. These people also suggest that if government fixes healthcare, it will lead us down the path to socialism and worse. There is something in these meetings that reminds me of fascism, and it isn’t Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate or a single payer healthcare system.

Before continuing with my observation, it may be helpful to put fascism in its historical context.

In the years after the First World War, Europe (particularly Germany) was in a very bad state. The war had left Germany, along with most of Europe, devastated. After Germany lost the war, France ordered Germany to pay exorbitant reparations. The Allied Forces said that Germany started the war and that they should have to pay the cost of not only the damage in Germany, but the damage in France and all the other Allied Countries as well. Germany began making these payments because if they did not pay, they would have been in violation of the peace treaty that ended WWI. When Germany claimed they could not pay anymore, the French took over the most lucrative industrial sectors within Germany.

So Germany, already bad off, had to pay reparations, then the sectors that could make the most money were taken out of German control. These actions left Germany effectively bankrupt. In the coming years the Great Depression would lead to massive unemployment and more poverty. The German government tried to fix this problem by printing more money, but this led to runaway inflation. Even if you had a job, the cost of everything was quickly rising so what little money you had was worthless. At the same time, the German government was becoming more inadequate. The government was ill equipped and unable to meet the needs of its people in changing world.

Into this disaster steps a young WWI veteran. He is charismatic and he takes the fear and frustration that the German people are feeling and is able to twist it to his political advantage. He takes the legitimate anger that people are feeling toward their government and channel that energy into action. He is able to target that anger toward what he finds politically undesirable in the country. He realized that people who are economically desperate will allow things to happen if there is a chance they can gain some measure of security. That someone, of course, is Adolf Hitler. And by the time Germany is defeated in 1945, Nazi Germany will have committed some of the most horrible acts of the 20th century.

Back to the 21st century.

As I said above, there are some things in the news cycle that remind me of the SS and I don’t mean Social Security. America is changing in many ways. It is changing demographically. There are more non-white people in this country and the percentage of minorities is growing. There are also more non Christian religions being practice now than there were when this country was founded. The country is changing in the sense that places that were at one time centers of industry are now being replaced. There are some people who are threatened by these changes. This changes for some create an feeling of uncertainty. We as a country are also facing many challenges economically. In my opinion, there is a group of people that are using the legitimate fear that people are feeling to gain political advantage.

I actually like John McCain. I would never say that a decorated war hero and a man of his accomplishments is a Nazi. What I am saying is that he allowed the fears of desperate people to be used for a political advantage. He ran a campaign in which his vice presidential candidate played on religious, racial, and economic insecurities of people to win votes. She took noble ideals like education and community service and turned them into something bad. She capitalized on the fear that some people have toward Muslims and tried to use that in the political arena. Thankfully this strategy didn’t work.

I am not suggesting that everyone who apposes Obama is a fascist. It would be silly to say that everyone who disagrees with his ideas about government is a Nazi. There are legitimate policy concerns with lots of what this administration is purposing. What I am saying is that some of his opponents are using economic uncertainty and prejudice to advance a political agenda. They are using a campaign of fear and generalization as the centerpiece of a political argument. They are making statements that fan the flames of political anger but are just shy of inflammatory (very skillfully done). I don’t think that these politicians are all racist, but I do believe that it may be a sound political maneuver to encourage the racism that some people are already feeling and try to win votes with it.

These are the things in the news that remind me of fascism. I am concerned as an American when I see the legitimate fear that many people have, being exploited. There are reasons to be afraid. We need to have a serious debate about where this country is going. I believe that we are at a turning point in our history. We will emerge from this experience as a completely different country. Whether this change is good or bad is something yet to be determined. What will determine the effectiveness of this change is the ability of this country, its leaders and its citizens to make sound decisions. I would feel better if these decisions were rational and not driven by fear. The people of Nazi Germany allowed hatred for their own government, fear of economic uncertainty and a distrust of peoples in ethnic and religious minorities to guide their decision making. Something is dangerous in this news cycle and it is not a government run public health care option or Medicare.

The role of government in our lives is a debate that we need to have. Both sides have valuable ideas as well as legitimate concerns. I believe that this debate cannot happen as long as our leaders are using fear and misinformation to shape the debate. This debate will not be helpful if people allow themselves and their fears to be played on by politicians. This debate will not be productive if politicians on both sides are counting on fear and prejudice to win the debate. Let’s stop the liar liar pants on fire 4-year-old B.S and have a serious discussion about where we are going as a country.

I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I INFINITY!!!!!

fool me once...

It is no secret that our country is facing serious economic challenges. One of the biggest challenges has to do with the bank bailouts. I have never been a fan of the bank bailouts. I think they should have been handled differently. (You can see my article titled “Bail THIS” written Friday December 12, 2008 to see what I think).

The thing I have been most upset with is that the people who got us into this mess are the ones being trusted to get us out. Some have argued that they are the ones who know the most and are the most qualified to fix this system. Some would say that these men are extremely motivated to fix things. I still think we should not allow people who blew TRILLIONS of dollars to be put into a position to do it again. This is just really flawed logic to me. Many people in these positions have made the argument that this crisis was unforeseeable; no one could have seen this coming and they are thus not responsible. I completely reject this argument because there were plenty of people who saw this coming. And, the people who saw this coming should be the ones we look to when forming a plan for getting out of this mess.

Here is a list of people who saw this mess coming.

Byron Dorgan

One of the things that intensified the great depression was the failing of thousands of banks. Banking as an institution failed, and people lost all confidence in the banking system. When FDR took office, he tried to put a system in place that would prevent this from happening in the future. One of his solutions was to separate commercial banks from investment banks. A commercial bank is a bank that most of us are familiar with in our everyday lives. These are the banks that have checking and savings accounts and loan money for things like houses and cars. An investment bank is a bank that raises capital for the purpose of investing. It does this by issuing and selling securities and other more exotic things like credit default swaps and junk I don’t understand. This system is to ensure that the banks responsible for keeping people’s money are separate from the banks that make money by taking the risks that come with investment. The legislation responsible for this was the Glass-Steagall Act. It was passed in 1933. It stayed in place until 1999.

In 1999 all the people who wanted less government got their way and the Glass-Steagall act was repealed. Although this was a Republican controlled congress, and this bill was conceived by three Republicans (Graham, Leach and Bliley), this bill was signed into law by Bill Clinton. The repeal of this act means that the government would stay out of the way of big business and let banks organize themselves the way that they want. Banks would now be free to make things more convenient and more marketable without government interference. The final version of this bill was passed 90-8 in the senate. Most would argue that this was a bipartisan effort. One of the senators that opposed this vote was Byron Dorgan. He realized the conflict of interests in commercial and investment banking could be catastrophic. He said “this bill will in my judgment raise the likelihood of future tax payer bailouts.” He also said “I think we will look back on 10 years time and say we should not have done this, but we did because we forgot the lessons of the past and that which was true in the 1930’s was true in 2010”. Here are clips from his senate speech in 1999 TEN YEARS BEFORE IT HIT THE FAN!

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&source=hp&q=byron%20dorgan&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv#


Eliot Spitzer

Eliot Spitzer was the governor of New York from January 2007 till March 2008. He left the governorship in disgrace after having really kinky overpriced sex with a bunch of call girls in a scandalous prostitution ring. What was he doing before he got caught with high priced hookers? PROSECUTING AIG!!!!!!! That is right, when Eliot Spitzer was the state attorney general of New York in the late 90s, he made his reputation by prosecuting white color crime. In 2004, Eliot Spitzer brought a fraud case against AIG. He charged that AIG was developing financial machinery that was being used for deception. He stated that "these were transactions created for the purpose of deceiving the market”. He saw AIG as being the center of a system that needed tighter regulation. He also recognized the conflict of interest at AIG. The current system incentivizes short term risk taking. He actually won this case and AIG paid a settlement. Some could argue that Spitzer tried to ruin AIG to make a political name for himself. I say he realized that it was too big to fail and tried to bust it up, but Tim Geitner and the New York fed wouldn’t let him.

Mable Yoo (pseudonym)

Investments get rated by certain firms. Moody’s, Standards and Poor, and Fitch are the most notable ones. These companies rate things based on how safe an investment is. A rating of AAA is an investment that the rating system deems very safe. The idea is that if you invest in a AAA asset you may not make a ton of money, but you probably will not loose. AAA assets are considered the safest of investments. Two problems occurred that made this rating system less reliable.

In the housing market the mortgages people get are rated by taking into account the reliability of the person being loaned the money, the market, the house, the amount of the mortgage and a whole bunch of other factors. All these factors are plugged into some crazy equation and you get a rating. The problem was that when people with bad credit histories were given loans there was no past history to judge how good or bad these loans were. There was no historical evidence to indicate the likelihood these loans would be paid back. There were unknown variables in the equations being used to compute these ratings. Also, these mortgages were bundled together as one asset. The logic seems sound. Maybe a few people will default, but if they are bundled with people who pay on time then the overall asset makes money. The problem was even though the data was inconclusive, these bundled mortgages were STILL GIVEN TRIPLE A RATINGS!!!! Mable Yoo was an analyst at an unspecified investment firm. She looked at these assets and asked the question, “How can these be AAA assets when so many factors were unknown?” She was told by her boss to go home, get some sleep, not to worry, and cash her paycheck.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb

Nassim Taleb is a financial analyst from Lebanon. He did his grad work at the University of Penn. In his book “The Black Swan” he argues that there are certain events that are catastrophic and unpredictable. We make rules based on what we perceive, but we do not take into account the things we don’t know. We look for things to prove our point, not for things that disprove our point. It is a very interesting theoretical read. The point is that he predicted the housing crisis before it happened. He not only made some vague prediction, but put his money where his mouth was and made a fortune in derivatives and credit default swaps.


THESE ARE THE PEOPLE TO WHOM WE SHOULD LISTEN TO GET OUT OF THIS MESS. I am not gonna say I saw it coming since I didn’t have a blog so there is nothing on the record. But if you read The Elephant and The Dragon by Robyn Meredith (which I did) you would have been alerted to the difference in the savings rates between America and China. If you would have looked at the housing markets (which I did because I had quite a few friends flippin’ houses) you would have concluded that when the cost of living rises faster then the average wage that one of those numbers has to move drastically. If you looked at the Bureau of Labor and Statistics website (which I did) you would see that while unemployment remained steady, underemployment was out of control. I had to listen to Hannity and Glen Beck and all these PINHEADS tell me that I was a paranoid liberal and that everything was wonderful in the George Bush economy. I had to listen for 20 years that if the rich get richer it will trickle down to the rest of us. Some of these goobers didn’t even admit we were in a recession till after the presidential election. I admit I am not as smart as I think I am. I do think that there are very smart, insightful people who saw this coming. THESE are the people we should be asking “what do we do next?” I disagree with the idea that the people who broke the system are the only ones who can fix it. To quote George Bush “fool me once shame on you …YA CANT GET FOOLED AGAIN!!!”

meter maid madness

Last week as I was walking out of work I saw a sight that most people cringe at. I saw a parking meter attendant writing a ticket. Most people who work, live, or visit an inner-city area know the feeling of returning to their car to find they have gotten a ticket. Fortunately, I was not the person being ticketed. Nevertheless, there was one thing that I was deeply annoyed with. The thing that annoyed me the most was that the parking attendant was driving an SUV paid for by the city of Camden. It is no secret that I hate SUVs. In my opinion they use to much gas and they are not safe, but, whatever. This SUV used by the state highlights a greater issue.

The first issue with this practice is cost. The SUV is not the most cost effective vehicle a city can buy. I also think that a parking meter attendant does not need a high performance vehicle to write tickets. I gave the city the benefit of the doubt by assuming that this fleet of cars was being shared by other departments when they are not being used for the task of writing parking tickets. This could be a potential way for a city to save money. I DON’T THINK THIS IS THE CASE. I talked to several city employees and they said these vehicles were used specifically by the parking authority by the meter attendants. If that is the case then this is huge waste of money.

The second issue I have with this practice is the issue of gas usage. The SUV is one of the most inefficient vehicles on the road. Everyone is saying that they want to be environmentally friendly, then a fleet of the most ecologically unfriendly cars is brought by the state. There has been lots of talk about less dependence on foreign oil, yet this city has decided to buy a fleet of these things to do mundane tasks that could be performed by a car that uses less gas. I wonder how much money the city of Camden paid to gas up these SUVs when gas went up to four dollars a gallon. How much money will the city of Camden continue to pay in the future?

Lots of people would argue that I am making a big deal out of this. They would argue that the cost and the gas use is a drop in the bucket when you consider the over all size of these problems. I would reply by saying that the city of Camden has a population of 79,000 people according to the US census. There are 286 US cities with a population between 50,000 and 80,000 people. How significant are the numbers if all of these cities have a fleet of SUV’s for their meter maids. These numbers aren’t even taking into account the big cities. I am an optimist so I will assume that not all cities are as badly mismanaged as the city of Camden, but if this trend continues in other cities the results could be at the very least counter productive.

The issue to me is not that the city of Camden has a few meter maids that drive SUVs. The issue is the opportunities that are lost by state and local governments to affect change. The state government has a chance to effect policy in a big way. By making a statement that they will buy fuel efficient vehicles, the city would be creating a market for these vehicles in addition to the short term economic cost. If all the cities with populations less then 100,000 people would do this, the effect may be even more significant. What if we extended this policy to state buildings being more energy efficient? How much money would a city save in the long run because of better energy costs?

What ever has happened, the fact remains that these cars have already been brought and are being used. I do not think that it is good policy in the middle of a recession for a city to replace all of its vehicles. What I do think should happen is that every vehicle that has to be replaced should be replaced with something OTHER THAN AN SUV!!! Since the city will eventually have to replace these vehicles why not replace them with something that is better for our economy and our environment in the long run. Every new vehicle that should be brought in the future should be fuel efficient. To the cities with populations over 80.000 people (there are 314 of them) any improvements made to taxi fleets, public transportation, and what ever other stuff they need should be made with fuel standards in mind. Cities could just set there own standards in terms of the construction of buildings. The building may cost more to build but you would hire more people to build it and YOU WOULD SAVE MONEY IN THE LONG RUN BECAUSE YOU WOULD HAVE LESS ENERGY COST. We can’t "unspill" the milk but we can make sure that we don’t spill the milk again.

On a happy note. Last weekend I drove to Giants Stadium. When I was on the turnpike I saw….

A New York City HYBRID yellow cab. At least Michael Bloomberg agrees with me!

Michael Phelps For Governor!

This past weekend I was watching some of the 2009 swimming national championships from Indianapolis. Once again Michael Phelps set a world record. A few months ago Michael Phelps was busted for smoking weed at a party. He lost several endorsements and a big deal was made about the whole role model Olympic hero idea (that is a discussion for another day). I also saw a press conference this weekend in which the governor of California, Arnold Swarchenegger announced that the state of California is broke. Some estimates claim that California has the 10th largest economy in the world. Many states across this country are running huge budget deficits. As states look for ways to balance their books there is one solution that is very apparent to me. I think the legalization of marijuana would provide a much needed source of revenue for states as well as make many Americans like Michael Phelps happy.

Before you dismiss this idea as completely crazy, I think it would be prudent to discuss a few things. Before we jump to the conclusion that legalization of marijuana will be the downfall of society (like it isn’t already downfallen), I feel it necessary to mention some arguments that people who oppose the idea of legalization often use.

The first argument against marijuana is that “If we legalize marijuana, EVERYONE will get high”. If we have legal drugs everyone will do it because it is legal and we will have a NATION OF POTHEADS!!! The reality is there is no evidence that this will happen. I have never smoked weed. If it were legal tomorrow I would still never smoke weed. Most of the people that want to smoke weed are already smoking it. In addition consider that fact that cigarettes are legal. Is everyone in America smoking cigarettes? Alcohol has been legal since 1933. Do we have a nation where EVERYONE is an alcoholic? I feel it necessary to mention that prohibition was repealed in the middle of the great depression. Coincidence? There is no evidence to support the notion that marijuana use will increase significantly.

The next argument is that if we legalize marijuana then “we are going to have EIGHT YEAR OLD KIDS SMOKIN’ WEED” I am not suggesting that we just let everyone smoke up. Of course it has to be regulated. We have age limits on other drugs in this country and most of us find this perfectly acceptable. We can argue about what the age limit is and how strongly we should enforce the rules but do dismiss the entire idea is irrational. Usually 8 year olds can’t get cigarettes and alcohol. We are talking about adults who choose to engage in this practice.

Another argument against this policy is “Marijuana is a gateway drug that can lead to other things. Marijuana use will lead to use of more dangerous drugs. I actually agree with this argument on some level. While it is true that most users of hard drugs will admit to using gateway drugs earlier in there lives the converse of this argument is not true. There are millions of people who smoke weed who never do anything else. Just because you use weed doesn’t mean that you are going to become a crack head. I also feel the need to point out that alcohol and cigarettes are also gateway drugs and no one is suggesting outlawing them. Another thing that goes hand in hand with this argument is that marijuana is just too harmful to allow. I would ask people to consider how harmful cigarettes and alcohol are. Consider the liver damage, the DUI’s, and the effect alcohol has on the brain both short and long term. Then consider the carcinogenic effects of smoking on both the person and the people around them as well as the addictive effects of nicotine. I think marijuana is very harmful but how much more harmful is it than drugs that society has deemed legal.

The final argument is an argument on moral grounds. The idea that our government and out society has to take a moral stand against marijuana. The idea that the only "thing holding the moral fiber of our country together is the prohibition of marijuana, I think, is the most ridiculous argument of all. The formal laws we have against marijuana were enacted in 1970 (there were other laws enacted before that). Somehow America was able to struggle on with out marijuana being illegal. There was actually a marijuana tax that was levied on selling of marijuana in 1937 (what a great idea). The morality argument is even sillier to me when you consider the society that was in this country. This society during this same time period had colored peopled drinking out of different water fountains, put thousands of Japanese Americans in internment camps, dropped TWO nuclear bombs, and assassinated government officials of sovereign countries. The fact that marijuana was or was not illegal has little to do with our morality.

I think there are several benefits of a well regulated marijuana policy. The first is the revenue generated. Right now the government makes ZERO dollars on the sale of marijuana. There are millions of people smoking and the government is making no money. In addition the people making the money are not the nice sort of people. These people are given their power because marijuana is illegal. Does anyone think drug dealers are paying taxes? Having registered people and places that can legally sell marijuana will allow the government to tax the revenue and at the same time diminish the power of the small time drug dealer. I think legalized marijuana will put the small time drug dealer out of business. If you wanted to smoke up would you go in a back alley to by your drugs or would you go to CVS? My opinion is overtime the influence of these small drug dealers will decline.

I think having the government involved will also make smoking marijuana safer. The drug would be dispensed in predetermined quantities and would be verified for purity. As it is now you can buy marijuana with different levels of potency. The user has no way of knowing how refined the drug is that they are buying. It is possible (even likely) to get marijuana that is unknowingly laced with other chemicals. The user has no idea what they are smoking in addition to the desired drug. Having a well regulated industry will make the product safer.

It is also necessary to consider the secondary effects how much money is spent jailing people that are convicted of marijuana crimes? How much money do we blow on marijuana court cases? Most police forces are over worked and underpaid. What would happen if police could actually chase real criminals and not adults who chose to smoke a little pot once in a while?

I think this is a tough decision. I have reservations about something like this. The problem I am having is that this idea is too often dismissed without even a discussion. Almost every state in this country is out of money. There are people on all sides screaming that we are spending too much money. We have big problems that need to be fixed right now and we need money to fix them. Do we want education, health care, benefits for widows of firefighters, and a new energy policy or do we want the delusion that we are a moral society because we lock up potheads.


(If you can’t deal with weed being legal can we PLEAS E HAVE STATE RUN CASINOS AND LEGALIZED BETTING ON FOOTBALL. We already have a state lottery. Why should Donald Trump make billions of dollars and the state can’t build and run a casino. Just put a nickel slot in every DMV, post office, gas station, and supermarket. I mean really how much money we have to throw out the door.)