Another TSA Moron Story

We interrupt this serious consideration of our future presidents with Yet Another story of a stupid (and yet unnamed) TSA employee.  In this case, an inspector attempted to break into planes on the tarmac.  According to one report, the inspector “breached” seven out of nine planes.  But in process he may have damaged sensitive avionics.  This caused a delay O’Hare International Airport while the airline took corrective measures.  This was stupid but not tragic because nobody was hurt– this time.  It could have been both stupid and tragic had the inspector touched something he shouldn’t have, broken something, and contributed to the loss of life.  Wouldn’t that have been rich?

The really stupid part is that it is not a secret that the overwhelming majority of effort to secure airplanes on the tarmac is devoted to keeping the wrong people off of the tarmac in the first place.  That is largely not the responsibility of the airline, but that of the airport and the TSA.  Once the inspector was on the tarmac and unsupervised, the game should have ended.  It didn’t.

Obama v. McCain: Foreign Policy

How the United States deals with the world around us has been the principal province of the president, for as long as there has been a U.S.  It is an area in which most presidents learn it on the job, as was the case for Presidents Reagan & Clinton.  In other circumstances, presidents bring a strong policy background to the job, such as was the case with President George H. W. Bush.  (His son, President Bush, doesn’t seem to have learned anything, not really having understood anything prior to having taken office.)

Senator Barack Obama is only a little older than me.  Neither of us can seriously have understood at the time all of the implications of the Vietnam War, but both of us became well enough aware of the world around us to understand what was happening during the Carter administration (he might have even gotten it during the Ford administration).  He has spent some of his life outside of the United States, and he has spent some of his life in the time of the Cold War.

Senator John McCain is of a different era.  His views are informed by his having served in the Vietnam War and been captured and held by the Vietcong.  There are few people on earth who can relate to his nearly unique experiences.  McCain spent most of his life with the Cold War, and he was born outside of the United States.

Both of these men have interesting perspectives on foreign policy, but to be sure John McCain has been there a whole lot longer.  Which positions should we judge?  My own areas of interest revolve around the reconstituted Soviet Union, how we handle the Middle East, and how we engage the developing world.  I am also interested in continued development of international relationships to reduce cybercrime and cyber-terrorism.  As an expatriate foreign policy probably impacts me more than domestic policy, which is why it’s up front next to education.  But these days that should be the case with more Americans.  Our new found isolation in the world has empowered bad actors, like Hugo Chavez.

Senator McCain has been a strong proponent of America following international law and norms.  As a former prisoner he saw what happened personally when those norms weren’t followed.  The senator has always expressed strong concern about the way the Bush Administration treated detainees in Guantanamo Bay, and advanced legislation against such reckless behavior.

Senator McCain supported former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and President Bush on both their decision to go to war and initial tactics.  This to me represents a remarkable failure on his part, because Mr. Rumsfeld failed to ask the very question that most foreign policy experts would ask: what happens after you invade?  We take over and then what?  The departure from the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force to “shock and awe” only worked until the shock and awe wore off, if it worked at all.  The actual justification for the war is now thoroughly debunked, and the next president will have to clean up this president’s mess.

Senator McCain has been very vocal about Russia’s invasion of Georgia.  Here I am entire agreement with him, and I would perhaps have gone farther.  Russia has for years lost its luster to me, and the current president has lied – repeatedly – about Russia’s intent.  It’s all about reasserting Russia’s position as a super-power, taking control of her oil, and using economics as a policy weapon against the west.  As I wrote previously, we brought this on ourselves.  McCain has been there early on, as it is in his nature to address such threats.

Senator Obama has made statements to the same effect as of late, but has otherwise taken a less prominent stance.  Sometimes that’s not a bad thing.  If the current president plays “bad cop” in some way in the near future, Senator McCain will be left with fewer options than Senator Obama in January.  The reverse is also true.  President Bush can use the McCain’s stridency to say, “This is who you get later if you don’t solve the problem to my satisfaction.”  It’s right out of a West Wing Episode, and arguably out of the Iran Hostages playbook, where Iran resolved the matter the moment Ronald Reagan took office.

John McCain has also stated his preference for ending sugar, oil, and ethanol subsidies as part of his education plan.  Were those subsidies tied to quality standards I might have more sympathy for them, as I did with the Swiss.  Absent those, the American way of life is not on the line, and it would seem that commodity prices are doing just fine on their own at the moment, and so it’s free money to remove those subsidies.

Senator Obama is not without his own touch on foregin policy.  In 2006 he sponsored a bill that eventually became law to stablize the Congo.  He has stated that he is willing to meet with leaders of countries that we don’t especially love, like Cuba, North Korea, and Iran.  He has been extremely cagy about the terms of such meetings and he has parsed his words carefully since.  Normally such parsing drives me CRAZY, reminding me to look up what the definition of is is.  The art of foreign policy, however, is talking out of both sides of one’s mouth.  Senator McCain and our current president don’t do this, so far as I can tell.

And the Winner is…

While I find John McCain’s views on Iraq far from my own, his views on Russia seem to be more aligned than those of Barack Obama, and there can be no doubt as to who has more experience. Obama has nowhere near the amount of experience of his opponent, but he did get Iraq right, and he probably has a good handle on Africa.  Still I do not agree with his willingness to meet with just any ole dictator.

Today both candidates get passing grades on foreign policy, with McCain getting about a 80/100 and perhaps Obama getting 75.  So let’s give this round to McCain.

Obama v. McCain on Education: And the winner is…

It is typical for candidates to speak in platitudes on the campaign trail.  As the son of a teacher and a parent I look at the education system in America as creaking.  The average teacher salary in California is $59,345 while the median salary in California for people with between five and nine years of experience is $67,552.  In other words, we grossly underpay our teachers and undervalue our childrens’ future.  While the states take the lead on providing for our childrens’ education, the federal government has had a role for quite a long time.  The No Child Left Behind Act has done a very good job of leaving all children behind, unless you have a lot of money for private schools.  Teaching to tests and eliminating such “frivolities” as orchestra, music, and art, does not make for a well rounded education.

What am I looking from the candidates?  I want money, plain and simple.  I want them to see more money devoted to education.  Providing tax breaks is not the answer to me, because it generally robs money from our public school systems.  The lack of economies of scale in both the private and the public market for the foreseeable future would be intolerable.  In addition, faith need not apply.  Want religion?  Go to church, temple, or whatever else suits you.  Want science, arts, music, reading, language, and social studies?  Let’s have that in the schools.  I am not opposed to choice of school so long as everyone has that choice, it is not used as a back door for religion, and the basic standards are upheld (including building, health, etc).

How do the candidates rate?  According to OnTheIssues.Org John McCain believes in school choice, but does believe creationism should be taught alongside evolution in our schools (but see below).  He would fund education by reducing subsidies in other areas, including sugar, oil, and ethanol.  He wants tax breaks for charter schools, and he is a strong proponent of vouchers that could be used for any school, including religious schools.  He claims the money would not come from other education efforts, but that’s the sort of thinking that only someone who has been in Washington too long could have, and as a fiscal conservative, it offends me.

At that same web site, Barack Obama’s position boils down to this: we don’t pay teachers enough, we didn’t put any money into the No Child Left Behind Act, hire more teachers, pay excellent teachers excellently, provide a capital improvement fund for crumbling buildings, and free education for people who maintain a B average.  My problem with Obama’s plan is that it is a wishlist a mile long with a bill to go with, and perhaps even more than I could stomach, and he does not provide a way to pay for any of it.

Still, on the whole I am far closer to Obama than McCain on education.  If we are to err, it seems right to err on the side of too much, rather than too little, education.  If people reach their potentials through education, the other problems seem so much easier.

So round one goes to Obama, but it was a decision, not a knockout.  In fact, in scoring the candidates, I’d give Senator Obama a B- for having the right idea but not clearly stating how he would pay for it, but Senator McCain a D for bringing church into the back door of schools, but at least stating what he would do.  Or put another way: 80/100 for Obama, and 65/100 for McCain, a difference of 15 points. Have faith, Senator McCain.  There are many more issues.

Election 2008: What are the choices?

vote button

People assume that just because I’m a member of the Democratic party I will blindly vote all the way down the ticket.  I haven’t done this in the past, and I won’t do it now.  I remain pleased with myself for having voted for Governor Tom Kean when I lived in New Jersey, and I voted for Congressman Tom Campbell when I lived in Silicon Valley.  I think both are honorable men who generally did well on the issues while they were in office.  Kean in particular did a good job of boosting NJ revenues, cutting taxes, and improving our school systems.

As an expatriate, as I recently discussed, I get to vote in federal elections, meaning senator, congress(wo)man, and senators, based on my last residence in the States, which was San Francisco.  This means that soon – much sooner than most people – I will have to cast my ballot for the president and vice president, as well as for or against my current representative, Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  It may be the case that she is a good speaker, but she has not been very vocal about it, and on more than one occasion I’ve felt very uncomfortable about her choices.  As we will see, however, it would seem that her choices are really those of Barack Obama.

In the next few days we’ll go through some issues that you might find important, and see where the candidates stand.  They’ll include Education, Foreign Policy, National Savings, The Internet, Crime & Civil Rights, and Healthcare, just to name a few.

Russians in Georgia? Blame us.

As I wrote not so long ago, The Great Bear has awoken and the Soviet Union is alive and well.  According to CNN, Russia used cluster bombs to kill civilians in their attack on Georgia.  This represents a war crime that could be taken to The International Criminal Court (ICC).  Of course, Russia is not a member, and as it turns out, neither is the United States.  Stepping away from the ICC was one of President Bush’s first activities, which means that in a (yet another) way, we are complacent to the crimes committed by the Russians.  It also means that now is a good time for us to revisit signing and ratifying the Rome Statute that established the court and its jurisdiction.

The ICC exists because any country can go too far.  It is not meant to usurp power from functioning democracies that enforce their laws, but is meant instead to provide redress to agrieved individuals and countries against dicatorships.  Does this include Russia?  I believe so.  Russia has not yet demonstrated an impartial judiciary and prosecutorial service that provides oversight over the central government functions.  Does it include the United States?  I wouldn’t have said so until we began holding captives in Guantanamo Bay, and not providing due process.  Torture at Guantanamo is particularly troubling.  But it is nothing like the abuse currently going on in Georgia.