2008 Presidential Race

The most provocative 2008 Presidential Candidate stand-off that no-one is talking about... yet: Al Gore vs. Jeb Bush. It would be incredible.

Amuse Me

It is really a gift that YouTube exists. Nowhere outside of the internet has there been such an open forum for holding political pundits accountable for what they have said. Whether it be Joe Biden calling Barack Obama the "first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy", former Senator George Allen calling S.R. Sidarth, an Indian man, "macaca", etc, everyone's verbal gaffes get their time in the sun. Open forums like YouTube and Google Video have largely done what the mass media has been afraid to do the last decade, hold people accountable for lies and hypocrisy and internally regulating their own misdoings.

It is always amusing to watch conservative firebrands like Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter taken to task for journalistic irresponsibility and fallacious logical arguments. I have a hard time believing that Republicans take Malkin and Coulter seriously, there is just no way. I have an even harder time believing that these two women are products of American higher education; Malkin graduating from Oberlin College and Coulter from Cornell University and later University of Michigan Law School. How can it be that such prestigious universities produced two such individuals that have little regard for fact checking. It is especially surprising in Coulter's case given that she graduated Cornell cum laude and was the editor of the Michigan Law Review. Two very bright women. You have to wonder if they sacrificed their own credibility for the sake of being outspoken and prominently featured on FOX News.

Watch as Malkin and Coulter both get caught up and trapped by their own non-nonsensical speech.

Republicans During Kosovo

From the years 1993 to 2001, President Bill Clinton worked alongside four different Congresses; the 103^rd, 104^th, 105^th, and finally the 106^th. During three out of four congresses, both the House and the Senate were presided over by a Republican majority. It is interesting to examine how a Republican majority Congress worked/fought against a President of the other party, especially during war time and on issues of the Constitution and the War Powers Act of 1973. It is in my opinion, a good window of time to examine the failure (56-34 with 17 Republicans joining the Democrats) of today’s non-binding measure which sought to rebuke President George W. Bush’s plan of escalating the number of troops deployed in Iraq with a surge of 21,500 combat and support troops.

Article I- Section 8 of the United States Constitution provides that while the President is the Commander in Chief of military forces when called upon to do so, the Congress retains the power to:

• To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
• To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
• To provide and maintain a navy;
• To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
• To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
• To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

In order to understand how the balance of power is struck throughout the course of a war, we must look at Article I in conjunction with the War Powers Act which requires the President to gain the approval of Congress before the commencement of any sort of hostile acts. This Act, whose legality has never been formally challenged through the Supreme Court, gives the Congress a set of teeth, as declaring war can be interpreted as a formality that does not give Congress a role in actually authorizing military action. Congress can authorize a war, but can it end one? Congress can end a conflict if war has not been formally declared within 60 days conflict. However once it authorizes a war, as it did in Afghanistan and Iraq, it relinquishes its war making power to the President. This however does not give him the authority to conduct a war on Iran, unless Alberto Gonzalez somehow successfully makes the argument that in the “War on Terror”, the “terror” aspect is so far reaching that the President can make war with whomever he so pleases. I find that to be unlikely.

In 1992, the US as well as NATO were convinced that it was time to take action against Bosnia. The Senate and House, although controlled by the Democrats passed the multilateral authorization of force by a strong ~94% agreement. Eventually in 1995, the Dayton Agreement was signed and peace was agreed upon by the warring parties in Bosnia and NATO.

It was during this time that Democrats and President Clinton began to be heavily criticized by some in the military and by the Republicans. In a 1996 editorial, John T. Correll, Editor in Chief of the Air Force Magazine, blasted Clinton for not observing the Weinberger Doctrine –

“In 1984, Secretary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger proposed six tests to determine whether US forces should be sent into combat: Is a vital national interest at stake? Will we commit sufficient resources to win? Will we sustain the commitment? Are the objectives clearly defined? Is there reasonable expectation that the public and Congress will support the operation? Have we exhausted our other options?

…the Clinton Administration, which came to office imbued with the idea that the instrument of military power could be and should be applied with fewer restrictions. President Clinton's first Secretary of Defense, Les Aspin, said that under the Weinberger rules, the armed forces would be employed "only very, very rarely" and that "people may not be willing to pay $250 billion or even $200 billion a year for a military that is not very useful."

To my knowledge Correll, even as far as 2003 (when he discontinued his role at the Air Force Magazine), supported the efforts that the Bush administration had made in Iraq and Afghanistan. To some degree, retrospectively I would agree, Bush along with Rumsfeld transformed the military to better fight the evolving threats arising from Middle East combat. However, given our situation in Iraq and Afghanistan today, it being 2007, I would be curious to see if Correll has given his thoughts any reconsideration. His laudatory attitude towards Bush was largely based on rhetoric and not action.

[Correll commenting on G.W. Bush] “He promised to review the open-ended deployments: “Sending our military on vague, aimless, and endless deployments is the swift solvent of morale. ... I will work hard to find political solutions that allow an orderly and timely withdrawal from places like Kosovo and Bosnia. We will encourage our allies to take a broader role. We will not be hasty. But we will not be permanent peacekeepers, dividing warring parties. This is not our strength or our calling.””

Reflecting from 2007, Bush's words ring hollow as the criticisms he reserved for Clinton are those that he is also facing now. As we can see, Bush was heavily critical of the way Bosnia and Kosovo were handled. Many individuals like Bush and Correll threw up their arms, finger pointing that Clinton had committed our troops to world policing activities and used US military power too liberally. As the Congressional Democrats and Clinton pursued keeping troops in Bosnia to ensure success during peace negotiations, Republicans were intent on ending our nation’s activity in Bosnia.

The Republican Congress sought the following measures:

11/9/1995- H.R. 2606
Title: To prohibit the use of funds appropriated to the Department of Defense from being used for the deployment on the ground of United States Armed Forces in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina as part of any peacekeeping operation, or as part of any implementation force, unless funds for such deployment are specifically appropriated by law.
[Passed 243-171; 214 “AYES” votes were by the Republicans; failed in Senate 22-77]

12/13/1995-H.Res 302
Title: Relating to the deployment of United States Armed Forces in and around the territory of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina to enforce the peace agreement between the parties to the conflict in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Reiterates serious concerns and opposition to the President's policy that results in the deployment of 20,000 members of the U.S. armed forces on the ground in the territory of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Calls for: (1) the President and the Secretary of Defense to rely on the judgment of, and ensure the provision of appropriate resources and support to, the commander of the U.S. armed forces that are deployed in and around the territory of the Republic in all matters affecting the safety, support, and well-being of such forces; and (2) the U.S. Government to be impartial and evenhanded with all parties to the conflict as necessary to assure the safety and protection of such forces.
[Passed 287-141; 221 “Yeas” votes were by the Republicans]

12/13/1995- H.Res.304
Title: Providing for debate and for consideration of three measures relating to the deployment of United States Armed Forces in and around the territory of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
[Passed: 357-70; Majority opinion of both parties]

12/13/1995- H.R. 2770
Title: To prohibit Federal funds from being used for the deployment on the ground of United States Armed Forces in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina as part of any peacekeeping operation, or as part of any implementation force.
[Defeated 210-218; 190 “YEAS” votes were by the Republicans]

This piece of legislation was submitted by D-Rep. Lee Hamilton

12/14/1995- H.R. 306

Title: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the deployment of United States Armed Forces to Bosnia.
Supports the men and women of the U.S. armed forces who are carrying out their mission in support of peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina with professional excellence, dedicated patriotism, and exemplary bravery.
[Defeated 190-237; 219 “NAYS” votes were by the Republicans]

With this Congressional record I think it is obvious that the criticism being endured by the Democrats concerning the non-binding resolution is without any merit whatsoever. Democrats are being accused of hurting the morale of our troops by pushing this resolution, obviously when Lee Hamilton presented the “We support our troops” legislation in 1995, the vote by the Republican majority was a resounding “NO”. Alongside of this lack of support for American troops assisting in peace keeping along with NATO, the Republicans voted repeatedly to cease the funding of activity in Bosnia. At the time, did that not embolden our enemies and show them that a peace agreement would not be supported by force from America? The inconsistency is stunning, a turn around in party politics that was only a little more than a decade ago.

This lack of support for the President in foreign policy only continued into 1999 when America again returned to the area for the Kosovo War. Again, the Congress authorized military action, agreeing to use of “air operations and missile strikes”. There was no opposition to Clinton from the Republican majority. And although the Senate had agreed to Senator Biden’s resolution authorizing air attacks in Yugoslavia and had also overwhelming agreed to Senator McCain’s resolution authorizing Clinton the use of “all necessary force and other means, in concert with U.S. allies, to accomplish U.S. and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) objectives in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)”, the Republican House still fought the legality of the war. This is not to say that I think that Clinton’s war was legal, in fact I would side with the Republicans and say it was pursuant with the War Powers Act to end U.S. involvement. The end result was still to authorize an extension to bombing in Yugoslavia, but to this day, Clinton critics argue that he went too far in pursuing “victory” and defending the Albanians.

The Republicans made many efforts to censure President Clinton on his handling of and engaging the United States military in the Kosovo War. They passed resolutions to debate the legality of war, they sought to withhold funds for the war and peacekeeping efforts, they even voted to not “support the troops” in what was for the most part a piece of fluff legislation. It is surprising now that the Republicans are acting so fiercely against Democrats taking action against President Bush and the Iraq War. During the Clinton Administration, there were not questions of how legislation was hurting the morale of the troops, there were however repeated questions about the Presidential powers invoked by Clinton in war making; questions that were absolutely legitimate. The current Republicans in Congress seem to have entirely given up their job of oversight of Presidential power; giving their responsibility in a system of checks and balances directly to President Bush without any after thought.

Uniqlo

I just returned from a week long trip to NYC, where I bought clothes, ate lots of food, and hung out with all of my friends that didn't and probably won't ever leave New York City (one of the few cities in the world that actually matters).

One of the coolest new things that I discovered was Uniqlo. If you walk on Broadway, right in between Spring and Prince, you will find a brightly lit clothing store that is the Japanese equivalent of H&M (except the quality is a lot better). Actually, the way I originally thought of it was the up-scale Ikea of clothing. The quality of clothing is in ratio with price on a margin of about 5:1. The idea is simplicity, clothing pieces that you can pick up and instantly mesh together with your existing closet of stuff. The next time you are in the city, take a pit stop here.

They also have a nice catalog type book they call Uniqlo Paper. It pairs together spreads of the clothing alongside featurettes that are similar to GQ's now semi-defunct "Seen on the Street" section, where they chat up artsy fartsy folks on the streets of New York wearing Uniqlo. Pair that with interviews ranging from Kim Gordon of Sonic Youth, Chef Morimoto (the Iron Chef, yes that's right), to various foundational blocks of the Uniqlo brand like its textile masters and interior designers.
http://www.uniqlo.com/us/uniqlopaper/

Historical Lessons for Iraq

We study history to take a glimpse into our past, to gain knowledge as to what motivated people, what mistakes they made, and how we may build upon their experience so that each generation becomes greater than that that preceded it.

The Bush administration is making an interesting claim to support their war on terror; when asked about what lessons he has drawn from Vietnam, he answered “we’ll succeed unless we quit”. The Bush lesson being, had Nixon not called for total withdrawal from Vietnam in 1973, and we pressed on, the American intervention would have been victorious. Had we pressed on, America would have been forced to answer the question, what is victory? Would victory have been the complete obliteration of South Vietnam, ending the north-south “civil war”, or perhaps maybe it would be the reformation of South Vietnam into a democratic entity. Who knows, however, because that question was left unanswered in our past, the question has risen again.

Another historical lesson we may draw on to better understand Iraq can be seen in a statement made by Dick Cheney recently.

CHENEY: Remember with me what happened after in Afghanistan. The United States was actively involved in Afghanistan in the '80s, supported the effort against the Soviets. The mujahideen prevailed and everybody walked away. And in Afghanistan, within relatively short order, the Taliban came to power. They created this safe haven for al Qaeda. Training camps were established, where some 20,000 terrorists trained in the late '90s. And out of that, out of Afghanistan -- because we walked away and ignored it -- we had the attack on the USS Cole, the attack on the embassies in East Africa and 9/11, where the people trained and planned in Afghanistan for that attack and killed 3,000 Americans. That is what happens when we walk away from a situation like that in the Middle East.

Once again, the presiding wisdom of the Bush administration is that, if we do not leave, then we will win. By most accounts, the US mission in Afghanistan that had taken place during the Carter, Reagan, and Bush (41) was a resounding success. The mission was to halt the spread of Russia and communism into Afghanistan following the removal of the Shah. The United States funded, trained, and armed the mujahideen for many years until the Russians withdrew in 1989. Victory!... or not? The question however is, did we walk away? We accomplished our mission and did not have the foresight to anticipate the rise of the Taliban; at the time there really was no impetus to stay any longer than the mission at hand required. We left the country in tatters; they experienced nearly a decade in guerilla warfare against communist rule leaving their infrastructure broken, the best and the brightest of the country had left out of fear, leaving Afghanistan with no leadership outside of the mujahideen factions; we left an awful situation. This is leaps and bounds different from both Iraq and Vietnam. We did not leave because we were in many ways “losing”. We had won. It was just a shortsighted victory.

Today, if is somewhat the fault of the United States that Islamic terrorism persists with the strength we are currently witnessing. The Mujahideen are by definition very similar to the extremist jihadists. They were fighting the specter of atheist communism and promoting the strength of armed and political Islam. We raised them to power.

What was the United States to do in the 1980s? Were US troops to remain in Afghanistan until democracy was spread from border to border; were we to depose the theocratic state that we funded in exchange for secular leadership? Such a campaign is on par if not more daunting than the current Iraq situation. Never would it have been as obvious that the United States was using political puppets to serve its own worldly interests.

The only lessons we can learn from Vietnam and Afghanistan are that if we remove ourselves from regional struggles, regardless if we began them or not, the United States can retreat to a semblance of isolationism and peace for a short while. The lesson is not that if we remain, that victory is immanent. Such a conclusion is not only ridiculous, but irresponsible to the men and women that volunteer for our armed forces. To achieve “victory” in Iraq, we will most likely be in Iraq for an untold number of years, more than a few of those years will be devoted to figuring out what victory is in the first place. If we learn anything from Afghanistan it is this: even if we achieve victory, how long will it be until we discover that our victory was short lived and our conditions for victory short sighted? What other regional conflicts are we not foreseeing by our actions and what new enemies are we creating?

Disney's new ad campaign

Disney's new ad campaign is the best one I have seen in a long time. They have been looking for ways to reignite interest in the Disney themeparks and this was a pretty brilliant and glamorous idea; I can't believe they didn't think of it earlier. They have hired Annie Leibovitz to do a series of photos, the first installment of which features Scarlett Johansson as Cinderella, David Beckham as Prince Charming, Lyle Lovett as the March Hare, Oliver Platt as the Mad Hatter, and Beyonce as Alice in Wonderland. Apparently Annie is setting up for the second installment that will have A-list folks dressing up as the Little Mermaid, Snow White, and Peter Pan. Let's hope they don't ask Michael Jackson to be Pan.

state of the union!

Tonight, George W. Bush discussed Health care reform. It's about time. Energy policy reform. Long due. Immigration reform. Glad it's being addressed. Global Warming. I told you so, but it's already too little too late. Fuel efficiency. Fiiiinally. The semblance of bipartisan discussion and open exchange of ideas. I sure hope so.

Dikembe Mutombo. You've got to be kidding me.

minimum wage increase good?

The business community (at least part of it) is dreading the new federal minimum wage increase. In the majority of the articles I've read, small business owners have overwhelmingly stated that they think that the sizable increase to minimum wage is a moral obligation. At the same time, they fear that an increase in minimum wage is going to hurt their business; either they will have to cut jobs or increase prices, either way they are predicting a loss in their own yearly income.

Not being an economist, I couldn't tell you what I think is going to happen, nor do I think a model is necessarily going to accurately tell you how businesses will react and their bottom line along with it.

This morning I read an article in the NYTimes about Washington State. For about a decade, each year they have increased the wages of the lowest paid workers. Washington state did not crash and burn, losing all of its jobs to Idaho. Washington added 90,000 jobs in 2006, the interviewed business owners say they are doing more business than ever (maybe they got lucky), border residents have streamed to Washington for employment, and even the Association of Washington Business stopped fighting the minimum wage law.

To be fair, the percent of small businesses in Washington State's overall scheme is 2.4%. Can it be used as an accurate prediction for what is to come after all states adopt the new higher minimum wage? We'll all wait and see, but in my opinion, an increase in minimum wage has been a long time coming. It's about time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/11/us/11minimum.html?hp&ex=1168578000&en=bf304392cdc5baf4&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Gator Nation

Gator Nation is proud. The school I almost went to, the school my dad decided to continue his education at, the school my brother turned down Duke for: the University of Florida, the mighty gators, National Champions. It's great to be a part of Gator Nation.

so global warming IS partly our fault

“It is clear today that greenhouse gas emissions are one of the factors that contribute to climate change, and that the use of fossil fuels is a major source of these emissions.”

<3 Exxon Mobil


Wow. Can you believe that? This statement arriving just after news that Exxon Mobil had manufactured and supported op-eds and studies that created uncertainty towards human contribution to global warming. Well actually, first they released that the news of their propaganda campaign was an “attempt to smear our name and confuse the discussion”, then they thought... no no no, the truth will come out and we will get kicked in the balls like Enron; Courageously they told the truth, hopefully it wasn't just a press snippet. Don't Republicans look silly now, and now it may be too late for Al Gore to save us! Can we label those folks "global warming deniers" and point and laugh at them?