Gustav: a chance for government to earn back public trust

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/08/31/gustav/index.html

Before Katrina, the last major storm to hit New Orleans was 1965, before most of us were born. But now two "hundred year" hurricanes in a 3-year span... unbelievable. Some of the current evacuees haven't even received their Katrina checks yet, including my in-laws, and they have to do it all over again. It seems even more surreal and unlikely, because New Orleans is just a tiny target along the thousands of miles of hurricane-prone coast of the US Southeast. Yet it is a very sensitive target, because as we know 1/4 of US crude production occurs offshore, the city lies below sea level, it is not a wealthy area with tip top public services, and coastal wetlands that used to blunt incoming storms are getting washed away by the tides (partially due to human factors).

Obviously after the shame of Katrina, I think our elected officials and public servants will do everything in their power to redeem themselves and mount a near-flawless response. Though to be fair, many responders performed valiantly and above the call of duty during Katrina, but like the old quote from WWI, lions were led into battle by lambs, hence most of the problems. It's clear that LA's new governor Jindal isn't caught up with jurisdiction and other crap like his idiot predecessor Blanco. And half of the battle is already won, because the area was mostly evacuated in time. I guess that is a combination of the residents and officials taking the storm more seriously this time around. The people went through hell in 2005 and now have more motivation to leave, plus the government has provided better transport and coordination to facilitate a better evacuation. Though the highways are still jammed with many gas stations closed, so I don't know why the state police don't open up the shoulders and opposite lanes of traffic to increase flow.

But I really hope Bush and company will behave like the "compassionate conservatives" that they claimed to be in 2000, and redeem themselves after years of indifference to many Americans' suffering. They've already made contingency plans to miss/delay the RNC in Minnesota to visit the Gulf Coast, and that may actually work to their political advantage. Crises are occasions for politicians to "show leadership" and caring, and also tend to put voters in a more sympathetic, receptive mood. I think FEMA, Homeland Security, and Army Engineers have a lot to prove and more expectations on them this time around. They've had the Katrina case study and 3 years of planning to formulate better response plans and identify sensitive areas. But now they seem to be throwing a lot more resources at Gustav, and I hope it will pay off and reduce costs in the aftermath.

But in this charged political climate of blaming Bush for everything that's going wrong, and with two presidential candidates promoting change and Washington reform, I hope that a positive response to Gustav with help mend fences and restore some faith in our government. We all know that we are better than Katrina and should be better, so now is our chance to prove it.

More on Obama

Re: Hillary vs. Obama or whatnot, I'd rather be skeptical than duped/sorry. I never supported a Clinton candidacy, though clearly a few of her Obama critiques were accurate, relevant, and not completely resolved by his campaign so far. She isn't all full of hot air, and actually knows some things about real leadership. As I said before many times, Obama is clearly the best choice that the 2 major parties have offered in a while. But that's like saying the Honda CRV is the least polluting and most efficient SUV. Good but still bad.

My critical eye towards Obama, McCain, or whomever is partially a manifestation of general political distrust. And particularly when his media exposure is off the charts and generally positive (even though he hasn't really done anything yet), someone has to play the role of killjoy, or at least remind us to keep our heads. Didn't Obama and other dissenters do that against the prevailing Washington jingoism leading up to the Iraq invasion, and they turned out to be right? I think it's funny that Obama likes to remind us of that fact wherever he goes (except visiting troops and VFW gatherings), while McCain rarely, if ever, discusses his war experiences publicly. I definitely give the personal sacrifice and humility edge to McCain, though I guess very few major politicians could be characterized as humble. And as you know from my sports emails, I just like to hate on anything that's popular. :)

But I think it's also an OBLIGATION for all citizens, and especially supporters, to be critical. The secrecy of the Bush years, combined with less interest in government oversight (especially due to 9/11 fears and the "patriotism" debate), have demonstrated how damaging it can be when leaders operate freely without public scrutiny. Lumping praise on Obama (especially when thousands of people have already said the exact same stuff) doesn't make this country better. Constantly rehashing how "historic" his campaign is doesn't make this country better. Holding him accountable to be the best leader he can be and live up to his promises might make this country better.

It's like all those sports movies in Hollywood. The coach tells the star athlete, "I was hardest on you because I loved you the most, and you had the most potential to be great." There's no point coddling a candidate, which spoils them just like a child. I want to be hard on Obama because he might actually have a chance to do good. At work, when you sign your name on a collaborative report, you want to make damn sure you agree with all the data and conclusions beforehand. When you buy a used car, you want to know everything about that vehicle to ensure your purchase is justified. I want to make sure my vote is justified. If we really want positive change for America and the world, we have keep the heat on our leaders and not accept them and their message at face value. Of course we don't have to be jerks about it, and should also give credit when it's due. But they have professional press secretaries and publicists for that, so they don't need any extra help from us.

Yes I will be the first to admit that I tend to be pessimistic (you think?) about some Washington issues, based on my personality and the historical record. Sometimes I complain for comedy, other times to vent frustrations. Honestly, I would have rather voted for Ted Kennedy for the Dem nominee than Obama, before I found out he had a tumor of course. Politics has taken such a toll on his family, yet he didn't run away. He has stuck in the fight and served with dignity for decades, advancing some of the ideas that he and his constituents hold dear. That man, despite his faults and critics, has stood up for the powerless and shown love to his fellow citizens, no matter their background. That is heroism and leadership. He narrowly lost to Carter for the Dem nomination, in an ugly fight similar to Obama-Clinton, and the party never really healed during that election cycle. He might have been able to pick up where his brothers left off. I don't know.

And even though I guess you could label me as a leftist, that doesn't mean I will throw my blanket support to the candidate who seems the most liberal. While Obama is probably more liberal than the Clintons, he obviously angered many progressives by supporting the telecom immunity bill and other measures. I know that most presidential candidates have to drift towards the center as November approaches, but I don't think he should go back on his word and better judgment to score some political points, without sufficient explanation to us. Liberal, conservative, whatever - I will try to vote for the best candidate. Isn't that what Obama told us last night that this country needs?

--------

My thoughts on the matter are pretty brief but are as follows:

I was motivated and inspired by Obama's speech, and even though he probably already has my vote (in a state where my vote doesn't really count to sway anything), I still share T's somewhat pessimistic view. While Obama's policies and ideology seem better than what we've had in the past, I'm afraid its just rhetoric to get elected. What guarantee do I have as a citizen that his policies of change will come to fruition? If those policies are not enacted (not to say they even have to work), does his whole campaign of being "different than old Washington" come to anything other than political rhetoric which is no different than the very things in Washington he is trying to change?

One of my favorite political monologues comes from the romcom movie "The American President". At the end of the movie, Michael Douglass' character (President Shepard) talks about his opponent not understanding the American people (ie McCain not getting it). Obama's speech reminded me of that moment and how Shepard comes to the realization that its not that his opponent doesn't get it, rather, his opponent can't sell it.

I do hope Obama isn't just selling change, I really hope that he tries to enact it.

Last issues: Can dems stop taking credit for economic prosperity of the Clinton era? Dotcoms didn't bust because the Reb came to office. I think the Dems managed domestic policy better during that era, ie. Greenspan, but it was Greenspans policies that helped lead us to the credit crisis of today (not that Bernake) - i'm sure you more educated people have chimed in or will chime in on this.


--------

Oh, a few more points about Obama that I forgot to mention in the last email (sorry if I'm going on too long, but I only get to do this every 4 years!). Actually it seems that I may have more problems with the American campaigning system in general, the running of Obama's campaign, and his irrational supporters rather than the candidate himself. He is not responsible for other people's actions, but he does profit from them. So the buck stops with him. Or maybe The Daily Show sums it up better from their 8/28 episode (He completes us!):

http://www.thedailyshow.com/index.jhtml

Obama's good, but all the hype and adoration is just ridiculous, and frankly it bothers me. 200,000 Germans came out to see him speak - why? Because it's cool? He won't do anything for them, and they don't even know anything about his record. People get moved to tears when he says things that other politicians have said for decades. I'm not jealous (because there's no way I could fill his shoes), but I bet others are, and that may come back to bite him. It bothers me because I don't think he deserves it (yet), while so many other heroes have bled and even died for much less credit and admiration, if they're remembered at all. I would like his campaign to tone it down a little and show a bit more restraint/humility/maturity. All the silly buzz isn't his fault per se, but he sure isn't trying to discourage it (and in some cases he's stoking it). Some people he worked with in Chicago say he's really full of himself, and I can see he really loves the camera (hence the celebrity attack). He's had some great successes in his life, but it's not like he's Google. A few small miracles had to happen for him to even get this far, as well as political events beyond his control and a colossal meltdown by the inept Clinton campaign. It's so hard for nobodies like us to get recognized and promoted in our mostly dead-end jobs, yet he's lived a charmed life and risen to the greatest heights, while not actually having many concrete and impacting accomplishments. It's like giving the Nobel Prize to a recent graduate who hasn't even had a major discovery yet, but has the potential to do so in the future. It just doesn't happen, but that's not to say that it shouldn't happen. We just haven't seen it yet and don't know the consequences. As Andrew said months ago, Hillary is the old veteran (despite still being a fairly junior senator) who gives you predictable stats every season, but won't be MVP. Obama is the unproven hot rookie prospect who could have a monster year if things go his way. No matter what anyone says, electing Obama is taking a risk. Sometimes risks pay off big time, and maybe the risk is justified if the alternatives suck worse.

I know that Obama rallies are like rainbows of American tapestry. He has supporters of every imaginable background. But actually you can say that of every major presidential candidate. America is so big that there's always going to be a gay Jewish lawyer, blue-collar black man, Asian soldier, white college student, or Native American single mom who will vote for you. And it's not like Obama has facilitated all these disparate groups getting together and reconciling their differences. We all still hate each other. So yes I think it's good that Obama has energized the Dem party and gotten young people interested, even gotten some apolitical people to vote for the first time. But sometimes I wonder if they're doing it because they love America and want to see it get better, or just because it's the cool, popular thing to do. If they cared so much about this country, this wouldn't be the first time they're voting.

I think it's hilarious how politicians on the campaign trail speak of the war veteran with one leg, laid off factory worker, or single mom working 3 jobs to pay for night school, to demonstrate that they care about us and understand our problems. Are they having those people over for dinner after the speech? Will they even remember them if it wasn't for their speech writers? And they're so rich - if they really sympathize with those people's situations, why don't they write them a check for $100,000 on the spot? How's that for a PR moment? Maybe the fact is that they DON'T CARE, or they don't care about us as much as delivering great speeches and winning the office. We are just a means to an end, and such insincerity makes my blood boil. I know most politicians do "care" about us somewhat, but when push comes to shove, they care about their careers, their funders, and other important people more. No one ever gave a crap about the little guy, not even Lenin or Mao. I'd like to hear the speeches where candidates talk about their $5,000 plate dinners they had with Hollywood stars and other VIPs, or secret industry conferences that are "no press allowed". I'm sure that would go over well at the conventions.

And to me, it's kind of insincere and cheap for Obama to flaunt his humble upbringing to legitimize his "working class roots" and connect with such voters today. It's almost like he's bragging about formerly being poor, which is almost as bad as bragging about being rich (which he is today). A humble upbringing deserves a dignified, humble reflection on the lessons he learned from that experience. He doesn't have to plaster it all over the 6 o'clock news. His mom and grandmother loved him very much, and toiled to give him a good start on life. If he wants to express his gratitude for their sacrifice, then by all means. But what does that have to do with the presidency? We can read his books for that. I know it's his life and I have no right to tell him what to do, but as a voter, I don't approve of the practice and it reflects on his judgment. More importantly, is it even relevant? As Hillary said, is Obama a foreign policy expert just because he lived briefly in Indonesia as a kid? The struggles that Obama and his family went through decades ago are unfortunate, noble, and I'm glad he has made a better life for his loved ones now. But what he experienced in the 1970's has very little bearing, if any, on the troubles of families in a pinch today. It's a very different world and economy, and it's been some years since the Obamas have gone without (Michelle's family is fairly well off I think). Plus he was just a youth, and I doubt he totally understood what was taking place around him. I can't believe Joe Biden said on Wednesday that Obama understands the military and the duties of Commander in Chief because his grandfather served under Patton. Are we electing a candidate, or just his legacy? Bush asked his daddy's geriatric Cold Warrior friends to help him manage the War on Terror, and they were not able to adapt to this new form of warfare and counterinsurgency. The past can be a helpful guide, but it's still the past. Obama often criticizes McCain for having 20th Century thinking, but then why does he keep invoking his 20th Century past as credentials for president and "one of us" status in the 21st Century?

That leads me to this final point: are we electing a president based on what he has done and can do, or who he is and what he represents? Maybe it's a combination of all that. A singer in the Black Eyed Peas was interviewed by CNN about Obama yesterday. He was asked if he did research on Obama before he chose to support him. The singer said no, but later he read things that he liked. Hmmmm. So clearly some Americans refuse to support Obama because he's black, and other Americans want to elect Obama just because he's black, or new, or whatever. People don't have to have a "reason" why they like one candidate over another (and certainly don't require my approval). It is their vote and theirs alone, but it is worrisome if people make such consequential decisions lightly, or blindly. I hate to address race, but it is playing a role, and frankly I'd rather hear Obama speak about that than religion. Let's be honest; some people only support Obama because he's black. Take the exact same person and have him coming from two white Kansas parents instead of one, and you get a state senator at best. I don't know how many Americans, but they're out there, and I think they may cancel out the number of people who hate him for his race. The same can be said of some of Hillary's female supporters. Make her a man, and she's not even Ted Kennedy.

Different is unappealing to some but attractive to others, just for the sake of difference. How the heck can we Americans elect the most powerful person in the world just because they're the first of their kind with the chance? I'm not going to vote for McCain, not even if he was a Viet Californian Catholic scientist from the UC System. Actually that would turn me off even more! If Obama is the best for the job who happens to be black, then no problem. But really, I think some Obama and Clinton backers are just so enthusiastic to see a black person or woman gain power, that it might drown out their other sensibilities. Maybe they see part of themselves in the Oval Office, and they feel pride that somehow they are finally represented fairly and their leader thinks of them, because he/she is one of them. Maybe it's vindication after centuries of injustice, but the presidency should not be decided by affirmative action. Didn't MLK say that we should judge people, not by the color of their skin, but the content of their character?


--------

McCain's VP pick

Here's an interesting development: McCain selects a female VP!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7588435.stm

And here are the Dems' immediate criticisms of her: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/29/sarah-palin-obama-respons_n_122392.html

We previously discussed how the unlikely Obama candidacy was mostly a product of public backlash from the Bush years. Maybe McCain too. But now McCain's VP choice is mainly a product of Obama and Clinton in the national spotlight for the last year. Well, I guess that Romney and Pawlenty wouldn't have really helped much, and their states are solidly blue (Minn and Mass, not Utah). Ridge is a pro-choice ex-Bushie, and would have played into the Dem's "4 more years of the same" argument. Lieberman is too controversial, and the hard core right would have a cow. Arnold isn't eligible!

Well, with Palin you get a young, working mom with strong conservative bona fides, down-to-Earth appeal, and little baggage. She's also runner-up Miss Alaska apparently (well, not much competion up there!), though my female coworker thinks that her beauty may actually irk some Hillary supporters, who might be expecting tougher, older, but not so photogenic ladies like Hillary, Albright, and Reno. Romney has the perfect family, but Palin isn't far behind (son fighting in Iraq, caring for another child with Down's). She's naive on foreign affairs and defense, but that's McCain's department anyway. My friend from AK says she is tremendously personable and popular up there (80% approval rating), gives great speeches, and has actually taken a stance against bloated oil profits too, despite the typical Dem attack that every Alaskan Republican is "in bed with Big Oil". However she has only been governor for 2 years, and some think she's over her head with her smart advisers doing most of the heavy lifting. So if she can't handle tiny AK, Washington might be out of her league. Though it is refreshing to see two VPs from small states getting a chance.

But let's remember that the VP is a mostly ceremonial, powerless position, at least historically. Only recently has Cheney "revolutionized" the job, and I'm doubtful such an extreme presence will persist with Biden or Palin. Sure she is one heart attack away from Commander-in-Chief and her inexperience might be a concern. But if a future President McCain dies in office, it's going to be very traumatic and difficult on the nation and any VP. Even Thomas Jefferson would have trouble filling the void immediately and helping the nation move forward. But I'm sure that after 6 months in Washington, she'll be a seasoned veteran if she survives. This news is so hilarious. I've never seen such calculated politcal guerilla warfare, copying opponents and neutralizing their advantages. All of a sudden the "experience", "working class roots", and "change" criticisms and credentials from both sides get a lot cloudier. Each ticket can't so easily criticize the other for the shortcomings that they also exhibit, nor can they take credit for qualities that their opponents also possess. I'm glad we've mostly moved past the "patriotism" debate. Now change and experience are no longer the exclusive possessions of a political party, as it should be.

I am not sure if Palin would swing young or women voters to McCain, but definitely adds diversity and somewhat neutralizes "4 more years of the same". I am surprised he didn't try to go after Colin Powell, though maybe he did and Powell declined. That would have really thrown a wrench in the Dem's plans. Two war heroes and a black man versus another black man whose own VP said he wasn't ready to lead a few months ago! Or maybe any former Bushie (even a dissenting one) would hurt McCain and validate the Dems' argument. Well it's true that Palin might be the next Quayle or Ferraro, but I disagree that it's a show of panic and desperation from the GOP. McCain is not broke and he's neck-and-neck with Obama in some national polls. Actually the fact that the Dems are so quick to forcefully denounce her shows that actually they're concerned by her potential impact. This campaign is getting somewhat interesting after all. Well after all these millions spent, we "customers" better get our money's worth!

This news will send ripples around Washington for a while. What a big, calculated risk (or gimmic or Hail Mary pass) - we'll see if it pays off. It may even blunt some of Obama's post-convention bounce. For once, cable news will want to talk about something more than Obama's historic campaign. I wonder how the ultra right feels about it. I wonder if the Obama camp is regretting not selecting Hillary as VP! I know some of her hard core supporters felt it was strange that the Clintons got such prominent speaking roles at the convention, yet she didn't get the nod for VP, even though she got almost as many votes as Obama. An outsider wouldn't have been able to tell if the convention was for Hillary or Obama at times. Well, they say that 2 prima donnas can't coexist on the same ticket, and no one wants the veep to take the spotlight. But if they really wanted to guarantee a Dem in the White House, maybe it was the smartest choice to make? That way not a single Hillary supporter would have jumped ship for McCain, and she has much more clout with Latinos and "working class" whites than Biden, who is far from being a household name. It would have been a slam dunk (not the George Tenet kind). But I guess the Dems let their personal grievances get in the way of what was best for the party, as usual. And even though Biden can wipe the floor with Palin in their scheduled debate, his brusque style may come off as bullying the more sympathetic, younger, and prettier Palin. That was the case when Hillary was in the lead before the Iowa Caucuses, and Edwards/Obama were on the attack.

Well, I guess the GOP has been much better at teamwork and campaign strategy than the Dems since Reagan. The Kennedys hated LBJ, but they needed Texas and frankly it would make their presidency easier if LBJ was out of his power-trip role as Speaker of the House, so they did it for the sake of winning and advancing their agenda. Or maybe this is just hype and won't make a big difference, and Obama's people feel his lead is large enough to win without Hillary. Though now I'm sure his campaign will be begging for her help down the stretch, and Clinton will be accumulating some favors and goodwill within the party. Well, maybe decisions like these and campaign strategy are not totally in Obama's hands, as weird as that sounds. Maybe his staff, funders, or Dem Party pressures really force his hand on some decisions, and he has to make the best of it. But that says something about his leadership limitations too, and it's unfortunate that American campaigns seem to be won or lost over strategy decisions and personal characteristics more than actual policy and leadership considerations.

Also, the McCain camp ran an ad during the DNC that congratulated Obama for his historic nomination. A classy and unexpected move as well. Maybe it's insincere and just a political stunt, but it was a conscious choice that recognized a legitimate accomplishment. I don't know the last time a Dem congratulated a GOPer for anything.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/28/mccain-to-rebut-obamas-bi_n_122102.html

Obama's acceptance speech

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080829/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_obama_text_1

Congrats to Obama and his campaign for making history. In general, I thought the speech was too long and repeated near-verbatim a lot of the insipid material that previous speakers have said. But I really liked these parts:

And Democrats, we must also admit that fulfilling America's promise will require more than just money. It will require a renewed sense of responsibility from each of us to recover what John F. Kennedy called our "intellectual and moral strength." Yes, government must lead on energy independence, but each of us must do our part to make our homes and businesses more efficient. Yes, we must provide more ladders to success for young men who fall into lives of crime and despair. But we must also admit that programs alone can't replace parents; that government can't turn off the television and make a child do her homework; that fathers must take more responsibility for providing the love and guidance their children need.

Individual responsibility and mutual responsibility — that's the essence of America's promise.
...

We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country. The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination. Passions fly on immigration, but I don't know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers. This, too, is part of America's promise, the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.


Finally a political speech (or a small part of one) that isn't overpowered by partisan ideology. The national discussion could really use this type of acknowledgment of the duality of political issues and need for compromise. Big government or small government can't take the place of good government. A good leader knows when to be conservative, moderate, or progressive, and often we'll need ideas from all 3 to address major problems. Even when one party dominates each of the 3 branches of government, they're not going to get everything they want. Each "good idea" from government will probably cause harm to some subset of us. The job of the POTUS is like the Dutch Boy plugging holes in the levee. It's really challenging to try to understand, satisfy, and lead 300M people like us who have so many needs, opinions, and expectations, not to mention all the foreign leaders out their with different cultures and priorities. Sometimes we need to simplify and see the big picture, that we're all patriotic Americans who want the best for our families. But when politicians inspire us to take action and make our country better, we shouldn't forget how nuanced and delicate some of these challenges are. Well-marketed, knee-jerk quick fixes are tempting, but they may end up causing more harm than good. The Iraq War and rush to adopt grain-based ethanol are obvious examples.

Obama will have his hands full with his ambitious economic revitalization, energy, and foreign policy/security agendas. He's charmed and convinced a good deal of America, and soon he'll have to deliver. Iran's nuclear ambitions and the Georgia war demonstrated the limits of American influence, even when we have allies on board, and are willing to talk and be flexible. It's very hard to shore up social services and implement new domestic programs while cutting taxes for millions of American families. Reforming the health system and supporting the Baby Boom retirement may require divine intervention. Iraq and Afghanistan will be major concerns for us long after 16 months, and some problems over there cannot be solved militarily. Even if America miraculously reduces its consumption by 10% and boosts production by 5%, global energy and food costs may not decrease much. The overall economy and housing market are too large and intertwined to simply be rescued abracadabra, even for a president. And we walk quite a tightrope when we try to harness the positive aspects of globalization, while trying and promising to protect expensive workers and inefficient industries at home. It will be difficult for us to significantly curb our greenhouse emissions, and even harder to convince poorer developing nations to do the same, at the expense of stanching their growth. How can the most prolific fund-raiser in US history be taken seriously when trying to reform the Washington money game? The list goes on and on.

These are some of the differences between ideas for change, and actually accomplishing change. "Change we can believe in" is not as good as change we can enact and change we can see. Only the greatest leaders are able to recognize problems before it's too late, select the most beneficial solutions, persuade enough people to support them, and then actually see them through during their administrations. Smart advisers and experts can help Obama with the first two, and it's up to him to do the rest. Possibly the best that President 44 can hope for is to lay the groundwork for change, and maybe humanity will reap the rewards 10-20 years from now. The problems we face today are so huge and daunting that we can't afford to let euphoria and urgency cloud our rational judgment and inflate our expectations. Optimism alone never saved anyone, and America can no longer afford to be so short on effort/sacrifice. Great leaders may have to suffer terribly and ask their people to do the same, but the alternative of inaction is much costlier. Only time will tell if Obama's supporters are able to keep the dream alive after the festivities are over and the real hard work must begin. We're already so many years overdue.

More on the convention

Perhaps looking to politics to solve all of our country's most urgent and difficult problems is not an exclusive path to a solution... I'm not sure if you've ever heard the (Eastern, specifically Taoist) expression "I only know go" but it's a way of saying you don't have to know everything about every subject to know what is going on; if you work in a specific problem domain then you can usually understand what you need to know by focusing on that problem domain. I don't disagree with your comments about politics and how it tends to work but I do think the best way to affect politics (if that's what you really want to do or what really needs to be done) is to become a politician. As a software engineer I only know software - and I know both parties have all the wrong ideas when it comes to information, expression, and efficiency (i.e. business), which are the things that software deals with - meaning they'll either do gross harm or will never catch up to what really matters. Expecting people (or a given individual) to transcend that which makes them fallible (i.e. human) is expecting a lot, or, in other words, setting yourself up for disappointment.


I guess what I ultimately mean to say is that I'm not getting a lot out of this discussion since a subject like "Conventions are stupid" doesn't create a context in which a meaningful exchange of ideas can occur. Political conventions are history in the making irrespective of any given individual's ideology & persuasions; perhaps concluding that they're stupid only means you're not involved enough in the process?

-------

Sorry R, it was just a silly email title that was not intended to be the basis of discussion. If you're not getting a lot out of this discussion, that's unfortunate but not my responsibility. You have the ability to move the conversation in a better direction if you choose, or even start your own. I hope you recognize that half of this thread is just joking around and blowing off steam (Nike endorses Obama, Biden hoping for an assassination, remaking the government, etc.). If the Dems get to vent and bitch about Bush, McCain, and America's problems for 4 days at their convention, then we should be able to do it in cyberspace now and then. As you know, I write my emails to entertain, provoke, complain, or offer alternative viewpoints than the mainstream. Plus it's the only way I have left to interact with some of my friends who have moved away.

If I feel that conventions are "stupid", I don't think you can simply attribute that to my ignorance or detachment. We're more politically aware than 95% of Americans (that is not to our credit, but a criticism of the nation as whole). From what I know, I think that much of the conventions lack substance, spread misinformation or biased half-truths, and involve a lot of waste, hype, and busyness for little tangible gain for the Americans who are desperately seeking sound leadership and help from their elected government. So yes, that qualifies as "stupid" for me. We need more action, not lavish parties and cliched speeches. In NPR's words, conventions are "infomercials" (yet they still send many of their people to cover it). If you watch much off-hours TV, you know that most infomercials are stupid, long-winded, and unpersuasive.

Of course complaining about a situation from the outside does little good, especially from nobodies like us who don't lead think tanks or host TV shows. If we want to change politics, the most expedient way may be to participate in the process as you said. But most of us don't have the resources, credentials, and opportunity to do so. When you get accepted to medical school, there's a very good chance you'll become a doctor. When you want to enter politics, there's no guarantee you'll even get a foot in the door, much less achieve enough success to feed your loved ones and "make a difference". And participating usually means playing by their rules, so one risks becoming part of the problem. Many good people have entered politics to clean it up, and failed. I know I'm just listing a bunch of possible reasons why it won't work, and yes if we really wanted to, many of us could drop everything tomorrow and enter politics to try to help people. "Yes we can". A society's failings are ultimately the fault of the people not their government, though bad leaders (Nero, Hitler) can do much more damage than 1,000 apathetic citizens. But we have limits on us that politicians don't. And not everyone can work in politics. Even if we could, it would be chaos. America has about one doctor for every 50 people, but maybe we have one politician for every 1,000? Especially at the higher levels, politics are not intender for or open to everyone, hence all the buzz for the first woman and black to have a real shot at the presidency. Actually the bigger buzz should be for the first non-rich person or "everyday Joe" who has a chance of becoming president. So just because you or I are not involved in politics doesn't mean we've somehow shirked our responsibilities to try to solve the problems we complain about. If anything, it's very patriotic and American to talk about problems, rather than making excuses for them or pretending they don't exist. Sure action is better than talking (especially when we talk so much that we delay action, like Sacramento), but we have a limited ability to influence others.

But why would I want to get involved in a convention process whose purpose I don't agree with? In my limited view, political conventions don't seem to be worth the effort, and don't really serve to address the goals set forth by the speakers. Does the Oscars ceremony help make Hollywood films better? And not many voters even watch or care about the Conventions. The major networks barely cover them on prime time because "Heroes" makes them more money (but cable news picks up the slack). Simplistic and/or inaccurate propaganda like "flip-flopper" 4 years ago and "Bush-McCain administration" today do a disservice to the political process and insult voter intelligence (though sadly it is effective on some people). Maybe conventions are more of an occasion for party big shots and VIPs to network, cut deals, and discuss strategy behind the scenes, while the masses chant and cheer to nonsense, as L's article suggested.

--------

There are some qualities of Obama and the Dems that I still like, and maybe they will be able to "renew the promise of America". Though the Dem's track record in Congress has been abysmal since they won control in 2006, especially since they promised us the moon. I really don't expect politicians to "transcend their human failings", but sometimes their language suggests that they intend to, which is insincere because we all know they can't. I guess you can't inspire people with, "I'm going to let you down sometimes and maybe we won't be able to deliver on some of these proposals". It's like they don't trust the voters with the truth, unless it can be condensed into a bumper sticker. I just expect them to level with us, work hard, and make decisions thoughtfully and justly, with our collective best interests in mind. Isn't that what our bosses expect from lowly workers like us? I hope I'm not asking for too much.

But conventions are so uber-partisan that it makes me gag (Zell Miller at the RNC in 2004 was the low point). No one party or leader is right all the time. Dems have failed where the GOP has succeeded, and vice versa. Obama and McCain are great men and leaders in some ways, and bozos in other ways. Republicans love this country too (though they sometimes express it in bizarre ways), and they endorse some sound ideas/policies. If the Dems were so right and GOP so wrong, how could millions of intelligent, patriotic Republicans be so stupid to not see the light? Of course this applies doubly for the ultra-right, since they equate liberals with Al Qaeda. We have to be able to give credit, tolerance, and respect to our opponents, especially when they're our fellow citizens. It is good and right for us to criticize each other and our leaders, but also to acknowledge when the other side has a point. I try to do that in all my contentious emails ("try" means I fail sometimes). Isn't that the first step to compromise and cooperation? Obama's camp claims that he can bring people together like no other leader today. But his rhetoric has been quite pejorative and divisive at times, no different than his competitors.

In fact it's hard to even speak of political parties in generalities. America is complex, large, and diverse, and our politics are even more so. It's unnatural to try to enforce unity and homogeneity. Obama's people are so paranoid of him appearing inept to "control" his own party and get the Hillary supporters in line. They don't want their house to look disorderly on prime time. So what? Politics are disorderly. Have you ever seen footage of the British Parliament (and they are supposed to be all genteel and polished)? Previous US conventions had fights and riots, and took a long time to decide on a nominee. I hope there is no way that the better candidate can lose an election just because his or her convention didn't go smoothly. Not all Dems think the same. And if we do, it's time to get our heads examined. There's no harm in some delegates expressing their preference for Clinton, Kucinich, or whomever as the best candidate. They will be overruled, but they shouldn't be censored or forced to change their minds. Even Clinton's aides say she still privately fumes and mourns her defeat. Maybe they haven't "healed" 100%, but the party is still moving forward in a positive manner towards November. The handlers don't have to micromanage everyone so that the party appears flawless and harmonious. That's not real, and in fact it arouses suspicion when they have made so much effort to choreograph everything (like China and the Olympics). What are they hiding from America?

Conventions themselves are not a bad thing, and can serve a good purpose. But they way they are conducted now is stupid.

DNC Thoughts

I want to know who paid Obama to flop on the election. Biden?! This guy who ~6 months ago said to Obama’s face that he was not ready for the presidency and states he would be honored to run for or against McCain? Wtf? Either he will say what needs to be said to win elections (thinks obama is ready for presidency) or he is banking on an early assassination (not entirely unlikely). And the guy has foot in mouth disease, a political time bomb at this stage in the election. I just can’t wait for some 1 on 1 debates between McCain and Bama. If the polling spread does shoot through the roof then I know racism is calling this election.

---------

Who else pays black men these days, NIKE of course! I think it's pretty clear that Biden was chosen as an attack dog type guy. Obama is seen as a nice guy, in fact I haven't seen a single attack ad against McCain yet but I've seen plenty against Obama. Biden will probably change that. It's a weird comparison to make, but it's kinda like when Cheney was chosen to be Bush's vp. He is picked specifically to be a jackass and take on the negative aspects of a campaign.

Also, I'm a little surprised that Obama has done so well as it is. I always kind of assumed there was a lot of racism in this country but apparently democrat followers are more loyal than I would have thought. Although, no one likes Hilary except for middle aged women so that helped him a little bit.

As for t's email, my bitter and cynical nature about politics prevents my surprise or outrage but the whole convention thing is one big circle jerk for the parties. Basically it's a "look how awesome we are" event that is as you pointed out, a waste of time and money. It's simply the American way to throw money at whatever worthless shit suits our fancy. Especially in politics and government.

-------

Well, I think T is talking about an ideal case for the convention; the fact is that (in 1968) the DNC's convention was a "media spectacle" of the highest order as well, although for different reasons... having Abby Hoffman-inspired protesters getting stomped by cops in riot gear makes headlines too, albeit to the benefit of a guy like Richard Nixon.

-------

I knew that Obama’s jumper looked too good to be luck. Dude went to the nike training facilities.



“In my run to the white house, I need to be competitive and I need to move fast. That’s why I need Obama brand shoes. Buy your Obamers today!”



I saw a digg article recently, maybe it is still front page if you check fast, about a supposed attempt on Obama’s life at the convention. I’m telling you Biden wants the oval!

--------

Haha yeah, and I almost forgot about this:

In the article published Wednesday, Biden is quoted evaluating presidential rivals Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, former Sen. John Edwards, D-North Carolina, and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois. His remarks about Obama, the only African-American serving in the Senate, drew the most scrutiny.

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man." (Watch Biden's comments and Obama's reaction )

Biden issued a statement Wednesday afternoon, saying: "I deeply regret any offense my remark in the New York Observer might have caused anyone. That was not my intent and I expressed that to Sen. Obama."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/31/biden.obama/

I guess he let bygones be bygones, but really it wasn't such a big deal - just funny and indicative of Biden's ability to put his foot in his mouth. Not sure why he picked Biden; two northerners on the same ticket? Delaware isn't a swing state. I guess Hilly was out (bad blood, and no one wants to risk the veep outshining the top dog), and Edwards is an adulterer. Webb is a Senate noob like Obama, so that ticket would get punched. But I tend to agree with some of Biden's foreign policy stances, and I respect him for being outspoken to the point where it gets him in trouble (remind you of anyone?).

Well let's be honest - Obama isn't ready for the presidency, maybe McCain too. Very few candidates are I think. He's never held a prominent executive role (not even head of a Senate Cmte). He got people together and got them to vote in Chicago. "There's no school for presidents", said JFK. But it's ok; you learn "on the job" and do your best I guess. I know that crock hate book about Obama that was recently published was a load of crap, but one part of the title, "The Cult of Celebrity", is relevant. Some of his hard core fans and adorers really scare me, especially coming from an "educated Western democracy". This is like the stuff where ignorant poor masses worship leaders like Bhutto and Mao, even though such people might screw them behind their backs (not saying Obama is like that). They don't even know why they love them, they just do, and can't even articulate what that leader has really done for them (if anything), apart from the obvious propaganda disseminated by the PR machine. It just makes them feel good, so they do it. How can you love someone so much who you don't really know and hasn't really had much of a public career? He "inspires" people with speeches. I guess after years of bad news and currently a bad economy looming over their heads, folks really want to believe in "the promise of America" and hope for change for the better, so they may embrace Obama as a potential manifestation of those feelings. It's a hope, like buying a lottery ticket. Heck I might even vote for him as part of that hope. But it may not be a rational choice. I'm not saying that any other available candidate is better, but it's sad when the most powerful and privileged voting public on Earth may resort to that thinking, and it sets a scary precedent.

I think some speakers at the DNC today said that America "needs" Obama. Really? He's the only one who can save us huh? I'm fairly sure that there are at least 100 Americans out there who could be better presidents that him, and most of them aren't even politicians. You just have to care about doing right, sacrifice for the good of others, and have some common sense (at least enough to hire the right help, unlike how W did). I think it's really that simple, but of course not everyone can put themselves in the position to have a shot for the Oval Office. All his ideas about energy policy, climate change, health care reform, Middle East, job creation, etc. have been around for years. Obama didn't invent any of it. A president is not an idea man; he has no time for that. He instead acts as a conduit for other people's ideas to flow through and get to the right parties, so stuff can actually get done in government. But some people are acting like Obama will somehow succeed where others have failed. I hope they're right. He's got skills, but I don't know if he'll be able to deliver us from the housing bust, the wars in the Middle East, the middle class squeeze, and racial-social injustice, to name a few of the problems that he and his supporters have professed to be able to solve.

Instead of solving problems, it seems that the office of the president has become more of a money and power making vehicle for the president's buddies. I am sure it will be the same with Obama or McCain, though of course toned down from the ludicrous Bush years. The VIPs that helped them get elected aren't just doing it because they love America. Maybe some are, but others will want kickbacks, and President 44 will try to find ways to satisfy them without making a stink. Though the tough part is when they have to decide between special interests and national interests. But it's still quid pro quo, especially when re-election time comes. If a president can totally divorce him or herself from those conflicts of interest, then I think they have a chance to be an excellent leader. I just can't see that happening in these days of modern campaigning, where candidates are raising and spending $30M+ a month.

Addressing G's comments about negative campaigning - yes I think for the most part Obama's camp has been classier and more positive than the GOP. But he did of course make a big deal about McCain casually forgetting how many houses he owns in one TV ad, and struck back at the "Barack is the biggest celebrity in the world" McCain ad in another piece. But as the Wiggys said, Biden and others will try to do Obama's dirty work, to keep him smelling like roses to the voters, as Reagan and Bush were able to do. Obama has also tried to rehash the same tired line on the campaign trail: a vote for McCain is a vote for 4 more years of failed Bush policies. One may argue that case, but the fact is that McCain's platform is much different than Bush's. But that is Obama's main (and maybe only) attack on McCain policy so far - he's out of touch with the economy (as if Barack isn't), and he's a carbon copy of Bush. But that's not true; McCain acknowledges climate change and has ideas to combat it (not sure if they're workable ideas). He wants to reform the health insurance system, similar to the ideas of market-driven conservatives from 1990. He believes in energy conservation, which the Bushies dismissed. He also is not a pawn of the Religious Right, though he is definitely courting them. He does take a hard line on Russia and Iran which is quite problematic and unwise. But Obama and McCain actually have quite similar views on several issues, including stem cells, immigration, and government reform. Heck they've worked together in the Senate, and they're even not so different about taxes and the Iraq War, though maybe that issue works in McCain's favor as long as stability is increasing. I guess this may be a symptom of candidates moving towards the center after primary season, but it also shows that McCain, while not a pure Maverick, is not a total party line extremist either. Nor is Obama of course. So Obama really needs to retire or modify this tired attack, unless of course it seems to be working with the voters.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-centrists13-2008jul13,0,7130991.story

An interesting history of some famous campaign ads:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93694355

Yeah glad C brought up the DNC in 1968. It was a real defining American moment, with '60s protest culture, much anger over the war, and typical Democrat ineptitude merging with TV's growing prominence in politics to create a perfect storm. 1968 is a big reason why the conventions are the heavily controlled, artificial entities that they are today.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93937947

--------

the people who bought obama also bought this show. see if they show any of the convention bags. it's got a big AT&T logo on the bag. on sunday night, AT&T threw a private party for lobbyists and delegates and the press was not allowed. what was going on in there? was this a big thank you for giving them immunity only weeks ago? and, why didn't the press cover it? two people showed up to cover the party-amy goodman of democracy now and glenn greenwald of salon. and, where's coverage of the police state outside? if obama gets shot, it won't be because they spent too little on security. a 'fusion' center of all law enforcement(FBI, CIA, local and state police) has been set up a some ridiculous expense. free speech cages have been established once again.

Glenn Greenwald
Monday Aug. 25, 2008 11:15 EDT
AT&T thanks the Blue Dog Democrats with a lavish party
(updated below (with video added) - Update II)
Last night in Denver, at the Mile High Station -- next to Invesco Stadium, where Barack Obama will address a crowd of 30,000 people on Thursday night -- AT&T threw a lavish, private party for Blue Dog House Democrats, virtually all of whom blindly support whatever legislation the telecom industry demands and who also, specifically, led the way this July in immunizing AT&T and other telecoms from the consequences for their illegal participation in the Bush administration's warrantless spying program. Matt Stoller has one of the listings for the party here.
Armed with full-scale Convention press credentials issued by the DNC, I went -- along with Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher, John Amato, Stoller and others -- in order to cover the event, interview the attendees, and videotape the festivities. There was a wall of private security deployed around the building, and after asking where the press entrance was, we were told by the security officials, after they consulted with event organizers, that the press was barred from the event, and that only those with invitations could enter -- notwithstanding the fact that what was taking place in side was a meeting between one of the nation's largest corporations and the numerous members of the most influential elected faction in Congress. As a result, we stood in front of the entrance and began videotaping and trying to interview the parade of Blue Dog Representatives, AT&T executives, assorted lobbyists and delegates who pulled up in rented limousines, chauffeured cars, and SUVs in order to find out who was attending and why AT&T would be throwing such a lavish party for the Blue Dog members of Congress.
Amazingly, not a single one of the 25-30 people we tried to interview would speak to us about who they were, how they got invited, what the party's purpose was, why they were attending, etc. One attendee said he was with an "energy company," and the other confessed she was affiliated with a "trade association," but that was the full extent of their willingness to describe themselves or this event. It was as though they knew they're part of a filthy and deeply corrupt process and were ashamed of -- or at least eager to conceal -- their involvement in it. After just a few minutes, the private security teams demanded that we leave, and when we refused and continued to stand in front trying to interview the reticent attendees, the Denver Police forced us to move further and further away until finally we were unable to approach any more of the arriving guests.
It was really the perfect symbol for how the Beltway political system functions -- those who dictate the nation's laws (the largest corporations and their lobbyists) cavorting in total secrecy with those who are elected to write those laws (members of Congress), while completely prohibiting the public from having any access to and knowledge of -- let alone involvement in -- what they are doing. And all of this was arranged by the corporation -- AT&T -- that is paying for a substantial part of the Democratic National Convention with millions upon millions of dollars, which just received an extraordinary gift of retroactive amnesty from the Congress controlled by that party, whose logo is splattered throughout the city wherever the DNC logo appears -- virtually attached to it -- all taking place next to the stadium where the Democratic presidential nominee, claiming he will cleanse the Beltway of corporate and lobbying influences, will accept the nomination on Thursday night.
The only other media which even attempted to cover the AT&T/Blue Dog event was Democracy Now -- they were also barred from entering. I was on Democracy Now with Amy Goodman this morning to discuss what happened. They put together a 5-minute video montage, including our efforts to enter the event and interview the guests, which they broadcast before my segment. The video and my segment can be seen and/or heard here -- it begins at the 1:00 mark. A transcript will be posted shortly.
Jane Hamsher also filmed some of what transpired, and Salon has created our own video of last night, including the efforts by the private security teams and Denver Police to prevent us from standing on public property to interview the arriving members of Congress and AT&T executives and lobbyists. That will be posted shortly. There's nothing unusual about this event -- other than that it was more forcibly private than most and just a tad more brazenly sleazy. The democracy-themed stagecraft inside the Convention is for public television consumption, but secret little events of this sort are why people are really here. Just as is true in Washington, this is where -- and how and by whom -- the business of our Government is conducted.

UPDATE: Here is the video from last night's festivities, with our attempt to interview various attendees and interactions with the private security forces and Police -- filmed by Jane Hamsher and edited by Salon's Caitlin Shamberg:

--------

Wow thank you for that link; didn't know about that and it's disappointing. Yes I guess it would be very bad for business if a popular politician like Obama kept the heat on telecoms for their role in Bush's illegal wiretapping. So if they could convince him to "let it go" with various compensations, everyone wins right? If he was only a few months away from the White House, why the urgency to get the bill passed this summer? It's not like Osama will go free because the bill didn't pass (heck we're not even looking for him, because everyone is preoccupied with the Olympics and election). Assuming the Dems retain control of Congress, his people could work with Pelosi/Reid to craft a better version of the legislation, right? Fishy.

Yeah about that security, so much for the Dem Party being the "party of the people", but we knew that long ago. It's an exclusive country club like the other party. The GOP may have the industrialists, bankers, and preachers, but the Dems have the Hollywood elites, academic snobs, and lawyers. Neither represent the lower and middle classes, even though they pander to those groups every 4 years with wonderful speeches and promises. Obama is no different, or hopefully he can prove me wrong. What irks me about Obama and some of his supporters is that they really act like he's cut from a different cloth, like his poop doesn't stink. He's so cool with his fist-bump and "dusting off the shoulder" after Hillary's attacks. He speaks so well! With his limited public service record, he hasn't earned this much love. He worked hard for his own career and family, but he hasn't bled and toiled for his fellow Americans like Abe Lincoln or MLK.

Unlike those stupid emails and books from the Right, these critiques are not slander. We peel back the layers, and we find out stuff we don't like, like the immunity for telecoms, his abrasive history in Illinois, and reneging on public funding. But some people choose to ignore it, because they want to believe in him as a savior, and saviors never have flaws. I don't expect candidates to fix everything, be good 100% of the time, and have all the answers, but at least don't BS us about it. Of course that goes for McCain or anyone else too. The guy is old (senile?) and filthy rich; he was being honest and didn't make excuses - he doesn't know how many properties he owns because it's not on his mind a lot, unlike people in Fresno about to be foreclosed. Maybe he doesn't know how much milk costs, like Bush during the 1991 recession. They're all just products of a flawed system. I saw a bumper sticker online that said, "Someone better for president 2008". Maybe that someone does or doesn't exist, or could never survive in Washington anyway.

Anyone think we could use a few more mainstream political parties to have some REAL choice at the polls? Maybe coalition governments like Europe won't be such a bad idea, because it forces politicians with disparate views to work together and compromise. Of course then you might get the tyranny of the minority, like in Israel, but our nation is 200+ years old and maybe it's time to try something different. The status quo is stagnating, festering, and getting more and more expensive to maintain. So what if it's harder to get things done with a coalition? It's not like DC has a wonderful track record of productivity, or even worse, look at Sacramento! Get a prime minister, an independent judiciary, and have some real separation of powers. If it's not working out, dismantle the government and call snap elections (with only a 3 month campaign window, instead of the "endless American campaign").

Conventions are stupid

Now that delegates (representing voters) nominate candidates and not party insiders, political conventions serve no political purpose. They have degenerated into hollow, simplistic carefully-choreographed media spectacles like the Oscars. Half of the convention airtime is just music, applause, and cheering anyway. At best, they're just an occasion for party self-medication, self-adoration, and rehashing what we already know. Does anyone think that a "great convention", 3 months before the actual election, will actually help their candidate win? If undecideds base their votes on what is said at the conventions, then our political process really needs rescue.

I know the delegates, staffers, and volunteers deserve a big party to feel good after all the hard work they invested into getting their candidate this far, but come on. Politics seems more about pomp and festival these days rather than the actually hard, boring, complex, frustrating work that it must be.

I can summarize 3 days of the DNC into half a page:

- Love and happiness
- Clintons, Kennedys, Obamas
- Starry-eyed media speaking in superlatives
- How awesome Denver and Colorado are
- How awesome and cool Barack Obama is, and there may be a fist-bump sighting
- Obama is a regular guy just like us and worships the Christian god
- Obama's father was from Kenya and was raised by a single mom
- Obama is a "transcendent" politician because he's black AND white, and will let you have abortions AND guns
- Obama, despite reporting $4M income on his last tax return, understands the struggles of ordinary working people and will help us achieve the American Dream
- Upstart politicians using the convention podium as a career springboard, as Obama did in 2004
- Maybe Iraq will be discussed, but in a 2005 mindset (when the war was a more useful talking point for them)
- Unity
- Hope
- Change
- Other abstract one-word cliches, without concrete plans (or honest desire) to actually realize them in a measurable way
- John McCain = George Bush
- John McCain doesn't know how many houses he owns
- Maybe a Hillary coup d'etat to become the nominee

And the RNC will be much worse.

Now they could have just mailed that statement out, and saved millions of dollars and labor hours. Maybe they could have invested those resources to tackle all the critical problems that McCain, Obama et al. promise to fix.

Problems with NATO and Russia in a post-Cold War world

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7571109.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7571096.stm

This is not about an expansionist [Russia] with an ideology bent on world domination, but a major power eager to establish a sphere of interest in its own backyard and jealously guarding what it sees as the approaches towards its own frontiers - what Russians have traditionally called the "near abroad."

- Jonathan Marcus, BBC

History can really help us understand this recent Russia-Georgia conflict, but we should try to avoid false comparisons. Russia has changed a lot since its Soviet days, and their invasion of Georgia is not like Czechoslovakia, despite what some politicians and journalists claim. However, post-Cold War NATO hasn't changed much - obviously it's goal is still to contain/defeat Russia. If NATO really cared about Western stability and security, of which Russia is a key element, they would have tried to bring her into the fold rather than exclude her. As Secretary of Defense Gates said, it is not in America's or Russia's interests to have our relationship sour, yet why does each nation continue to jeopardize the fragile partnership with provocations and poor diplomacy? We have cooperated on nuclear disarmament and security, but not much else (and each side still has plenty of warheads to destroy the world 5 times over). Now that the War on Terror and oil money have empowered Putin's people to roll back freedoms and assume a more aggressive defense strategy, how will we respond? We did nothing over their "disproportionate use of force" and atrocities in Chechnya, and I bet NATO would rather see the Georgia situation swept under the rug (even at high cost to the Georgians) than be forced to take a hard line with Russia over a poor, obscure country that most Americans couldn't locate on a map.

But we should remember cause and effect. Typical of the greedy West: After the Soviet collapse, we were licking our chops to snatch up as many former Iron Curtain nations as possible. But we shouldn't provoke a wounded beast, especially when that beast still has very sharp teeth (the #2 military in the world). After the shame of the Soviet defeat and the virtual collapse of their economic and military systems, Moscow probably wasn't too thrilled about opportunistic Western "meddling" in their former satellite states. Especially after the "Orange and Rose Revolutions" in Ukraine and Georgia, where Western-backed shady leaders replaced the old Russia-backed shady leaders, Russia is seeing its former sphere of influence rapidly contracting. Clearly it is wrong for Moscow to censor/imprison/murder dissidents and journalists, centralize power, and meddle in the politics of neighboring sovereign nations, but world events have almost compelled them to take a more hardline approach to domestic security and foreign policy, especially during the Bush years. We claim that our forces in Asia are there to keep the peace and fight Islamic terrorism, but how can Russia be sure? Venezuela and China recently went on spending sprees for more modern military hardware, such as fighter planes and missiles. Is it for defense or aggression? It's impossible for outsiders to know, and plenty of right wing Americans are concerned. So from Russia's point of view, they almost have no choice but to assert themselves more forcefully in Central Asia. They already lost Eastern Europe to the West. Stalin was apathetic or in denial about the German forces massing on Russia's border in 1941, and it almost cost him Moscow. I am sure Putin and Medvedev (who are corrupt but definitely not in Stalin's league), will be a lot more proactive concerning the buildup of American forces, aircraft, and missiles around them.

Maybe NATO would have tried to tighten the stranglehold on a weakened Russia even more, if not for the fact that they are a top 5 oil producer and supply 25% of Europe's energy. And they will use that as leverage if they need to, as was the case in 2006 when they cut off westbound natural gas exports over a price dispute with pro-West, anti-Moscow Ukraine. Unfortunately Europe's gas is fed through pipelines crossing Ukraine, so they were caught in the fracas and had to plead with both sides to compromise and turn the spigots back on. So fortunately or not, the energy situation provides a good stability check between Russia, Europe, and the US. The more we need each other, the less likely we will try to scam and threaten each other. Though Europe needs Russia a whole lot more than vice versa (especially with the rise of Asian and Middle Eastern trading alternatives for Russia), and our economic fate is clearly tied to Europe's.

As Noam Chomsky said - America has to choose between hegemony or survival. We can't have both, so either we treat nations fairly and keep the peace, or we try to dominate the globe and risk catastrophic war. It's not enough for us to have won the Cold War, but now we seek to fill the Soviet power vacuum in the region too? Let's also remember the lessons of Versailles: it will come back to haunt us if we overly punish and shame a defeated empire. Many Russians are not happy with their homeland's loss of prestige, and some have even become nostalgic for the Soviet days when they commanded fear and respect. Even younger Russians tend to think positively about the USSR. The last thing we need is a nationalistic Russia with a chip on its shoulder and reverting to Soviet ways. I know that Moscow controls its media and people, but the vast majority of Russians are supporting Moscow over the Georgia war. They feel that President Mikhail Saakashvili brought the invasion onto Georgia by his incursion into South Ossetia and violating the fragile balance. After some small clashes on August 7, Saakashvili asked the Ossetian paramilitaries to cease hostilities and "give peace and dialogue a chance", but just 5 hours later Georgian forces fired artillery and started to send troops into the region, killing some civilians.

And unlike McCain and his former Georgia lobbyist staffers, I don't think the Tiblisi regime is worth defending at the cost of angering Russia further. Their leader Saakashvili is progressive but no saint. He's not a Moscow stooge or a kleptocrat (though he is building a lavish new presidential palace for a very poor nation), but he's not George Washington either. He is a Western-educated lawyer, and only came to power by betraying his political mentor and convincing him to step down amidst scandal. Since he took office in 2003, Saakashvili has modernized the economy somewhat and increased foreign investment, but critics say he sold the country on the cheap to outside interests. He also curbed some freedoms and violently cracked down on protests against him just this winter. As a PR damage control stunt, he offered to hold snap elections against opposition party rivals to see if the people really wanted him out. He won the vote to stay in power (52% vs. his nearest competitor at 25%). Some international monitors concluded that the election was more or less fair, but others faulted them for accepting things at face value and not investigating the many allegations of fraud. But in the words of LBJ, it's clear that Saakashvili is "our SOB" and we want him to stay, despite the fact that half of the nation disapproves of him. Maybe there's no one better in Georgia, but that's why it's Georgia. I hope we would learn the lessons of Saddam and Musharraf, and be wary of allying ourselves with questionable characters just for modest strategic gains.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7174343.stm

For Saakashvili and Ukraine's Victor Yuschenko to be elected to power was a big slap in the face to Moscow, though maybe they had it coming (and still that's no excuse to poison Yuschenko). But it's the equivalent of an anti-immigrant extremist (some might say racist) like Tom Tancredo winning the US presidency - so how would Mexico react to that? Saakashvili was elected on a platform of defiance against Russia, increased relations with the West (for democratic and economic modernization), and reclaiming the Ossetia and Abkhazia breakaway regions, so I guess he thought he was carrying out the will of his people. But that is in violation of a 1992 agreement between Russia, Georgia, and South Ossetia to preserve peace and semi-autonomy in the region. Parts of Central Asia are very multi-ethnic and plagued by similar problems as the Balkans. Georgia has clashed with its minorities for over 100 years. Order was maintained under the Soviets, but old habits returned with an independent Georgia, and over 1,000 people died during fighting in 1992 and 2004. Under threat by Tiblisi and treated as second-class citizens due to their ethnicity, of course the Ossetians and Abkhazians would turn to Russia for aid, as Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro did during the Cold War, when menaced by what they saw as Western imperialism. And Moscow seems more than happy to help and make life difficult for Tiblisi, though they officially deny providing any military support to the rebels.

MISSED OPPORTUNITIES

So in a sense, Georgia provoked this excessive Russian meddling in their affairs. I do not think that Moscow would have felt so threatend by a gradual Georgian re-alignment with the West, while still maintaining some basic relations with Russia. But simply dismissing Russia and pledging to join NATO can only invite a hostile reaction from Moscow. Russia is an important historical patron and partner in the region, so her presence can't simply be ignored (or replaced by America/NATO), despite her sometimes negative influence throughout history. It's clear that former Warsaw Pact nations have not fully forgotten or forgiven past Russian tyranny, which may complicate relations today. As nations like Poland, Czech Republic, and Hungary make plans for their futures, it's no surprise that they now prefer to look west instead of east. Russia could have done a much better job addressing its harsh treatment of her satellite states and healing old wounds, so it shouldn't surprise them when their former subjects are seeking partnerships with Russia's competitors. France and Britain have done well to rehabilitate and improve relations with many of their former colonies, and despite some lingering distrust and injustice, both former colonizer and colonized now profit from robust trade, travel, and other exchanges. Therefore, both Georgia and Russia could learn a lot from history and save themselves some future headaches. Russia is notorious for poor diplomatic tact and sensitivity (example: Khruschev slamming his shoe at the UN and proclaiming "We will bury you!"), but they really dropped the ball on reaching out and mending fences with the former Warsaw Pact. Georgia has every right to strengthen ties with the West and lobby for NATO admission, but the manner in which they do so can either reassure or provoke Russia. They are a small country that can't afford to have such powerful enemies on their doorstep. Russia has already crippled their weak economy with trade sanctions, and now this current incursion has decimated their meager military infrastructure and compromised their ability to govern.

Both sides screwed up, and now they find themselves in quite a mess. What America can do about it is another mess, which I can't really address here without writing 3 more pages. But Russia had the propaganda advantage last week, and they pissed it away with poor communication and excessive violence. There is strong evidence to show that Georgia violated the treaty, attacked Ossetia not as last resort, and civilians were killed. But Russia didn't lobby the international community and allow media access in Ossetia to validate its case for intervention. Many Georgians were actually quite angry at their leader for inviting this Russian retaliation. This was a totally asymmetrical war, even worse than Israel-Hizbullah, and Georgia's defense couldn't hold for even an afternoon. Russia's excessive destruction of a weakling foe (plus some atrocities in all likelihood) was probably meant to send a message that they still run things in these parts, and chop the defiant Saakashvili down to size. But the horrible manner in which they did it actually galvanized support for politically compromised Saakashvili from shocked foreigners and nationalistic Georgians outraged at the razing of their homeland. Of course it wasn't like Ivan the Terrible beheadding every Georgian he could find, but enough damage was done to make global opinion label Georgia as the victim and Russia the aggressor. Medvedev's faux cease-fire was also a bad blow to their credibility and PR campaign. Georgia was not, and will never be, a military or political threat to Moscow. Russia could have halted its advance after it retook Ossetia and surrounding areas, delivered humanitarian aid to gain local support, and hooked up with opposition leaders in Tiblisi to attempt to overthrow Saakashvili. Then they could have made a legitimate case that they were just responding defensively, while also turning the Georgians against their controversial leader. Now Georgia can lobby the UN and NATO that they might require Western peacekeepers in their territory, to balance the Russian troops in Ossetia and deter future aggression. I am sure that Washington would be more than happy to set up more bases in Central Asia, but probably won't since it will only escalate tensions with Moscow. But Russia screwed up royally as usual, and now they are the goats. Like the Israelis in Lebanon, you can't bomb bridges and hospitals, and then claim that you're trying to keep the peace.

But try telling Russians on the street that they are to blame for all this, and you might end up in the hospital. They heavily support their government in this conflict, so obviously something is getting lost in translation. In conflicts like this, there is rarely a "good guy", but Russia is not 100% to blame. The Russians do have a point that they did not fire first, and they have a right to enforce the 1992 agreement to defend Russian citizens and defenseless Ossetians under attack by Georgian forces. And their meddling in the separatist regions is just supporting independence for oppressed minority groups, as Bush did for Kosovo (despite Russian protest). But we know that the truth is not, and can never be, so plain and innocent.

THE MISSILE SHIELD

Of course we want to help former Soviet nations like Georgia modernize, democratize, and open up their markets to us (the US, France, and Russia are bitter rivals for arms sales), but most importantly their real estate on Russia's front yard is so precious. Do you really think we give a crap about Poland and Bulgaria because they're nice people? Like Turkey, Ceaucescu Romania, and Pakistan during the Cold War, we allied ourselves with unstable yahoos because of their strategic locations. Under the auspices of the War on Terror, we've planted troops and airbases in at least 3 former-Soviet central Asian 'Stans in addition to many Middle Eastern nations. For petty cash and propping up a few dictators, we can protect our energy investments and keep an eye on the Muslims and Russians simultaneously; it's a good deal.

The biggest afront to Russia is the missile defense shield. The USSR went bankrupt trying to have its bloated, in most cases delapidated, military keep pace with American advancements, and some argue that Reagan's selling of the Star Wars program helped convince the Kremlin that the show was over. All Russia had left was her nuclear deterrent, and if America could neutralize that asset (even though our billion-dollar system couldn't shoot down a seagull), then they had no choice but to accept defeat peacefully, or end human history with nuclear war. Thank goodness they chose the former. No matter what BS comes out of Washington, we can't fool anyone that the proposed missile interceptors in Eastern Europe are for defense against Iran. No way. There are only two nations in the world with nukes on hair-trigger alert: Russia and the US. Not even China or Pakistan, and North Korea can't even miniaturize its primitive bomb for missile delivery anyway. So only Russia and the US have the arrogant temerity to believe that we deserve the ability to destroy cities (or whole countries) immediately and without provocation, and that will somehow keep the peace. Yes that is a scary reality, but amazingly it's something that humanity has lived with for 50 years. Of course other nuclear nations don't profess to want or need first-strike capability, and prefer to keep their arsenals as passive deterrence.

The Czechs have already committed to the missile shield with us, but Poland has been more hesitant. Nothing has materialized from years of negotiations, maybe over concerns that their neighbor Russia might be offended, and the costs may outweigh the meager benefits. We claim that the shield is intended for rogue states (namely Iran) and definitely not Russia, but less than a week after the Russian invasion of Georgia, panicked Polish leaders are signing on the dotted line with Condi Rice. So I guess it's just coincidence that they suddenly had a change of heart? Give me a break. If other nations like China and Iran want to fire missiles at neighbors, they need time to prep their missiles and go through the appropriate protocols. It's possible that our satellites and other intel can detect that activity in time to mount a preventive response. Then there is no need for an interceptor shield. And I hate to break it to the Czechs and Poles, but NATO and the missile shield won't protect them from Iran or Russia anyway. The shield is obviously meant to neutralize missiles before they reach more high-valued targets in Western Europe and North America. The shorter the missile flight, the harder it is to shoot it down. If Iran (or Russia) were stupid enough to waste their first-strike on insignificant Krakow or Prague (and then suffer nuclear anihilation by NATO in response), then in all likelihood our interceptors won't be able to stop them. Plus many nuclear warheads are built to detonate above a city for maximum damage (like Hiroshima), not to actually strike the ground. What if the bombs detonate before the interceptor reaches them? And even in the Pentagon's best test-runs, the shield was only able to stop 50% of bogeys, so in practice it will probably drop to 20% at most (but you only need one missile to get through for the whole shield to fail its purpose). Plus the shield will do nothing if Russia ever invades "the old-fashioned way" with armored columns and attack aircraft, as they did in Georgia.

So we're sorry Poland and Czech, but really we're just using you for your real estate, to protect the "real Europeans" we care about. What's sad is that some Poles interviewed on the street say that they're happy to hear the news and they'll feel safer against Russia now (no mention of Iran of course). But I guess in times of crisis, some humans prefer to take comfort in illusions. Other Poles echoed my view that this shield is a bad idea, because for whatever possible defensive advantage it may give them, it's not worth the provocation to Russia. Moscow knows that this missile shield is designed with them in mind, so their hostility is understandable and not irrational/aggressive. Actually we are the aggressors, trying to force this down Eastern Europe's throats or bribe/scare them into agreement. It's not like it was their idea, and they were screaming for years to protect them against evil Iran or Russia. Many of those nations buy oil and gas from Iran and Russia! Why would they attack their best customers outside of Asia? And if the tables were turned, how would we feel if Russia builds a big base for attack submarines in Cuba, and claims that it's meant to stop drug smuggling in the Caribbean? No one likes to be played for a fool, especially the Bear.

I know some politicians have offered to placate Russia by offering to base some of the missile shield installations within her borders. But that does no good at all. Russia isn't worried about Iranian missiles aimed at them, and they have their own defenses. If we really wanted to reassure Russia and offer parity, then we would permit them to place their bases and interceptor missiles in North America. You have to balance the playing field if you want a clean, fair game. Honestly, the best defense against a nuclear attack is a good line of communication, not a military response, as we saw during the Cuban Missile Crisis. If America really cared about protecting Europe from Iranian missiles, Russian missiles, or whatever, then they would expand dialogue with hostile nations instead of encircling, namecalling, and stonewalling them. If America really cared to prevent nuclear war, then we would take our missiles off hair-trigger alert, dismantle some of our huge arsenal, and convince Russia to do the same. Can anyone in the Pentagon explain to us why it is better for global stability that we are able to destroy any target on Earth at the flip of a switch?

IS NATO STILL RELEVANT?

So what is the NATO security alliance really worth? I can almost guarantee that the Western powers will not stick their necks out for the recently accepted Eastern European members, risking nuclear war with Russia if she somehow decides to become belligerent with her neighbors. The developed nations did not come to Poland or Czech's aid when Hitler and Stalin annexed them, and the stakes were a lot lower then in a pre-nuclear world. Nor did they come to their aid during their Cold War uprisings. The West has been petrified of confronting Russia directly militarily, and now their oil leverage complicates matters. I know that in theory, an attack on one NATO member is considered an attack on all, but can you imagine a US or UK leader trying to persuade the voters that they have a duty to fight Russia just because she invaded Estonia?

What has NATO really done for us since the fall of the USSR? They have presided over botched peacekeeping operations in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s, and were ultimately unable to stop former Yugoslavians from slaughtering 100,000s of each other. In fact, the NATO bombing campaign over Serbia actually accelerated ethnic cleansing for a while until Milosevic capitulated. In the NATO charter, they have the "right" to engage in military operations without the approval of the UN Security Council. After 9/11, as we all know NATO forces went to Afghanistan to topple the Taliban and apprehend/destroy Al Qaeda leadership. But since then, few NATO allies have stepped to the plate and really committed to counterinsurgency and anti-Taleban operations. The US, UK, and Canada have borne the brunt of costs and casualties (notwithstanding the French who lost 10 soldiers this week). If the other nations don't want to leave their bunkers to help stabilize one of the 5 poorest nations on Earth, then how can we count on them to come to our aid in a more serious security crisis?

Can someone give me an honest, rational explanation why America's collective security should involve Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania, who were admitted to NATO in 2004, after Poland, Hungary, and Czech in 1999? Croatia and Albania are slated to join soon, and an "offer" has been made to Ukraine and the now-famous Georgia. But basically Russia pulls the strings for Georgia's membership, because they are inelligible to join NATO as long as they have unresolved territorial disputes within their borders, such as the South Ossetia situation. I know that most of the recently added nations are semi-functional democracies and eager trade partners, but why should we have to devote American blood and money to defend them? We have very little in common, and half of those states are borderline Third World. Actually if anything, Eastern Europe and Central Asia should forge more economic pacts with the West (which will naturally help stability and development), not military ones. But if the EU is not rushing to admit nations that aren't quite ready yet, why is NATO in such a hurry? Europe today is the most cooperating and peaceful its ever been since the invention of the sword, but new problems and hard feelings from past tensions still exist. It's quite possible that even NATO allies may have serious tensions with each other in the future, as the competition for resources intensifies and other problems worsen (immigration, terrorism, climate change, etc.). Then what is America supposed to do? If we expand NATO to 20-30 members (it stands at 26 now), that is too many for America to stick its neck out every time there is trouble.

It is a pain in the ass to be the world's policeman, especially when we don't really know what we're doing and may not even be able to stop some of the "crooks". We have our hands full with Iraq, we couldn't stop North Korea and Iran from maturing their nuclear programs, and we can't (or don't care to) intervene in the humanitarian crises in Sudan, Myanmar, and Zimbabwe. And even when we put boots on the ground to "keep the peace", we failed miserably in Southeast Asia in the 1970s, Lebanon/Iran in the 1980s, and Rwanda in the 1990s. So how the hell are we supposed to stop Russia, China, and other powers from menacing their neighbors? Stuck in Iraq and having lost so much international credibility because of it, everyone knows our condemnations and threats are hollow. It's a lose-lose proposition. I am not saying that isolationism is the answer, but we can't keep wading knee-deep in other people's messes. We have to clean up our own house first. I know in this globalized world we are all interconnected, and regional conflicts can cause massive socioeconomic disruptions overseas, but I would hope that we could adopt a more preventative, inclusive foreign policy rather than the current costly, divisive, and reactive one. For sure, the answer is not dividing up the world into spheres of influence, resuming arms races, and forming pacts to obtain strategic advantages, which happened in the years leading up to WWI and during the Cold War. When will we ever learn?

Russia and Georgia made quite a mess of things last week, and we have become centrally involved because of our alliance with Georgia and our insistence on installing an inflammatory missile shield in Eastern Europe. Either we will intervene and make things worse, or our credibility as "world's policeman" will suffer worse because we were too impotent or undiplomatic to convince Russia to change her behavior. Or maybe in some feat of diplomatic genius, we will improve our dialogue with Moscow and come to an equitable compromise, but I doubt it. "Compromise" is often not in Washington's vocabulary. But before we sink deeper into the NATO and Russia pit, we should remember how we got here. If America wasn't so insanely greedy to expand our presence in Russia's backyard, and admit many former Soviet nations into our club to take advantage of their territory, maybe Russia wouldn't feel so cornered and forced to respond to crises so harshly. If we value our security and the security of our NATO partners, then we must also value the security of Russia, Iran, and other competing interests. When our opponents feel safe and trust us, then there is no reason for them to endanger us. If we don't want Russia to keep bullying its neighbors, then we need to stop bullying in that region too. We can't keep trying to create a world where we hold all the cards, and the "left out" countries just have to accept their lot. Based on these arguments, maybe a good first step towards that goal of achieving a fairer, safer world is to cancel the missile shield and disband NATO.

This is what Ron Paul had to say about the matter on the House floor this spring:
Ron Paul: Disband NATO
April 1, 2008 in News by Eric Garris | 44 comments

This is Ron Paul's statement before the US House of Representatives on House Resolution 997, "expressing the strong support of the House of Representatives for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to enter into a Membership Action Plan with Georgia and Ukraine."

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution calling for the further expansion of NATO to the borders of Russia. NATO is an organization whose purpose ended with the end of its Warsaw Pact adversary. When NATO struggled to define its future after the Cold War, it settled on attacking a sovereign state, Yugoslavia, which had neither invaded nor threatened any NATO member state. This current round of NATO expansion is a political reward to governments in Georgia and Ukraine that came to power as a result of US-supported revolutions, the so-called Orange Revolution and Rose Revolution. The governments that arose from these street protests were eager to please their US sponsor and the US, in turn, turned a blind eye to the numerous political and human rights abuses that took place under the new regimes. Thus the US policy of "exporting democracy" has only succeeding in exporting more misery to the countries it has targeted.

NATO expansion only benefits the US military industrial complex, which stands to profit from expanded arms sales to new NATO members. The "modernization" of former Soviet militaries in Ukraine and Georgia will mean tens of millions in sales to US and European military contractors. The US taxpayer will be left holding the bill, as the US government will subsidize most of the transactions. Providing US military guarantees to Ukraine and Georgia can only further strain our military. This NATO expansion may well involve the US military in conflicts as unrelated to our national interest as the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia. The idea that American troops might be forced to fight and die to prevent a small section of Georgia from seceding is absurd and disturbing.

Mr. Speaker, NATO should be disbanded, not expanded.

---------

http://www.forbes.com/2000/11/02/1102atg.html

This is an interesting piece in Forbes from 2000, when W was running against Gore for the White House.

With an estimated annual budget of $1.56 billion, the U.S. shouldered about 29% of NATO's operating budget in 1999, or about $452 million. Each of the member nations pays into NATO based on its gross domestic product, making the U.S. the biggest single contributor. That fund pays for NATO's basic day-to-day operations like staffing and communications, and will presumably pay for NATO's new headquarters, a 557,000-square-foot complex in Brussels. But when an American plane drops a bomb under NATO auspices, its cost is borne by American taxpayers out of the defense budget, not by NATO.

Especially now that the Iraq War has strained our military so much, it doesn't make sense for the US to be NATO's chief financial and military contributor. We are the de facto primary intercessor if an ally needs help, and the more backwards Eastern European nations we admit into NATO, the more we will have to cover their asses if trouble happens. Actually if we want to reform NATO, the US and UK should pay zero, and actually the small, defenseless, minimally-contributing members to the east should pay the most into the system, like "protection money" to the mob! They're the ones on the front lines, they need our expertise and technology to modernize their armies, and they'll cry to us for help in times of crisis, so why should they pay the least yet get the most benefits/protection? It's not like Lithuania is helping make America safer or catching Osama.

--------

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Opinions/Columns/13-Aug-2008/Disband-NATO

Granted that this op-ed came from Pakistan, but at least that country has the courage and conviction to impeach a corrupt leader who doesn't respect the constitution, unlike Americans.