It takes two to tango (or, thoughts on the inauguration)

I was there. Something no doubt we will all here 20 years from now, but I WAS THERE. Without a ticket, I trekked to the Mall with a friend, and we witnessed (via Jumbotron) Obama's inauguration. Living in Alexandria, I had no excuse to not go, and as the friend who accompanied me put it best - this is our "Woodstock."

And it was. The feeling was incredible. The entire "witnessing history" is a mix of hyperbole and cliche, but this was really something. And I like to think I have seen quite a few "somethings" in my life. The mass of humanity, the 28 degree weather (16 with wind chill), the random strangers with whom we talked, the guy who looked remarkably like Ben Stiller who had come from Colorado... the 6 ft tall guy in the goofy fur hat who blocked my view, but helped (as a landmark) my friend make it back from the porta-potty. It was an experience. The sense of community. It made me proud to be an American again. There are a lot of things we have done in the past 8 years that do not make me proud, but my faith in my country was redeemed on Jan 20 - NO WHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD would a man like Barack Obama be elected to the highest post in his nation. NO WHERE ELSE.

But I sensed something else as well - a desire for retribution. I jokingly cheered when Dick Cheney finally made it to the dais... and was immediately the center of all local attention. For the record, I voted for Obama, and have no affection for Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, Feith, or any of that crowd. But the response - while not altogether unexpected - still alarmed me.

I was alarmed because of what it presaged for our country. The Republican party ran the country into the ground through a populist orgy of spending and tax cuts while railroading their partisan "foes." Tom DeLay's (remember him?) justification? He "won" the election. The same phrase uttered by Nancy Pelosi this week. After Obama attempted to build bipartisan support, the stimulus package was rammed through with few changes on a nearly straight-partisan vote (some Dems joined the GOP in voting no). And thus Pelosi passed a $800+ Billion package through the House. (by way of context, $800 Billion is FAR more than has been spent on both the Iraq and Afghanistan "wars" combined since 2001). Listening to the radio this morning, I heard the GOP referred to as the "Grand Obstructionist Party" and worse. While I do not believe the GOP should be dictating the terms of the bill - they did come out below the Dems (though it was Obama who really "won" the election)- their ideas should be given consideration. The constant mutual vilification serves no one, and because Tom DeLay did it does not make it right. Are the Democrats in power no better than Tom DeLay? Because we all saw where he led the Republican party.

I believe Obama is making concerted efforts to be post-partisan - as do most Republican lawmakers, interestingly. It is his fellow Democrats in Congress who are more interested in investigations of Bush & Co. and excoriating the past than in building the future. Rather than the Republicans' special interest groups running the show, now it is the Democrats' special interest groups calling shots. One group is no better than the other. The Republicans' deserve no special treatment based on their operation of the levers of government, but Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would be wise to remember no single group holds a monopoly on truth. President Obama said the very same thing. Unless the Democratic leadership recognizes this fact, they will be doomed to the same fate to which their GOP brethren currently find themselves subjected.

Obama won the election, not Pelosi or Reid. His lead should be followed - not theirs.

Looking Back at the Presidency of George W. Bush

As so many of us look forward to the inauguration of the new president (or focus on the current economic crisis we find ourselves in), I thought it would be useful to look back at the legacy of the departing president. For most of my readers, I know that it has been eight years of frustration. For some of my younger readers, the initial frustration and exasperation that I felt with Mr. Bush is probably a pretty faded memory-- interspersed among teen-age angst and turmoil manifested in dramatic form by High School Musical parts 1, 2, 3, and etc. (Actually, I probably shouldn't use that analogy, having never actually seen any of them. N.B.-- this is not criticism of the younger generation, merely recognition of the fact that this president has been in office eight long years. If you are 25 now, you were only 17 when the whole circus began).
So, here is the (roughly) chronological list-- off the cuff and woefully incomplete-- of a few events in the dismal legacy of George W. Bush:

NEGATIVE (listed first because there's more of it):

-- Bush's selection (not election) by the Supreme Court in 2000

-- Enron and energy policy; scandal over Cheney's secret energy policy meeting with energy executives, including Ken Lay, his good friend (this is often overshadowed because it occurred in the summer of 2001)

-- Iraq War

-- "Mission Accomplished"

-- No WMDs in Iraq

-- Paul Bremer and the frat boys in charge in Iraq

-- Abu Ghraib prison scandal and general chaos in Iraq

-- Torture at Guantanamo and various other places (Eastern Europe in particular)

-- Katrina and Rita ("Brownie's doing a great job!")

-- Warrantless wire-tapping

-- Denial of global warming (in face of scientific community; and editing by federal science agencies' reports for political reasons)

-- Cheney's assertion that vice-president is not part of the executive branch (wow!)

-- Outing of Valerie Plame and political fall-out

-- Afghanistan-- mismanagement after initial success

-- Economy-- he's not solely responsible here. So is Clinton, GHW Bush, Reagan, Greenspan, Congress for the last 20 years, etc. But he didn't help by feeding the deficit, thus putting us to our current terrible Hobbesian choice of massively increasing our debt or moving to 12% or worse unemployment

POSITIVE:

-- Afghanistan-- initial success (Northern Alliance and etc.)

-- AIDS program in Africa (most support to stop epidemic ever from US)

I'm leaving out a bunch of "policy" sorts of things--e.g., tax policy, gay rights, abortion, and etc. I am only trying to include specific issues or policies that were prominently reported. (Arguably, I shouldn't give him the AIDS thing, because I could just as well add that his foreign health policy also precluded financial support for any organization that offered family planning advice, including birth control options (condoms and etc.) or abortion rights because of the right-to-lifers in his administration who believe only in abstinence-- an absurd position that will be reversed in... let's see... 2 days.) I've got to draw the line somewhere! This is a blog, not an encyclopedia.

My personal feeling about Mr. Bush-- and it is problematic to take too much license, here, because I do not know the man personally-- is that he actually is a nice man but not a leader. He allowed himself to be overridden and influenced by other men with greater will and determination, men whom he appointed to high positions of influence. On the foreign policy side, this led to disastrous results. Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, Cheney, and (to a lesser extent) Bolton led us with neo-conservative idealism into war in the Middle East in Iraq and, more damning, convinced by their idealism, laid no foundation for the restoration of Iraq (its government, military, and economy) and proceeded without any understanding of the culture, history, or ethnic makeup of that country or the region. On the economic policy side, there was no vision-- only following the party line, trying to eliminate taxes on the wealthy (capital gains to 0%, elimination of the estate tax, elimination of social security), eradicate public schools, and erode labor rights; basically, an attempt to turn back the clock to late 19th century cut-throat capitalism-- the conservative ideal. Because the policy was so simple, other appointments were considered unimportant-- like Michael Brown's appointment as head of FEMA. Incompetence and cronyism reigned.

**

Good riddance. Open the window and let the fresh breeze in.

Defense Contractors and General Motors

I work in DC and live in Alexandria. Consequently, when I take the Metro into work, I pass by the Crystal City, Pentagon City and the Pentagon Metro stations. For those not familiar, at each of these stops are a plethora of signs from defense contractors - each saying how they save soldiers lives in the field, or how the particular item they are hawking is essential to the fight against terrorism, Iraqi insurgents, the next enemy, etc.

As I ride past them, I never fail to get angry. Really angry. Because I see them in the same light I have come to see General Motors - a company I fully expect to fail or be bought within the next 10 years, bailout or not. Because both groups are building products the customers don't really want. GM is moving its 8 mpg only because GMAC has received bailout money and can offer these gas hogs at 0 percent interest. The defense sector is the same. The argument is the companies are too crucial to national security to fail... or their products are the latest segment of the revolution in military affairs... or vital to the "next war."

GM will fail because it builds substandard products with poor maintenance records at too high a cost. Our defense industry is in trouble for exactly the same reasons. Exactly when the US should be leading the world in the supply of defense equipment (to reputable allies...), we are on the cusp of losing the entire market. The reason is we have priced ourselves out of the market. When we accept that a single warship (or single airplane like the B2) can or should cost over $1 Billion, we have lost the battle for pocketbooks. If that is the cost of their products, we are all doomed.

And yet, there is also the side that pisses me off. Because the words I see used I have heard before, when I was in Iraq. There, more than anywhere else, I gained my disparagement of defense contractors. As a measure of disclaimer, there are many good contractors - good people trying to do their best for their country. Then there is KBR (Kellog, Brown and Root - formerly "owned" by Halliburton, the company with which VPres Cheney was associated) and L3 Communications. KBR has allowed soldiers to die because they have held fast to the letter - not the spirit - of their contract, which does not require them to be certain Iraqi-built structures are electically safe. They may argue it is a matter of money - they can't afford to fix everything. And yet, while being paid to hire Americans, they hire Ugandans, Romanians, Hungarians, Ukrainians, Philippinos, Malays, Indonesians, etc. I do not say there is anything necessarily wrong with foreign nationals are hired - my concern is they are being exploited. And then there is L3... they are requested to supply trained, experienced analysts, and they provide untrained, inexperienced junior personnel whose only qualification is their security clearance. Many have never written a report before, and most lack the ability to write coherently.

Then I see advertisements about how bad guys aren't waiting for some integrated network to be built, or how some project is crucial to US security. And yet, I have been at the tip of the spear - indeed, I have spent most of my career there - and what these companies are offering, is usually not what the actual "warfighter" really wants. One more piece of software, one more piece of unecessary (expensive) gear... I have come to believe many of these companies are only in the game for the profit. I see no difference between them and GM - the Chevy Corvette I once had was a beautiful machine, but cheaply built and succombed by problems from the day I took possession of my custom-built vehicle.

We have come to expect our defense equipment to be expensive, but the day is soon coming where neither us - nor our many allies - will be able to afford US manufactured equipment. Not even GM would refuse to fix the tire of a car being driven off a lot. Yet frequently, that is the case with US built equipment. For example, with the LPD program, the ships were built, but any required repairs identified during acceptance trials had to be paid for by the Navy.''

Unless we are careful, our defense industries will go the way of GM. But if an equivalent product can be bought for a fraction of the price, maybe that isn't such a bad thing.

Ruby Slippers

I took my family to the newly-refurbished National Museum of American History on the National Mall today. The museum has recently reopened following a 3-year renovation. The museum houses both some of the finest artifacts of American History and famous pop-culture notables as well. Exhibits include the original Star-Spangled Banner which flew over Fort McHenry in Baltimore and so inspired Francis Scott Key , the famous lunch counter from Greensboro, N.C., documents and artifacts from many immigrants - "legal" and otherwise - to the United States, and a plethora items such as doll houses, T.V. sets, and - most famously - the "ruby slippers" Dorothy wore in the "Wizard of Oz."

The only remaining hand-written copy of Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address is also at the museum for a limited engagement. The document - three pages of neat, cursive script on hand-lined parchment - is on loan from the White House until Inauguration Day. This document was the reason I dragged my family into the city on a windy, cold January day and it is every bit as inspiring as I had hoped it would be.

As I read the words written in Lincoln's own, neat script, tears literally welled up in my eyes - and I say this as a Virginian reared in the mythology of the old Confederacy. Lincoln was a great man, whose simple eloquence has been unmatched in presidential oratory either before or since. It is hard to describe the feeling of reading the words "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom - and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth." A combination of excitement and sorrow... My heart stirred reading those words today because I think we are at a similar crossroads now, and no less important a moment in the history of our great nation.

However, after I passed through the exhibition hall, my blood began to boil. There were many lines at the museum today. Lines to see the Star Spangled Banner, newly restored like its home museum. Lines to see the gowns of various First Ladies. Lines even to see Julia Childs' kitchen, lovingly rebuilt in its own exhibition space. But no line was as long as the one to see Dorothy's "ruby slippers" - a cheap pair of faux-leather pumps covered with red sequins.

As for the Gettysburg Address... there was no line.

I looked around the museum with newly opened eyes, and wondered what that portended for the United States. We Americans who abound in "reality television" and cheap journalistic voyeurism - where are we headed collectively as a nation, I wondered? That we care more for gowns worn by the wealthy or cheap props worn by actors and actresses... what does that mean for our future?

Many gave all in Gettysburg on those hot summer days in 1863. And many more have given all since that day - on the fields of France, in the sands of the Pacific, in the jungles of Vietnam, and even among the palm groves of Iraq. But many more do not understand the gift they have been given by those who have given all... a fact never on display as much as on January 3rd, 2009, at the National Museum of American History...

The Coming of the Messiah

The Messiah is coming. It will be a glorious day... no more will mankind suffer war, hunger or want... He will be loved by all.

Until He cannot live up to everything expected of Him after January 20th.

I jest. But only just. Barack Obama's inauguration is likely the most anticipated swearing in of a U.S. President in over a century, and possibly two. More than Reagan, more than either Roosevelt, and I would argue even more then Kennedy. I doubt there has been as much public excitement over a new president since Andrew Jackson became our seventh President of the United States. Kennedy barely won over Nixon... Reagan was popular but distrusted... Lincoln's election precipitated the secession of South Carolina. We have not seen a phenomenon like this before.

Living in Washington D.C. gives me a unique perspective on the excitement - two million people are estimated to be coming downtown. As many as five million may come into the area. The reason only two million ... let me say that again... ONLY... TWO... MILLION... will be downtown because that is the MAXIMUM the DC Metro and 50,000 charter buses coming into the city will be able to carry. There is no precedent for this type of crowd. Period.

For the record, I plan on staying in my house for four straight days.

Also for the record, I am very proud Obama will be our President. I have closely followed his cabinet picks, and agree with other writers on this blog that his choices have been judicious and non-partisan. His choices are well-qualified, pragmatic and are not ideologues. As a group they are not neo-cons, liberals, greens, progressives... they are reflective of Obama's intention to surround himself with people with whom he may disagree. Yet by his actions, he has demonstrated a belief that no single group holds a monopoly on the truth - or good ideas. Yet these same picks will make Obama's honeymoon with his most fervent supporters is likely to be short. And hardly sweet.

Obama's problems will not stem from an inability to meet campaign promises. He never said anything like "Read my lips. No new taxes." In fact, Obama made few concrete or quantifiable promises on the campaign trail... his one promise to remove most "combat" troops from Iraq within 16 months will be possible only because the surge he opposed has been so successful. (Of note, the architects of that surge will be working for Obama - Bob Gates as Secretary of Defense and General David Petraeus as Commander, US Central Command) No, Obama's problem will not be with anything he promised, or even said. His problem will be with what he did NOT say, but what has been projected upon him.

He will champion Gay rights.
The United States will become the world leader in fighting climate change.
We will ratify the Kyoto accord.
We will intervene in Sudan. (which is different from Iraq how?)
The UAW will be able to renegotiate the GM/Chrysler bailout provisions.
He will oppose offshore drilling.
He will restore affirmative action.
Palestine will achieve statehood.
He will raise taxes on the "rich" and lower taxes for the "middle class."
He will end the "war" in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Guantanamo Bay will be closed (as a prison for "enemy combatants")
Etc, etc, etc.

More likely, he will compromise and earn the enmity of the true believers who will feel personally betrayed.

Obama was elected on a mantra of "Change we can believe in" and "Yes we can." But I didn't vote for Obama because of the empty rhetoric. I voted for him because I saw an intelligent man who I thought would make informed decisions as President, and not a "decider" who would go on instinct. Obama has the chance - and intellectual acumen - to be a great President. But to become so, he will need to be President for all Americans. Perhaps that is the greatest lesson he can learn from George W. Bush.

Bush Jr. was elected as a "compassionate conservative" and a bipartisan "uniter," but he governed as a neo-con and social conservative, eschewing cooperation with Democrats, who were frequently labeled un-patriotic and God-hating baby-killers. (Thank you for your contribution to American political discourse Ms. Coulter). The result - not coincidentally - is the lowest approval rating in the history of such ratings. Bush has so poisoned his relations with Democrats, moderates and our international allies that the pragmatic and intelligence policies his administration has attempted to carry out in the post-Rumsfield, Feith, Wolfowitz and Bolton era have been ignored and even pilloried only because they have been promoted by Bush. The change in policy in Iraq, the massive AIDS prevention efforts and aid to Africa, the diplomatic coordination of policy on Iran and North Korea have all received no credit.

Obama would be wise to remember this example. And we all would be wise to remember he is not the messiah. He cannot solve all our problems for us, will not bring universal prosperity, and may not even be able to fulfill some of his most important goals. But in the end, he may bring us real change we can believe in - an administration that determines policy based on merits and not hunches. And we would all be wise to give him that chance.

Rick Warren on Inauguration Day

I am one of those Barack Obama supporters who has rolled his eyes at the hyperventilation from some on the left that Obama has "betrayed" the left wing and the liberal agenda. For example, Obama's selection of Robert Gates to continue to lead the Department of Defense was met with, from some, shock and anger, because surely no one serving under the Bush administration-- the same administration that pursued a fierce and monolithic ideological neoconservative agenda (including initiating an unwise and unjustified war against Iraq and dragging our country into seemingly perpetual war)-- would be allowed to continue his tenure under Barack Obama, the one candidate for the Democratic nomination for president who came out early and hard against the war in Iraq. Well, the fact is, Robert Gates has done a good job, and our defense policy has taken a number of intelligent and pragmatic steps since he took over, starting with an emphasis on diplomacy and ending with a smarter management style (remember Rummy? *whew*).

I have been very happy with Obama's selections for his top advisers in the Cabinet and otherwise. I think he has chosen competence--regardless of party-- over fulfilling political obligations or rewarding cronies, and that bodes well for his governance of the country. We have seen what happens when a president installs, say, a gentleman most experienced in judging Arabian horses to be the head of FEMA (Michael Brown). The country is tired of incompetence and cronyism and especially cannot afford to have it in government at this very challenging economic time.

But I think Obama went a bit too far with his inclusionary philosophy in his selection of Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the Inauguration. Here is what Obama said in defending his choice:

"During the course of the entire inaugural festivities, there are going to be a wide range of viewpoints that are presented. And that's how it should be, because that's what America's about. That's part of the magic of this country ... we are diverse and noisy and opinionated."

Rick Warren does not believe in evolution, adamantly opposes all forms of abortion, adamantly opposes gay marriage and does not affirm or even tolerate gays or transgender people. He also despises atheistic and agnostic points of view; i.e., if it were up to him, those viewpoints would not be tolerated. For all the touchy-feeliness of the guy and his image, he's a staunch, hardline Christian conservative. Including him in the inauguration ceremony does not add to diversity or inclusiveness, it subtracts from it, because, if it were up to him, many of the other people on the podium and in the crowd would not be participants. It's like adding a piece of poo to your salad. Sure, it's got more stuff in it, but it surely isn't better.

Can you imagine John F. Kennedy inviting a racist Southern Baptist minister to deliver the invocation back on his Inauguration Day? Because, guess what the prevailing view was among white conservative Christians in the South in 1961? Blacks should be segregated from whites, and black and white people should not marry (one notable exception here, incidentally, was Billy Graham, who famously opposed segregation; but note that he was the exception and famously opposed segregation--i.e., he's famous for that act because it stood in contrast to what everyone else was doing). How would that have been inclusion in any sense of the word beyond the physical addition of another living, breathing human body? The parallels are striking.

There is a difference between reaching out and condoning. Allowing Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at President-Elect Barack Obama's inauguration is putting an official imprimatur of approval on his views. Invitation, yes. Participation in the ceremony, no.

Granted, the decision to include Rick Warren in the ceremony is not a policy decision, merely a symbolic gesture. But symbols matter, and in this case, Obama just made his first error in judgment.

Illegal Immigration as a License for Immoral Acts

First, Happy (belated) Thanksgiving, everyone! I hope the holidays have treated you and yours well, and that your investments are no more than 40% down for the year.

I've been meaning to write a blog post all week about a story I read in the AJC (Atlanta Journal-Constitution) on Monday. It seems a Mexican national (let's call him "Jose," because I don't remember, don't feel like looking it up, and because the details are irrelevant here) overstayed his visa to the United States about ten years ago and, presumably under false documents, obtained a job as a cook at a restaurant in the Atlanta area, where he has worked continuously. He eventually married, had a child, and bought a house. Because his daughter was a U.S. citizen, having been born in the U.S., the house was titled in her name. He and his family lived there until earlier this year, when they decided to sell the house and move into a bigger one. A neighbor (let's call her "Carol") whose child played with Jose's child, noticed the for-sale sign and inquired. They subsequently began to negotiate over the sale. The negotiation turned into a lease-first and then buy deal, but then ultimately broke down (presumably over essential terms like, for example, price). The woman and her daughter had, however, already moved into the house. Part of the reason the negotiations broke down was because the woman thought she was getting 3 months of free rent. Jose disagreed.

Jose demanded she leave the property. Apparently, during the negotiations over the sale of the house, Carol learned about Jose's immigration status (probably because the house was titled in Jose's young daughter's name). As Jose began to demand that she leave the property, and with the deal apparently dead, Carol began to "out" Jose. She called immigration and naturalization services. She called the police. She wrote letters to the media. She called his employer and, eventually, got Jose fired. She even wrote her Congressman. Her justification for taking this action was, well, he's in the country illegally. He's a "criminal." She was doing her duty.

What are the lessons to be gleaned from this true patriot's activities? Let's see:

Lesson One: Use any fact at your disposal to extort a business deal to your advantage.

Lesson Two: If someone is doing something illegal or is an illegal immigrant, he has no rights and you can take immoral actions that you would not otherwise against a person.

Lesson Three: The sins of the father carry to the sins of the child. You owe no moral duty to a child of an illegal immigrant. You also owe no special duty to children.

This story exposes an extra and more hideous wrinkle to the immigration debate than the hypocrisy inherent in our immigration system (i.e., let's berate and rail against the people who are building most of the roads, houses, and buildings in this country). The dangers of excessive nationalism and focus on status are on full display: one person has no rights because of his status. Jose has no right to anything in this country because of his illegal status. He is deprived of value as a human being. Carol feels she can do anything to him, because he is not a person-- or, not fully a person. This sort of sentiment is much more frightening to me than the hypocrisy, because it is the antecedent to truly destructive and vile behavior. Once a person is able to convince himself or herself that someone else is not a person (via status), the worst kind of atrocities are possible. That's how blacks were treated so cruelly in America, Jews in, really, most of history... there are many more examples.

I'm not saying that we are on the verge of genocide here in America. But this kind of feeling that because of a person's status, you have the license to do any horrible thing you want and can treat him/her as anything less than a human being worthy of respect as such is a dangerous, self-deluding thing. There are always moral duties one owes others-- regardless of what they look like or even if they've committed a crime.

Carol lost her moral focus! Likely, Carol found in Jose's immigration status an excuse for being an unscrupulous negotiator and then, when rejected, wrapped herself around the moral authority of Neal Boortz, Sean Hannity, and Lou Dobbs (undoubtedly, mentally grouping herself among said commentator's "heroes" of immigration) and took up the cause of illegal immigration personally against Jose. No matter her justification, she shows herself as mean and spiteful.

The resolution of the house deal, by the way, was that Jose eventually had to evict Carol. Carol had stayed in the house for 9 months and never paid any rent. Because I guess you can use an illegal immigrant's property as you like whenever you want and not pay for it. Because, like, they shouldn't even be here.