Category: national politics & policies

Categories
national politics & policies too much government

The Mysterious Barricades

One might wonder: Do we really need the government we don’t notice when it is gone?

Which perhaps explains why national monuments have been cordoned off during the federal government budget stalemate: Not merely shut down and left unswept and poorly lit, but barricaded. With guards.

Is there any practical reason to shut down outdoor monuments like the Jefferson Memorial? Or the Lincoln? Doesn’t it cost more to truck in barricades, print “closed” signs and post guards? Seems the executive branch is expressing a “stick it to the citizenry” message, a strategy of maximizing public pain.

Childish. Apparently those at the helm think our government is theirs to roll up and take away.

But try to send that message to aged war veterans, determined to pay their respects at the World War II War Memorial, according to the Washington Post:

The graying and stooped men, wearing blue baseball caps, red T-shirts and garlands of red, white and blue flowers, surged forward, accompanied by members of Congress — the same lawmakers who, hours earlier, had triggered a government shutdown by failing to pass a budget resolution.

A shout went up. The barricades had been moved — it was unclear by whom.

Was it a congressman? A park policeman humanely modifying his orders? A vet? No credit was taken . . . The old men rolled and marched and hobbled forward, enthusiastic. One of the congressmen present declared it “the best civil disobedience we’ve seen in Washington for a long time.”

Common sense triumphs over the monstrous stupidity of official Washington.

Glad to be on the side of Common Sense, I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies political challengers too much government

Losing with Obamacare

Democrats and their many shills in the major media decry Republican intransigence and “absolutism” on the “settled matter” (un)popularly known as Obamacare. Yesterday, rather than give an inch to the House Republicans they accuse of intransigence, Senate Democrats voted to uphold the Affordable Care Act, including their own special exemption from it.

The House majority had been demanding the defunding of Obamacare as the price for keeping the government funded overall, but dropped that demand when Senate Democrats shook their heads No. Perhaps Republicans backpedalled because they surmised that they, not Democrats, would likely be blamed for the shut-down . . . Sen. Ted Cruz’s valiant efforts to re-define the debate notwithstanding.

Then Republicans downshifted, demanding a one-year delay in the implementation of Obamacare — granting to regular citizens, as Cruz puts it, the same solicitude Democrats have shown to big corporations — plus the deletion of a widely unpopular tax on medical devices and the repossession of Congress’s “Get-Out-of-Obamacare-Free” card.

Senate Democrats took less than half an hour to thumb their noses at the House, nixing all three provisions and leaving the federal government liable to partial shut-down. Obamacare, at least for the un-politically-connected, starts in earnest today!

Comedian Bill Maher is not alone in chiding Republicans for “refusing to admit” they “lost.”

Republicans, for their part, predict utter devastation from the reform bill’s implementation, and don’t see why the country should suffer from the Democrats’ intransigence.

If Tea Party-inclined Republicans do lose this battle and Obamacare’s bad results do pile up — increasing unemployment and depression, skyrocketing insurance rates, diminished private medical insurance rolls — would the Democrats concede that they’ve lost?

Or would they continue to think they’ve won?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets national politics & policies too much government

To Dream the “Impossible” Repeal

Senator Ted Cruz’s non-filibuster filibuster, monopolizing the Senate floor for the ninth hour as I type these words, is easy to characterize — if you are Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert.

Easy to make fun of, especially when the senator read Dr. Seuss’s Green Eggs and Ham as a bedtime story for his children — via C-Span.

It’s not a filibuster, since it stops no vote. It’s not even a speed-bump on the way to a vote. It’s something of a demonstration by one senator and a few of his allies to highlight the dangers of the Democrats’ Affordable Care Act, and the necessity to repeal it. Marshaling emails, tweets, and open letters, Cruz hopes to pressure the unmovable Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to allow a vote on an amendment to defund Obamacare.

The point is this: Attacking Obamacare can’t help but seem quixotic. Like Don Quixote tilting at windmills, we who want less government — who want to limit government — often find ourselves jousting with giants who don’t budge, or (ahem) budget.

So of course we do appear comic, now and then.

But there’s also a reason that when Broadway and then Hollywood turned Cervantes’ classic into a musical, Don Quixote became something of a hero. The dream of justice, of economy, of equality before the law, of humility before the forces of nature, and resilience before the hordes of delusional politicians, does seem impossible.

But not fighting it, whatever peaceful way we can, would be disgraceful.

Ted Cruz is heroic.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies

Atrocity Logic

It’s a strange world. Russian President Vlad Putin may have saved the day, preventing U.S. military action against Syria . . . all because a reporter had the temerity to ask Secretary of State John Kerry for a list of demands before the U.S. went firing missiles in Syrian President Assad’s direction. Shocked by such a sensationally sensible question, Kerry mumbled something about giving up all their chemical weapons.

So Putin rang up Assad, and the next thing you know, Assad said, “Sure.”

Do you want fries with that?

It may indeed all be a ploy on the part of Putin and Assad, but it provides a breather, a timeout before Congress votes to give President Obama the approval he has asked for ( but which he says he doesn’t need) to strike Syria . . . and which he may choose to ignore if he feels like it, which may soon all be moot anyway.

In any case . . .

Gas attacks are extremely unpleasant.

The Obama Administration released film of Syrian victims of Sarin gas attacks. CNN played the footage so citizens could see “what Senators and members of the House are being shown as they make their decision.”

Last night, Mr. Obama called on “every member of Congress, and those of you watching at home tonight, to view those videos of the attack.”

Oh, come on. Opposition to a military strike isn’t predicated on a lack of empathy. Were suffering the measure, we’d be at war in dozens countries all the time, including in Syria more than a year ago, since over a 100,000 people have died in the civil war where both sides have committed atrocities.

To suggest that we should decide the best course for U.S. policy by watching acts of violence and the resultant human suffering is simple-minded and demagogic.

There’s something wrong when Russia’s dictator-president looks better than ours.

This is Common sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies

Acting Accordingly

Last week, the British Parliament declined to support Prime Minister David Cameron’s call for joining a military action against Syria — an effort to punish the regime for its alleged use of chemical weapons against its own citizens.

Afterwards, asked on the floor of the House of Commons to confirm that he would not use force against Syria under “royal prerogative,” Cameron assured his country that, despite his strong belief

in the need for a tough response to the use of chemical weapons . . . I also believe in respecting the will of this House of Commons. It is very clear tonight that . . . the British Parliament reflecting the views of the British people does not want to see British military action. I get that. And the government will act accordingly.

How refreshing for a national legislative body to actually reflect the interests of the people, and for the government to abide by the will of the people. Perhaps this positive example from the Brits helped convince President Obama to seek congressional approval for the military strike he urges.

Process is important and, though Congress doesn’t do much of a job of representing us, I applauded the president’s decision.

Why the past tense? Because Time magazine reports that “Obama’s aides made clear that the President’s search for affirmation from Congress would not be binding. He might still attack Syria even if Congress issues a rejection.”

Yesterday on CNN, Secretary of State John Kerry said President Obama “has the right to do this no matter what Congress does.”

The Brits have authentic citizen-controlled government. Is ours just for show?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies too much government

Unions of Opposites

Not everything in Dr. Obama’s garden is coming up roses.

Even erstwhile — or perhaps masochistic — supporters of the thorny “Obamacare” legislation have sought exemptions from its costs and mandates, or complained about its “unexpected” destructive impact.

The AFL-CIO, for example, laments that employers otherwise subject to Obamacare mandates need not provide health insurance for employees working less than a certain number of hours. To get below the threshold, some big employers are systematically slashing employee hours. This trend may “[destroy] the 40-hour work week.” Oops.

Also thanks to Obamacare, some health insurance coverage is being excised from existing compensation packages, such as coverage for employees’ spouses. United Parcel Service has just joined the ranks of employers lopping such benefits. The company says Obamacare’s costs and mandates are a big part of the reason.

Not so fast, UPS! Isn’t this a biased misreading of the situation, as some experts claim? Bear with me here. According to the New York Times, “Several health care experts . . . said they believed the company was motivated by a desire to hold down health care costs, rather than because of cost increases under the law.” See, it’s not that UPS is trying to lessen the impact of cost increases; they’re only trying to reduce costs.

“Apples and oranges” or “six of one/half dozen of the other”?

One may as well pretend that persons breaking out of jail seek freedom when in fact they are merely endeavoring to escape imprisonment.

Let us not confuse such starkly opposite things. Thank you, experts.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Accountability government transparency national politics & policies

The National Confessional

Secrecy in diplomacy and intelligence-gathering is supposed to protect the nation. But secrecy also protects bad policy . . . including great crimes that undermine our security.

This week, the National Security Archive released onto the Web the first official admission that agents of the United States government brought down — by assassination and violent coup — Iran’s democratically elected president, Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq, 60 years ago:

The explicit reference to the CIA’s role appears in a copy of an internal history, The Battle for Iran, dating from the mid-1970s. The agency released a heavily excised version of the account in 1981 . . . but it blacked out all references to TPAJAX, the code name for the U.S.-led operation. Those references appear in the latest release.

The sunsetting of the secrecy provisions on the information finally provides sunlight, transparency, to this crucial moment in history.

Crucial, because it involved public American support for Masaddeq’s successor, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, “the Shah of Iran.” The Shah became quite brutal in his embrace of “modernism” and (this is hard to write with a straight face) “Western values,” including the suppression of religious dissidents. This led to the fundamentalist Muslim backlash, with Mid-East Muslims widely interpreting American intervention and support for the Shah as both imperialistic and anti-Islamic, setting up the current “clash of civilizations” . . . in which neither side ends up looking good.

It’s interesting to note that much of the secrecy about the event not only covered up American crimes, but British ones.

America’s foreign policy seems so un-American. In so many ways.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
insider corruption media and media people national politics & policies too much government

The Tyrants’ M.O.

Somewhere, recently, I saw the Lord Acton maxim about power (how it corrupts, and, if absolute, corrupts absolutely) referred to as a “cliché.”

Just because a phrase is common doesn’t mean it’s cheapened by repetition. Some expressed truths are that profound.

If anything, we need to repeat the Acton Axiom more often, and louder. For we live in a time when the federal government usurps power, denigrates, evades and undermines the rule of law, and appears “hell bent” (now that’s a cliché) on accumulating power in concentrated form . . . you know, like Sauron did with the ring of power in The Lord of the Rings. (Another possible cliché, eh?)

The NSA spying program story, as it unfolds, exemplifies the typical pattern:

  1. Information gets leaked.
  2. The government denies it.
  3. Further information comes out, establishing the lying nature of the denial and
  4. Adding more details of even more shocking nature.
  5. The government makes further denials . . .

And repeat ad nauseam.

Retired Lieutenant General James R. Clapper still serves the president as Director of National Intelligence, even after lying directly to Congress about the existence of NSA “metadata” collection system.

Meanwhile, the long arm of the secrecy establishment has retaliated against journalist Glenn Greenwald (who helped break Snowden’s first and subsequent leaks) by detaining the journalist’s partner without charge for the legal maximum of nine hours in Great Britain, upon coming home from a trip.

And the gentleman I reported on last week, who shut down his encrypted email service and erased his records rather than fork it all over to the government, says he has been repeatedly threatened with imprisonment.

Typical modus operandi of tyrant wannabes. Don’t worry about “cliché”; worry about tyranny.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
First Amendment rights national politics & policies too much government

Nuking the Net?

The military network that later combined with other networks to “make the Internet” was started out with an interesting purpose: to establish a communication system that could withstand nuclear strikes.

What if the United States were hit by multiple nuclear bombardments? How would survivors communicate? The protocols of the Internet allow for radical decentralization, which allows communications to get around nuked hubs.

Now, around the world, governments are trying to control this decentralized Net, taking down or otherwise preventing citizen access to Web services and sites (China, Britain, Australia, for example), and (most resolutely in China and the United States) preventing communication that cannot be “listened in” upon.

It’s almost as if governments are “nuking the Internet.”

The latest case? Lavabit. This Internet company has specialized in encrypted communications. Last week its owner and operator, Ladar Levison, made a public statement:

I have been forced to make a difficult decision: to become complicit in crimes against the American people or walk away from nearly ten years of hard work by shutting down Lavabit. After significant soul searching, I have decided to suspend operations. I wish that I could legally share with you the events that led to my decision. I cannot. I feel you deserve to know what’s going on — the first amendment is supposed to guarantee me the freedom to speak out in situations like this. Unfortunately, Congress has passed laws that say otherwise.

In an interview with Democracy Now, Levison hazarded that, “if the American public knew what the government was doing,” the government “wouldn’t be allowed to do it any more.” But so far, he’s speaking very carefully and not elaborating on what the government wanted him to do with his company.

It’s almost as if Congress nuked the Constitution.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
insider corruption media and media people national politics & policies

Paging Woodward and Bernstein

The Federal Election Commission is now implicated in the Obama administration’s years-long hounding of groups ideologically hostile to it.

Wall Street Journal Editorial Board member Kimberly Strassel details how, at the behest of a lawyer in the Obama administration, FEC staff “have been engaged in their own conservative targeting, with help from the IRS’s infamous Lois Lerner.” After the Obama lawyer filed a complaint with FEC against a conservative organization called American Issues Project in 2008, FEC staffers asked Lerner about the group. They went on to repeatedly challenge AIP’s non-profit status, cooking up new report-length rationales each time a previous one was exploded.

Papers like The Wall Street Journal as well as various blogs have published regular updates about how IRS personnel — top officers, not just a few file clerks — really did go after ideological critics of the Obama administration in the run-up to the 2012 election. But a “paper of record” like The New York Times barely notices the story except to rationalize it away. Same with other “liberal” outlets.

How many dots must be connected before left-leaning media mavens and their troops say “this is too much even for us! Letting IRS, now FEC, plus anyone in the Obama administration who winked and nodded get away with this would be hazardous to our own health! The next administration may be staffed by unscrupulous Republicans instead of unscrupulous Democrats! We’re going to start reporting on this! We may even criticize such abuse of power! Sharply criticize! Yeah!”?

How many?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.