As he was leaving office, President Eisenhower warned about the power of the "military-industrial complex" in driving our national agenda. That warning is often quoted, rarely heeded.
Never heeded less than right now.
In Obama's budget proposal, the F-22 fighter plane will be phased out. Originally designed to fight the Soviets in the cold war, newer models have been adapted for more air-to-ground missions. However, although we have 183 of them, DoD Secretary Gates points out that they have not been used (because they are not useful) in either of the two wars we have been fighting for the past 7 and 8 years.
Makes sense, doesn't it, to phase out building any more? The budget calls for just 4 more, although I fail to see why we need 4 more of something we don't use and have a stockpile of 183 anyway. Politics must be involved.
Yes, indeed. Enter our own Senator Saxby Chambless, who has vowed to fight for the F-22. In language aimed at arousing voters, he's using two key words: Iran and jobs.
Saxby is rattling the spectre of Iran as a nuclear power and the potential loss of jobs from Marietta's Lockhead-Martin that builds the F-22 -- both hot button, key issues right now.
Surely 183 F-22s is enough to protect us against Iran, especially given that we have a much newer, more useful fighter jet to take its place.
But the military-industrial complex is a powerful force. Ike warned us.
Ralph
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Fallout from Iowa
When solidly midwestern Iowa's top court ruled that same-sex couples cannot be denied marriage, people correctly took it as an indicator that it was not just a bi-coastal, liberal thing.
So, yes, I think it can be taken as much wider support and increasing momentum for gay marriage. Of course, opponents are trying to use this to rouse the troops (and money) again, and they will mount a constitutional amendment campaign.
But, unlike California, it will have to pass in two different legislative sessions before it can be put to the voters. That means two more years, at least, during which time many gay and lesbian couples will marry; and Iowans will see that the sky doesn't fall, that heterosexual marriage has not been affected, and so what's the big deal?
But there's another aspect to the effect of gay marriage coming to the heartland: jealousy and shame. There are murmurings from ordinary people -- as well as politicians -- in New York and California:
Iowa ??? How can we let Iowa lead the way out of the closet? That is the role of liberal New York and California, where trends are supposed to start.
So maybe it will spur them on. In New York, the governor and both senators support it. In California, the governor supports it. I'm not sure about Senators Feinstein and Boxer; they're probably close, if not already on board; and certainly they would not work against it.
Ralph
So, yes, I think it can be taken as much wider support and increasing momentum for gay marriage. Of course, opponents are trying to use this to rouse the troops (and money) again, and they will mount a constitutional amendment campaign.
But, unlike California, it will have to pass in two different legislative sessions before it can be put to the voters. That means two more years, at least, during which time many gay and lesbian couples will marry; and Iowans will see that the sky doesn't fall, that heterosexual marriage has not been affected, and so what's the big deal?
But there's another aspect to the effect of gay marriage coming to the heartland: jealousy and shame. There are murmurings from ordinary people -- as well as politicians -- in New York and California:
Iowa ??? How can we let Iowa lead the way out of the closet? That is the role of liberal New York and California, where trends are supposed to start.
So maybe it will spur them on. In New York, the governor and both senators support it. In California, the governor supports it. I'm not sure about Senators Feinstein and Boxer; they're probably close, if not already on board; and certainly they would not work against it.
Ralph
Monday, April 13, 2009
Spain will do it for us
The same Spanish court that indicted Chilean dictator Pinochet will announce on Tuesday that it will open criminal investigations of Alberto Gonzales, Douglas Feith, John Bybee, John Yoo, William Haynes, and David Addington for sanctioning torture at Guantanamo.
These are the lawyers from george bush's Departments of Justice and Defense who wrote the memos and provided the cover for allowing torture -- in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions and our own laws.
This has come up in connection with a case before this court involving terrorism charges against five Spaniards who were held at Guantanamo. A group of human rights lawyers filed the original complaint and asked the court to investigate. It was referred to their prosecutors who, after reviewing the charges, have now decided to proceed with investigations.
Two questions: Why have we not done this ourselves? and Why are not rumsfeld, cheney, and bush themselves included? Perhaps the answer is that these are all lawyers, and they are responsible for the legal opinions that allowed others to pretend they were operating within the law.
I don't think Obama is likely to order extradition, if it comes to that. So it will be a trial in absentia -- but still a very important development. That is, assuming that their investigation leads to indictments.
It will keep the issue alive and in the news, and it will mean that these men cannot travel outside the U.S. without the risk of being arrested and brought to trial.
Ralph
These are the lawyers from george bush's Departments of Justice and Defense who wrote the memos and provided the cover for allowing torture -- in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions and our own laws.
This has come up in connection with a case before this court involving terrorism charges against five Spaniards who were held at Guantanamo. A group of human rights lawyers filed the original complaint and asked the court to investigate. It was referred to their prosecutors who, after reviewing the charges, have now decided to proceed with investigations.
Two questions: Why have we not done this ourselves? and Why are not rumsfeld, cheney, and bush themselves included? Perhaps the answer is that these are all lawyers, and they are responsible for the legal opinions that allowed others to pretend they were operating within the law.
I don't think Obama is likely to order extradition, if it comes to that. So it will be a trial in absentia -- but still a very important development. That is, assuming that their investigation leads to indictments.
It will keep the issue alive and in the news, and it will mean that these men cannot travel outside the U.S. without the risk of being arrested and brought to trial.
Ralph
Curmudgeons
"Curmudgeon -- a crusty, ill-tempered, and usually old man." (Merriam-Webster).
Oddly, the late afternoon HuffingtonPost news page juxtaposed two of our highest placed public curmudgeons: Dick Cheney and Clarence Thomas.
The article about Cheney was a poll that asked people if they agreed with Cheney's statement: "actions Barack Obama has taken as president have increased the chances of a terrorist attack against the U.S."
Only 26% agreed, while 72% disagreed.
Of course, that won't carry any weight with our curmudgeon-in-chief. Once while he was VP, a reporter asked him about the fact that some huge number (like maybe 80%) said the country was headed in the wrong direction. He replied, "So what?" In the context, it seemed pretty clear that he meant that he didn't give a good g-damn what the people thought.
The second article was about Clarence Thomas speaking at a dinner sponsored by the Bill of Rights Institute. It seemed an odd occasion for him to declare his uneasiness with the whole concept of rights. He thinks there is too much emphasis on rights and not enough on responsibilities.
This is from an African-American man who probably has benefited from affirmative action as much as anyone in history, who denounces the very concept of affirmative action and would reverse those decisions if he could.
Bah, humbug to them both.
Ralph
Oddly, the late afternoon HuffingtonPost news page juxtaposed two of our highest placed public curmudgeons: Dick Cheney and Clarence Thomas.
The article about Cheney was a poll that asked people if they agreed with Cheney's statement: "actions Barack Obama has taken as president have increased the chances of a terrorist attack against the U.S."
Only 26% agreed, while 72% disagreed.
Of course, that won't carry any weight with our curmudgeon-in-chief. Once while he was VP, a reporter asked him about the fact that some huge number (like maybe 80%) said the country was headed in the wrong direction. He replied, "So what?" In the context, it seemed pretty clear that he meant that he didn't give a good g-damn what the people thought.
The second article was about Clarence Thomas speaking at a dinner sponsored by the Bill of Rights Institute. It seemed an odd occasion for him to declare his uneasiness with the whole concept of rights. He thinks there is too much emphasis on rights and not enough on responsibilities.
This is from an African-American man who probably has benefited from affirmative action as much as anyone in history, who denounces the very concept of affirmative action and would reverse those decisions if he could.
Bah, humbug to them both.
Ralph
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Military insanity
A small factoid was buried within a New York Times article today on Richard Holbrooke, special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the restoration of diplomacy under President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Decrying the imbalance that put the Pentagon and the military, rather than diplomats, in charge of these troubled areas during the bush era, the article made the startling point that we have more musicians playing in military bands than diplomats working around the globe.
Add to this the fact that, under Don't Ask, Don't Tell, we have 55 fewer Arabic language experts working to translate intelligence data -- simply because they are gay -- in an area already critically undersupplied with translators.
Things are out of whack. Obama is determined to change both of these insane situations.
Ralph
Decrying the imbalance that put the Pentagon and the military, rather than diplomats, in charge of these troubled areas during the bush era, the article made the startling point that we have more musicians playing in military bands than diplomats working around the globe.
Add to this the fact that, under Don't Ask, Don't Tell, we have 55 fewer Arabic language experts working to translate intelligence data -- simply because they are gay -- in an area already critically undersupplied with translators.
Things are out of whack. Obama is determined to change both of these insane situations.
Ralph
Newt's very bad day on TV
Newt Gingrich, perhaps (but probably not) stinging a bit from the open letter from his half-sister chastising him for his anti-gay stance, was on This Week With George Stephanopolis. He did not have a good morning.
Several of his rants were shot down, one quite decisively and dismissively by George Will. Others were simply ignored or challenged by other guests or by George himself. The air seemed a bit chilly there for a while. And Newt got that "I'm not wowing them," dejected look on his face.
The one rant that perhaps might have had some lasting impact was his decrying Obama's passive stance on the American sea captain being held hostage by the Somali pirates. Newt portrayed it as a sign of weakness that Obama had refused to discuss it when asked by a reporter. He assumed that silence meant he was ignoring the plight and the problem.
Now comes news that the captain has been safely rescued, that three of the four pirates were killed and the fourth is in custody. Details not in yet, but it was definitely a U.S. Navy operation, perhaps Navy Seals or some other special U.S. forces that pulled off the rescue.
See, Newt. A real leader doesn't bloviate to the press like you do. He just gets the job done; and sometimes that's better done while keeping your mouth shut.
I think Newt just drove another nail in the coffin of his presidential hopes. And Obama looks more like a president and a commander-in-chief than ever.
Ralph
Several of his rants were shot down, one quite decisively and dismissively by George Will. Others were simply ignored or challenged by other guests or by George himself. The air seemed a bit chilly there for a while. And Newt got that "I'm not wowing them," dejected look on his face.
The one rant that perhaps might have had some lasting impact was his decrying Obama's passive stance on the American sea captain being held hostage by the Somali pirates. Newt portrayed it as a sign of weakness that Obama had refused to discuss it when asked by a reporter. He assumed that silence meant he was ignoring the plight and the problem.
Now comes news that the captain has been safely rescued, that three of the four pirates were killed and the fourth is in custody. Details not in yet, but it was definitely a U.S. Navy operation, perhaps Navy Seals or some other special U.S. forces that pulled off the rescue.
See, Newt. A real leader doesn't bloviate to the press like you do. He just gets the job done; and sometimes that's better done while keeping your mouth shut.
I think Newt just drove another nail in the coffin of his presidential hopes. And Obama looks more like a president and a commander-in-chief than ever.
Ralph
Warren skips opportunity to explain his flip
On 4-8-09 I posted comments about Rick Warren's conflicting statements about whether he endorsed, was an activist for, or otherwise supported California's Prop8.
Today he was scheduled to have been interviewed by George Stephanopolis on This Week, but he canceled just moments before the scheduled interview, citing exhaustion.
I suppose it is exhausting for a religious figure of his following to have to explain on national TV how he stretched the truth, if not outright lied. But I think he could have done a credible job of explaining the difference between (1) his own personal view and advice that he gave on his church's web site and at the same time (2) the fact that he was not part of the activist campaign to push Prop8, as the Mormons and Catholics and other evangelicals were -- to their dishonor, in my view, given the lies and disinformation they spread all over California like manure.
As I did when Obama picked him to give the inaugural prayer, I give Warren some slack for being less offensive than most megachurch, evangelical pastors. I don't think he was really lying, just emphasizing different aspects of the truth in order not to offend one group or the other in dealing with a controversial issue.
And, as I said about Obama's inclusiveness in choosing an evangelical to give the invocation, what if this influenced him to rethink his position and to become a little more moderate on the issue? Warren is a supporter of civil rights for gays and other issues of social justice and equality; what if he actually did change his mind on marriage?
I suspect that behind the "exhaustion" may be some ambivalence in his own private thoughts. Perhaps the Iowa and Vermont decisions this week made it just too hot an issue for someone like him to have to discuss on national TV right now. If he were sure of his opinion, he would probably welcome the forum to explain it.
Stay tuned.
Ralph
Today he was scheduled to have been interviewed by George Stephanopolis on This Week, but he canceled just moments before the scheduled interview, citing exhaustion.
I suppose it is exhausting for a religious figure of his following to have to explain on national TV how he stretched the truth, if not outright lied. But I think he could have done a credible job of explaining the difference between (1) his own personal view and advice that he gave on his church's web site and at the same time (2) the fact that he was not part of the activist campaign to push Prop8, as the Mormons and Catholics and other evangelicals were -- to their dishonor, in my view, given the lies and disinformation they spread all over California like manure.
As I did when Obama picked him to give the inaugural prayer, I give Warren some slack for being less offensive than most megachurch, evangelical pastors. I don't think he was really lying, just emphasizing different aspects of the truth in order not to offend one group or the other in dealing with a controversial issue.
And, as I said about Obama's inclusiveness in choosing an evangelical to give the invocation, what if this influenced him to rethink his position and to become a little more moderate on the issue? Warren is a supporter of civil rights for gays and other issues of social justice and equality; what if he actually did change his mind on marriage?
I suspect that behind the "exhaustion" may be some ambivalence in his own private thoughts. Perhaps the Iowa and Vermont decisions this week made it just too hot an issue for someone like him to have to discuss on national TV right now. If he were sure of his opinion, he would probably welcome the forum to explain it.
Stay tuned.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
