2007 in the News...

Just for kicks, I've been thinking the past few days about what I thought have been some of the biggest news stories of 2007. Here is a list that I thought of - by no means in order of importance or chronology. Just some headline grabbers:

1. The Surge/Petreas Report/Iraq

Although this has fallen from the headlines of late, I think this was probably the biggest story of the year to me. The President's decision to increase troop levels in order to provide stability to generate a political settlement; the unquestioned success of the military in acheving that increased stability/decreased violence; Gen. Petraus and Ambassador Crocker testifying solely to the security side of the equasion; and finally, the Bush Administration, politicians, and the mainstream media completely ignoring the fact that, again, our military's steller success is being squandered by politicians who are unable to find settlement.

2. The '08 Presidential Nomination Campaigns

It's been a fun race with a surprising number of contenders for the nomination in both party's keeping the race wide open.

3. Iran

Both the increasing leverage and threat Iran poses as a legitimate regional hedgmon, and the intelligence community's surprising uprising against the Bush Administrations drum-beat to war on a third front.

4. Upheaval in Pakistan/Bhutto Assination

Pakisatan was already devolving, led by a military dictator ditinguishable from Sadaam Hussein only in degrees. The assination of Bhutto was tragic to a new middle class seeking legitimate democracy. The Bush Administration once again demonstrates its utter incompetence and lack of wisdom by un-hedged support of an anti-democratic dictator.

5. Resurgance of the Taliban in Afghanistan

Fueled by drug profits that the Bush Administration (in an all too familiar refrain) does not have the competence or intelligence to curtail, the Taliban and Al Queada is finding renewed strength in Afghanistan, where the US troops are stretched thin by the Surge in Iraq.

6. Mortgage madness/Sub-prime lending mess

I'm not convinced this will end up being as bad for the average American as the "If it Bleeds it Leads" media's bold-typed headlines would indicate, but there is no question that financial mismanagement and over-reaching has taken its toll on some of Wall Streets biggest firms.

7. The VT Shootings

Just a tragedy that defies explanation.

8. Oil Prices

With all the volitility in the world, this should not come as a surpise, but it flat out does come with upside. The higher oil prices reach, the more cost-efficient research into alternative fuels and alternative transportation becomes.

9. The Final Chapter of Harry Potter

It was somewhat sad, to me, to read the conclusion of this wonderful series. I've enjoyed every moment of it, and will probably continue to do so long into the future through re-readings.

10. Baseball's Steroid Scandal/Bonds' homerun record

Just ugly. The Mitchell report was damning, but it feels more like the closing chapter on a nasty era than the beginning of anything. And Bonds got his HR record, but received as little media attention (for the record) as could possibly be imagined.

11. AG/AG - The Improbable rise, and Cataclysmic Fall of Alberto Gonzalez

Just a mess of an Attorney General, Bush's fiercest Yes-Man could not withstand the cascading pressure of scandal after scandal after scandal after scandal.

12. Houston Dynamo Repeat as MLS Champions

Okay, this is much more local, and just a personal favorite, but to me, the improbale journey of this team from mediocre, at best, to repeast MLS Champs was really amazing. I've never supported a champion in any sport - and now I get two back-to-back. It's great, and it's all the better to support an organization that builds its team as a team, and players who really do define hard-working, team-first attitude. Good on you Dynamo - let's get another next year!

Giving Credit Where Due...

My last essay, and let's be honest, a great many of my posts to this blog, was an attempt to call out an example of what I consider to be one of the basic flaws of conservatism.

Yet, I have always hoped that my positions on issues are not mere partisan hack-ary. There are reasonable and intelligent conservative people and ideas that I respect, admire, and agree with. I have conservative friends that I enjoy talking issues with because they are thoughtful, they recognize nuance, and they are as willing to consider ideas that don't come from their "side" as I feel I am.

So, after railing against the Logic (or lack thereof) of the Conservative in my last post, here I am to promote the reasoned commentary, and yes - logic - of a conservative, David Brooks. In his NY Times op-ed column yesterday, Follow the Fundamentals, Brooks made some excellent points that I agree with - yet are conservative in nature. Exerpts follow:

Once upon a time, the fact that hundreds of millions of people around the world are rising out of poverty would have been a source of pride and optimism. But if you listen to the presidential candidates, improvements in the developing world are menacing. Their speeches constitute a symphony of woe about lead-painted toys, manipulated currencies and stolen jobs.
...
In the first place, despite the ups and downs of the business cycle, the United States still possesses the most potent economy on earth.
...
Second, America’s fundamental economic strength is rooted in the most stable of assets — its values. The U.S. is still an astonishing assimilation machine. It has successfully absorbed more than 20 million legal immigrants over the past quarter-century, an extraordinary influx of human capital. Americans are remarkably fertile. Birthrates are relatively high, meaning that in 2050, the average American will be under 40, while the average European, Chinese and Japanese will be more than a decade older.

The American economy benefits from low levels of corruption. American culture still transmits some ineffable spirit of adventure.
...
Third, not every economic dislocation has been caused by trade and the Chinese. Between 1991 and 2007, the U.S. trade deficit exploded to $818 billion from $31 billion. Yet as Robert Samuelson has pointed out, during that time the U.S. created 28 million jobs and the unemployment rate dipped to 4.6 percent from 6.8 percent.

That’s because, as Robert Lawrence of Harvard and Martin Baily of McKinsey have calculated, 90 percent of manufacturing job losses are due to domestic forces. As companies become more technologically advanced, they shed workers (the Chinese shed 25 million manufacturing jobs between 1994 and 2004).

Absolutely. Whether it is on the right or left, Demoratic or Republican presidential hopefuls - there is an irrational fear being preached of America's ability to compete in a world market. We can compete anywhere, anytime, in any arena - and politicians and commentators shouldn't grasp for the low-hanging fruit in order to scare people into votes. We don't need to be reactionary - we need to be leading.

Are there perils and downsides to globalization? Absolutely. But nothing that America cannot deal with - especially if we deal with it in a prudent, progressive way. But to bury our head in the sand and scream "It's Mexico's fault" or "It's China's fault" is no answer. As Brooks closes:

I’m writing this column from Beijing. I can look out the window and see the explosive growth. But as the Chinese will be the first to tell you, their dazzling prosperity is built on fragile foundations. In the United States, the situation is the reverse. We have obvious problems. But the foundations of American prosperity are strong. The U.S. still has much more to gain than to lose from openness, trade and globalization.

You don't introduce a new product in August...

What an absolute disaster the Bush administration is. After the big "report" on all the improvement that is going on in Iraq we were sold a month ago, and how this is buying time for reconcilliation - now we get this: Top Iraqis pull back from key U.S. goal

For much of this year, the U.S. military strategy in Iraq has sought to reduce violence so that politicians could bring about national reconciliation, but several top Iraqi leaders say they have lost faith in this broad goal.

Iraqi leaders argue that sectarian animosity is entrenched in the structure of their government. Instead of reconciliation, they now stress alternative and perhaps more attainable goals: streamlining the government bureaucracy, placing experienced technocrats in positions of authority and improving the dismal record of providing basic services.

"I don't think there is something called reconciliation, and there will be no reconciliation as such," said Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih, a Kurd. "To me, it is a very inaccurate term. This is a struggle about power."

This is what Bush and the Republicans have sent more of our soldiers over to Iraq in the "surge" for - the "struggle about power." One in which the US is caught in the cross-fire.

The so-called "surge" - which really did nothing except push US troop levels in Iraq back to 2005 numbers - is not and will not be a failure because our military has been in any way ineffective. On the contrary, the military side of operation is generally successful - as is almost any US military operation, because we have the absolute best military in the world. Rather, this POLICY has been an unmitigated disaster because Bush and his advisors are fundamentally wrong on Iraq. We won the war - and we should have come home. Instead, he is attempting to advance American Empire around the world - and that foreign policy choice is a disasterous failure.

Iraq is a calamity. It has been an exercise in historically poor judgment. And it is telling that we are not learning from our failures. Look at this quote from the article:

"I, as deputy prime minister responsible for the portfolio of security and services, until now, have never been consulted on any security operation taking place in Iraq," said Salam Z. al-Zobaee, Iraq's second-highest Sunni official. "The Sunnis, even if they've been participating in the government, are still marginalized in decision-making." ...

Th[e] imperfect balance of power, deemed the "national unity government," entrenches these sectarian divisions and prioritizes a politician's ethnic or sect background above experience or ability, Iraqi officials say. The system makes selecting Iraqi ambassadors or cabinet ministers an exercise in horse-trading subject to bitter disputes.

For some reason, our President is asking the US military to arbitrate this conflict. It is not in the interest of our nation as we have existed for over 200 years. It is only in the interest of American Empire. Without political reconcilliation, the President's "surge" will be just as much a folly as the President's occupation of Iraq. This Administration simply does not learn from its mistakes - to all of our detriment.

World Aids Day...

Don't forget...

************************************************************************


Today is World Aids Day. The idea of the world-wide day of awareness is to encourage the international community to step up to the plate and fight the disease.

The theme of this World Aids Day is accountability. There will be international observances calling for nations of the world, and international organizations to keep their committmens in fighting AIDS.

Clearly, the AIDS pandemic is at its devastating worst in the poorest areas of the world. The expense of getting AIDS treatment drugs, combined with lack of proper medical facilities, labratory testing facilities, and proper basics such as nourishment and hygiene make fighting AIDS in developing portions of the world extremely difficult. But it is clearly not a lost cause.

A study to be published in the New England Journal of Medicine today reveals that a holistic approach - even in the poorest areas - can be successful. The study shows that low-cost treatment programs can dramatically increase survival rates in poor countries.

Typically only 30 percent of AIDS patients survive for one year in Haiti, the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere where the HIV infection rate is about 3 percent among adults.

But integrating drug care -- usually generic drugs -- with nutritional support, tuberculosis treatment, counseling and other public health programs brought the survival rate up to 87 percent for adults and 98 percent for children, said Fitzgerald of the Weill Medical College of Cornell University.

That is a rather staggering improvement - especially for the children. And - it's economically efficient:

Fitzgerald and his colleagues said the annual cost of giving a three-drug combination to fight the AIDS virus was about $500 for generic medicines and $750 for brand-name drugs. "We estimated the overall cost per patient per
year (including medicine) as about $1,600," they said.

If you are able to spend a paltry $1,600 and re-gain a functioning memeber of the community, who is able to go back to work...or if a child, is able to grow up and contribute to the community - that is a bargain.

But of course, the poorest regions of Africa, central America, and Asia are not the only places where there is suffering from this disease. Even here, in one of the wealthiest nations of the world, people struggle with AIDS - and at all levels, the poor, middle class, and even the wealthy. AIDS is no respecter of income. And even though many here in America are able to take advantage of drugs and treatment which enables them to live strong, vibrant lives - there still is no cure...which I was reminded of all to closely this year. Much has been done, but there is so much left to do.

A few more links:
UNAIDS
US Dept. of State
Kaiser Family Foundation

Stop AIDS. Keep the promise.
************************************************************************

From December 1, 2005.

Sign of Weakness...

The Financial Times carries an analysis column of North Korea's apparent nuclear test earlier today (last night, our time). Interestingly, the FT concludes the North Korea test is a sign of weakness. Excerpts:

The test does imply, however, that the regime has enough weapons spare not to worry about losing one of them by testing. This probably means that it has more than the one or two weapons it was assessed to have by US intelligence a few years ago, and may have as many as 10.

Yet the test is more a sign of weakness than of strength. Though analysing what goes on at the top of the isolationist regime is difficult, some analysts have speculated that Kim Jong Il is under internal pressure. The country is plagued by food shortages – exacerbated by a drop in food aid from China and other countries – and has seen economic sanctions erode its ability to earn foreign exchange.

It also contains this biting analysis of the change in US policy under the Bush administration:

North Korea’s probable test of a nuclear weapon on Monday has triggered the second nuclear crisis in 13 years on the Korean peninsula.

In 1993, North Korea announced it would pull out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, leaving it free to divert nuclear material from its energy reactors to make a nuclear weapon and setting off a round of crisis diplomacy led by the Clinton administration. The result was the so-called agreed framework, which – in return for supplies of fuel oil to North Korea – froze most aspects of Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons programme for the rest of the decade.

The agreed framework was in effect consigned to history when the Bush administration came to power in 2001. The new administration argued that although the road to a plutonium-based nuclear bomb had been frozen, the North Koreans were cheating by attempting to develop a uranium-based bomb that was not explicitly addressed by the agreement.

That five years later, North Korea has tested a nuclear weapon will be widely interpreted as a sign of the failure of the tougher approach favoured by the Bush team.

Back in 2002, Bush stood before an audience in Cincinnati and declared that there was an "Axis of Evil" consisting of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.

Isn't it a shame that he chose to invade the one nation-state on that list that actually DID NOT have a nuclear program?

The march of Democracy...

The Bush Administration stakes much of its credibility on democracy - spreading democracy, the growth of democracy, etc. But when democracy doesn't produce the results that they want...they are quick to dismiss it, and to dismiss the thoughts and will of so many peoples - and what those opinions say about America.

The United States says it supports democratic government, but when the people of Venezuela elected populist Hugo Chavez - who is not friendly to the US - we did not try to determine what that means about our involvement in South American affairs - no, we organize a coup to overthrow Chavez, a coup which lead to a popular uprising - bordering on civil war - to get Chavez back in power. Does that sound like the US advancing democracy?

The United States says it supports democratic government, but when the people of Haiti elected Jean-Bertrand Aristide - who was not a great pro-US leader to say the least - we did not try to determine what that means about our involvement in the Carribbean - no, we organized a coup to overthrow Aristide, a coup which has lead to essentially permanent violence and fighting in Haiti. Does that sound like the US advancing democracy?

The United State says it supports democratic government, but now, the people of Palestine have overwhelmingly elected Hamas - a violent terrorist organization - as their majority representation in their legislature. Does that make Bush try to determine what this means about our mid-east policy, and how it is affecting the people of Israel and Palestine? Of course not. Instead, we simply reject this government and say that we will not negotiate with or acknowledge such a government.

Understand - I'm not saying that any of these three examples are governments that I "support" or I think were the right choices for these governments. What I'm trying to argue is if we are indeed a nation which espouses democracy, we need to also be a nation who is willing to question and analyze what the results of these elections mean to us, and what we are doing in the world. I am of the opinion that the United States' position in the world - our moral authority - is integral to both our national security, and promoting liberty around the globe. This administration has taken the directly opposite view - that if we are "mightiest" we will secure our position.

If we are going to spread democracy - we have to be willing to look critically at what democracy is telling us.

The China Syndrome...

Alan Greenspan and John Snow met with Congress yesterday and argued for globalization, and against any protectionist measures to be used against China.

The Houston Chronicle has that story here. CNN has a story here.

I'm going to try to take some more time to write about this soon, but I've been thinking a lot lately about impacts of globalization upon American national security down the road. If at some point in the not-so-distant-future we truly are not manufacturing anything domestically (because it's cheaper that way), what happens if we one day become involved in a conflict with China, etc.?

Isn't there some analogy here to the Confederate states during the Civil War - in that they simply did not have the industry to realistically compete in a long-term war with the North?

Is this a realistic concern, or am I just being overly cautious? More thoughts to come on this over time...

Why anti-Ecuador?

Article from The Nation posted May 11 entitled Ecuador Gets Chavez'd.

This article discusses how Ecuador (along with several other developing central and South American nations) has been the playground for rich to get richer, and how it has come at the expense of the poor people of the nation.

Ecuador has a new Presdient, Alfredo Palacio, who is trying to take some of the profits from high oil prices and use those on social programs for the people of Ecuador - but the World Bank loans that Ecuador has require that the nation can use only 10% of oil profits for expenditures for the people of Ecuador...70% must be paid to wealthy bondholders (the majority of whom are not Ecuador residents) and 20% must be set aside for bondholder contingencies. Palacio, a doctor by trade, is refusing to go along with that extortionist agreement - he wants to spend the oil windfall on the people.

The article describes Palacio this way:

Palacio seems an unlikely target of US official assaults. He comes off like a cardiologist you'd meet at an AMA convention. That is, in fact, what he is: a heart doctor who practiced in the United States for a decade, a man outside politics, affiliated with no party, brought in by Gutierrez to build a national health program. Hugo Chávez he is not: Palacio is conservative, pro-market, pro-American, but his patient, his nation, is in bad shape.

Other portions of the World Bank agreement call for electricity rates to rise to double the amount charged in the US. This seems like a deal which was implemented to help a handful of wealthy investors and energy corporations take advantage of a developing nation. Hopefully, Palacio will be willing to stay the course to the benefit of his people, rather than capitulating to the whims of a few rich and powerful.

Do you think this is effective foreign policy?

From Jurist-Paper Chase:

Report of Koran desecration at Gitmo prompts Afghan riots; 4 killed

Riots erupted across Afghanistan Wednesday in response to a recent report by Newsweek magazine that in an effort to infuriate Muslim prisoners US troops at Guantanamo Bay had desecrated the Koran by placing copies on toilets and in one case had even flushed a copy down a latrine. Insulting the Koran is blasphemy to Muslims and is currently punished by the death penalty in Pakistan and Afghanistan itself. In the conservative Muslim city of Jalalabad Afghan security forces were unable to contain thousands of rioters [Reuters report] and opened fire, killing four and wounding 52. Rioters set Afghan government officials on fire, destroyed UN buildings, ransacked businesses, and burned US flags along with pictures of George Bush and US-backed Afghan President Hamid Karzai. On a visit to NATO [official website] headquarters in Brussels Wednesday, Karzai praised progress made in Afghanistan, but told reporters later that the riots were evidence that Afghan security forces were still unable to handle protests without the assistance of foreign troops. Reuters has more.

When the Bush administration authorizes or turns a blind eye to the abuse of prisoners this is a natural result. Not only do the citizens of muslim nations rise up in opposition to the United States, but the very terrorist organizations that this administration is purportedly fighting use these very things to recruit new members. This type of policy is a failure, and this administration should be held accountable.

'188 Nations Sit Down Together' or 'No Hope of Constructive Progress'

The 2005 Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty Review Conference began today at UN headquarters in New York. This conference will last through the month of May with the hope of bringing the 1970 treaty up to date.

Don't bet your retirement on that getting done.

In the midst of dramatic nuclear tension in recent days (which is garnering little to no press from the mainstream-media) from the likes of North Korea and Iran, I would not expect a lot of dramatic improvements...especially in light of whom our President has chosen to represent the U.S. in this conference: Stephen Rademaker, a close ally of John Bolton - the Bush-nominated UN ambassador and outspoken UN opponent (yes, that's correct).

The timing of this conference is apropos considering that, at the pointed questioning of Senator Hillary Clinton, the Defense Intelligence Agency Director admitted before a committe last week that North Korea has the capacity not only to produce a nuclear weapon, but also missle and launch capacity. Wow...and yet we invaded Iraq? Right. In addition, Iran is now threatening to walk out of talks with European powers over the advancement of their nuclear programs. Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the UN, opened the conference today appropriately calling for dramatic reduction in nuclear arsenal's of the US and Russia. That would be a small price to pay - and would give the US much more credibility in dealing with N. Korea, Iran, and other rogue nations.

The 1970 non-prolif treaty was a monument, unfortunately times have passed it by. There are too many loopholes allowing the procurement of "non-military" nuclear technologies, which invariably lead to development of weapons of mass destruction. And we're not just talking about Iran and North Korea here - other nations are on the road, including Brazil and other nations more often viewed as "peaceful." Let's hope that the 188 nations that sit down together keep their eyes on the big-picture, as doubtful as that may be.

More from Jurist Paper Chase, Democracy Arsenal, and CNN.