REBLOG: The Heart of the Matter: Don't Worry, US Imperialism is Cost-Free

Even though I'm trying to get back to more original content here, I still think there are things running around the blog-o-sphere that my readers should see.

Such is the case with Barry Eisler's most recent offering on Muslim Blowback, framed as the Cost of current U.S. Imperialism.  The simple, and historical truth is that imperialism anywhere in the world is met with resistance of one sort or another.  We asw this in Afghanistan in the 1980's, when the Mujahadin effectively destroyed the Soviet Union by bankrupting them in a decade long war (where have we aseen that play out recently?).  We see it ongoing in Israel, where European guilt at the horros of the holocaust have enabled 7 decades fo repression of Palestinians.  We saw it in the collapes of the Spanish and British Empires.  We even see it in the narrative portions of Christianity, where Jesus teachings and ministry are too often (and too unfortunately IMHO) cast as a rebellious response to the Roman Empire.

Now Eisler joins the long running commentary of Glenn Greenwald and others (including me) on the notion that occupying the Middle East has enormous and unintended consequences and costs.

You can read more at The Heart of the Matter: Don't Worry, US Imperialism is Cost-Free

What Mark Sanford's South Carolina victory says about Democrats

So I was wrong.  I admit it, and humbly beseech your forgiveness.  Mark Sanford won the South Carolina First Congressional District last night, by what seems a really commanding percentage, 54% to 45%.  The County by County breakdown of voting is Here.

So what does this election say about Democrats heading into the 2014 mid-terms?  Well, first, the Solid South is still Solid - and Solidly Republican.  Democrats need to really look at the long term economic, sociological and cultural trends in this region before picking candidates and crafting campaign messages, or the 17 seats they need to flip the House won't materialize.

Second, Democrats need to rethink their national money strategy.  Sanford's luck seems to have shifted when the RNC pulled its campaign funding, but state politicians like the Governor, Nikki Haley (R) endorsed Sanford in the final week of the campaign.  Once that happened, Sanford was able to turn to establishment Republicans in his District and say "hey, do you want to elect local old me, funded from the grass roots, or do you want to get that Democrat, funded by outsiders elected because you can't stand my past?"  Oddly its a card that worked for Newt Gingrich in the Family Values Party for a long time, and I really hope to dig into that hipocracy at some point.

On the money point - I know it gauls liberals, progressives, and historians everywhere, but generations of Southern politicians have built successful careers on lashing out at modern day carpetbaggers, still out remake the South after its humiliating loss in the War of Northern Aggression (the Civil War to you).  Like it or not, the South still feels aggrieved that preserving the union meant being forced to radically alter it's economy at gun point.  That sense of loss, that sense of needing to regain face and respect, has driven much of Southern politics and economics for a century, and once Sanford could legitimately point to DNC money (referred to as Nancy Pelosi campaign funds and the like), Colbert-Busch and her backers had a tougher fight on their hands.

So where do Democrats go from here?  I am not sure - my Party of Record seems too preoccupied with shooting itself in the foot these days to effectively navel gaze about this loss and what it says about their approach to an old, proud, and not inconsequential part of the electorate.  To be sure, white Southerners are dwindling in number as a part of the electorate, but as long as Republicans run a better ground game that appeals to those voters fears and insecurities, Republicans will have a strong hold of the Soild SOuth.

Democrats and South Carolina - a Lowcountry Match made in Tea Party activism

Over at the Fix this morning, Chris Cillizza and Sean Sullivan try to make the case that a Win by former Gov. Mark Sanford (R, Tea Party Branch) in South Carolina's 1st Congressional District tomorrow is NOT a loss for Democrats.  Their premise is that if Elizabeth Colbert-Busch wins the seat, the carrying costs for Democrats will simply be too high to sustain that victory in 2014, so why bother acquiring now what will be handed back later?

Much as I respect that opinion, I think they are wrong for three key reasons:

1. First, while Mark Sanford is damaged good politically, he had to run to the far, Tea Party delirious right to even make it out of the primary ( which counted no less the 16 Republicans in contention). He also lost the support of the RNCC when he confessed to violating the court order keeping him out of his ex-wife's house, to say nothing of the embarrassment he caused his sons by introducing them to their future step mom at his victory party last month.  This means that, if he has what it takes to be nominated in the this District on the Right, Democrats won't have that hard a fight on their hands in 2 years.
2. Second, a win is a win is a win.  Democrats are supposedly drowning themselves in lethargy and "malaise" these days over President Obama's "lack luster" first 100 days (of his second term).  Both Salon and the WaPo have carried numerous example stories of this.  So Democrats need a win at something to help start their rally - why not in a House race that puts a Democrat in office under Sen. Lindsey Graham's nose?
3. Third, and perhaps most importantly. Colbert- Busch isn't running as the extreme left of center Socialist that President is still being made out to be by many of those same pundits.  Her ads in South Carolina since the primary win have been focused on her business chops and her roots and connections in the Lowcountry, not on Obamacare, or immigration, or any other issue that can be marginally linked to Democrats.  In short, she's running as a pragmatic centrist (sort of like the President actually) without invoking anything Obama has said or done. Compared to the other Republican offerings, I think if she votes the way she's running, the purple First District will be very willing to see her returned to office.

So Cillizza and Sullivan may be right - we'll know tomorrow - but the evidence and the real long term strategy would be better served if they were wrong.

An Open Letter to Conservatives

Dear Pennsylvania Citizen,

Thanks for writing.  We Liberals are stereotyped to be a literate bunch, and we greatly appreciate the time you took to put your thoughts on paper (virtual though it may be). Like you and your friends, we share a concern about how our children will grow up; like you we have favorite sports teams (mine is the LSU Tigers); like you food consumes an inordinate amount of our discussion time with friends.

And we do not hate you.

Let me say that again - we do not hate you, or your  family family, or your  business.  In fact, we'd like to hold companies like the one you describe as a model of what we wish other companies were.  The problem is that, in many cases, companies are NOT as responsible or as employee conscious as your are - and they often seem to have shareholders and corporate boards.  That you pay enough in wages (and I presume in benefits) to keep unions away is a good thing, but many American employers both keep unions away, and pay less then living wages with few or no benefits.  We liberals don't think this purpose-full impoverishment of the labor force is an economically sound approach, and so we ask government to intervene because markets writ large or small do not intervene themselves.

We do not hate you.

I too was raised Presbyterian - my paternal Grandfather and all three of my mother's younger brothers pastor in that Protestant tradition.  I too believe faith in God is a significant help to every one, and I lament the too often human derived and enforced schisms that exist between Christians, to say nothing of the wider schisms between peoples of all faiths.  It is my deep faith, and my strong adherence to God's calling, that propels me to seek societal intervention for all our less fortunate - including those without health insurance.

I am not happy with the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare's" actual name) because I think it leaves too much economic power over healthcare in the hands of for profit insurers, who are in the business of returning profits to shareholders, not delivering healthcare to every American.  Considering that healthcare bills owed are now one of the top factors in personal bankruptcy in the country, I cannot sit idly by while the market solution - which denied insurance to 35 Million fellow citizens - plods on.  In the end, if everyone has insurance, healthcare will be less costly, and less cost means more money for your company to invest in its own growth and security.  That said, let me reiterate that the market solution left 35+ Million Americans out of the system all together - and thus drove up costs significantly because they had to use emergency rooms for normal health services.  The markets wouldn't fix the problem, so the individual mandate (which as a Republican idea a decade ago)  was the solution our nation fashioned.

I do not hate you.

After the Newtown shooting in December 2012 I hoped and prayed - both for the victims, and for the Nation that we would perhaps finally be able to have a rational discussion about gun violence and gun ownership - and responsibility.  Sadly, we aren't doing that, and my side of the aisle is as easy to blame as yours is because we keep trying to ban weapons based on their looks.  As a gun owner and shooting sports enthusiast (and an urban dweller) I had hopes for universal background checks - a sensible solution that is neither liberal or conservative - but saw that too fail in a hail storm of lies about what the legislation actually did.  And yes, they were lies.  The federal legislation did not seize weapons; it didn't prevent or require background checks on family or friend sales or transfers, and it prohibited the development of a national registry or ownership database.  A specific group of people promulgated those lies, and I believe they should be held accountable.

I do not hate you.

I don't hate anyone.  I dislike, disagree with, and often am enraged by those whom you elect in your Party.  I am disgusted at their unwillingness to do any good thing with our current President (you may recall Sen. Mitch McConnell saying in 2011 that the Republican's #1 objective politically was unseating President Obama).  I am saddened that they refuse to listen to their own sensible leaders, like Sen. Marco Rubio, who is tackling undocumented immigration with approaches that can be built upon to bring dignity and consistency to all who come to our shores - but who is seeing his own Party begin to destroy his approach because it doesn't stick it to people and lIberals here first.  I'm angry that federal civil servants - all of whom are dedicated to helping and serving citizens like you and my are constantly derided to score political points.  and I am bewildered at the call for a "return to the Constitution" by a Party that has sough to hamstring it implementation when that implementation applies to people of color, women, and anyone not white, male, or upperclass. 

I do not hate you.

You are a dignified, proud human being.  No one who can claim those adjectives deserves hatred. And everyone ought to claim those adjectives.  But I will not stand for the solutions to today's problems that your purported Republican leaders support because they assault that dignity at every turn.  As a Liberal I do not believe government has every solution, but I do believe that history has shown us many times where government must craft a solution because markets will not.  And I will continue to call you, my fellow American, out for the words and conduct of your Party and your politicians (just as I do my own on this blog), since ultimately they have no power unless you elect them and send them to Washington.

I do not respect your choice to fictionalize your identity in order to create this conversation.  That was trolling of the worst kind, and while I am willing to debate your arguments on the merits, your choice to shield your real experience from me in that debate is a sure sign that you are not sure your argument could prevail.  It's also one of a series of common tactics I see daily from Republican political operatives.  Lying is lying - and it makes it impossible for us to trust or believe that we can have a substantive debate because we can't be sure who we're really debating with.

Picking a leader - How the Obama Administration gets sideways (again) at the Department of Commerce

Various news outlets, including the Wall Street Journal and Greenwire are reporting that President Obama intends to nominate Penny Pritzker as the next Secretary of Commerce.  Pritzker, whose family owns and runs the Hyatt Hotel chain (along with a number of affiliated brands) would bring a wealth of corporate management experience to the post, as well as a number of international connections that would no doubt be useful to the President's foreign trade relationship needs.

Unfortunately for Ms. Pritzker, her corporate experience has probably not prepared her for the majority of her day job - namely overseeing the 63% to 65% of her budget that is spent by NOAA.  You see, it's a closely guarded open secret that the largest single part - or Bureau - of Commerce is not really all about commerce per se (certainly not in the same way that the International Trade Administration, the Census, or the Bureau of Industrial Security or the Patent and Trademark Administration are).  Former Secretary Gary Locke (now Ambassador to China) understood this, but he had a head start in his learning curve having worked closely with NOAA on Pacific Northwest Salmon issues during his years in Olympia.

Unfortunately for our rebranded hotel leader, NOAA is all about forecasting the weather, protecting Endangered Species, setting national and regional commercial fishing quotas, understanding the linkages between climate change and drought, and conducting basic ocean and atmospheric research.  Some of those things require telling business sectors "No" rather loudly and often. It may be true that Ms. Pritzker's managerial experience will benefit NOAA - it's an organization of 12,000 or so staff - but that will only occur if she's briefed properly, trusts the civil service career staff to do their jobs, and the White House supports her by nominating a NOAA Administrator and other NOAA political appointees who actually understand what the organization does and how to best run it.  With the departure of Dr. Jane Lubchenko in February as NOAA Administrator, that chair is open.

So we'll see how it goes, particularly if and when there are confirmation hearings.  If Ms. Pritzker can answer ocean and weather questions, and maybe at least get climate terms correct , then there will be hope for her tenure as Secretary of Commerce.  Otherwise, she'll wind up like a long line of Commerce Secretaries before her who, as former Secretary Carlos Gutierrez (he of Kellog CEO fame) once said, had no idea they were coming to Washington to be Secretary of NOAA.

Music to think by

I meant to publish way back when (and I honestly don't remember) but it seems to be a good thought for us today, as we reel from another militarized overreaction to a criminal act on our soil.

http://vimeo.com/17827345

Whining the Sequester - Congress realizes there are consequences when it acts

I have two simple questions for all the Senators and Congressmen - mostly Republicans according to the MSM - who are complaining like little girls about the layoffs of FAA air traffic controllers:

1. Why aren't you whining and blubbering about all the OTHER federal workers (Like DoD Civilians) who are also being laid off?  If you can stand to see fewer staffers in the Pentagon, and Department of Interior offices closed in your Districts, why can't you stand air traffic slowdowns?
2. More importantly - what the hell did you think it meant when you wrote and passed a law that said ALL Program, Project and Activity combinations in the federal government shall be reduced by 5%?  You exempted uniformed service members from the cuts - if air traffic controllers were that important you could have exempted them too ya know since you WROTE THE DAMN BILL.

But that's sort of the point about the Sequester - it was meant to be so ugly no one would actually let it happen.  Only the Republican Party has gotten so doctrinaire, and the Democrats so weak kneed to large corporate donors, that the Sequester did, in fact, become real.   Its one of those unintended consequences my friend and fellow blogger Mike Dwyer is always gigging me about (and in this instance he'd be right).

So, stop your bitchin.  You tugged Sally's hair, got caught, and got put in the Time Out corner.  Grow up, grow a pair, and learn to accept that you too, Mr. & Mrs. Congress-critter - you too can fuck up in ways that have real impacts on your constituents, who may be thinking about replacing you anyway because you keep voting against things they support (like universal background checks).

Oh wait, that's almost what I have to say to  my 4 year old when I discipline her (absent the F bomb) - imagine that.