Friday, September 28, 2007

The Piper at the Watergates of Dawn

I'm not a big fan of the prevalent use by the media of the word "gate" at the end of any scandal involving the government for two reasons. First, it implies that the scandal is a much bigger deal than what it usually turns into. "Watergate" deposed a U.S. president, vice president, and a host of other politicians, and made the citizens of the United States extra leery of lawyers, judges and politicians for a good ... year or two. I'm afraid "Closetgate" just can't compare.

Second, and more importantly, the practice is so derivative and cliche now that it shows a real lack of imagination on the part of those who coin the term. It started out, according to Wikipedia, with some French scandal called "Wine-gate", which was an acceptable play on liquids. But then some yahoo coined the term "Koreagate" for an Abramoff-like congressional bribery scandal in 1976, and the precedent for every single scandal since then was set.

In my perfect world, I would ban the use of "-gate" to name any scandal, with one exception. As much as I don't like the overuse of the suffix -gate, I do enjoy plays on words. Therefore, I would create an exception to the ban when the scandal involves the word "water" or possibly some other beverage. Which is why it astounds me that I have yet to read anything about "Blackwatergate".

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

The Bushie School of Positive Thinking and Economics

In a busy news week last week, what with the impending Ahmadinejad visit, the ongoing Jeffs and Spector trials, the reemergence of O.J., and Britney’s “adorable mistakes” that aren’t related to lack of underwear, a commonplace occurrence like George W. Bush saying something stupid can easily be glossed over.

President Bush was awkwardly holding a press conference involving the nation’s economy. When asked if there was a risk of a recession in the U.S. economy, the President replied, “You know, you need to talk to economists. Uh, I think I got a B in Econ 101, heh heh.” Well he obviously wasn’t talking about his college classes at Yale. It has already been shown that at Yale, Bush got a 71 and a 72 in two semesters of economics. But he wasn’t done yet! He goes on to say, “I got an A, however, in Keepin'-Taxes-Low, and Bein'-Fisky-Fiscally-Responsible-with-the-People’s-Money.” I don’t think Yale even offers classes with those titles. What school did Bush think he had attended?

Well, through some internet research, QP has found that apparently President Bush has an associates’s degree from the Bushie School of Positive Thinking and Economics, a 2-year community "internets-only" college located just outside Waco, Texas (he’s also head groundskeeper for his alma mater). But clearly, at the Bushie School, they participate in rampant grade inflation. Therefore, QP will try to correlate the grades given by the Fightin’ Tax Slashers of the Bushie School with more real-world grades.


Econ 101: The Basics

Anyone who got a C- in Economics should be able to tell you that when you increase spending (Iraq War, $600 billion since September 11, 2001) and you decrease revenue from taxes, you’re going to be in trouble financially speaking. Since Bush is not able to tell us this, it must be assumed that he would have done no better than a D in the real world.


BUSHIE GRADE: B
QP GRADE: D


Econ 201: Keepin’ Taxes Low

Well, he certainly did slash taxes, and this year the richest 1% will pay 3.1% less in income taxes than they did in 2000. The poorest 99% of us will only pay on average 1.4% less than we did in 2000. (Source: CBO) That’s $600 savings for the median income earner, and at least $10,850 in savings for the top 1%. Not to mention all the capital gains taxes and dividend taxes that President Bush cut, which benefit only people who invest money (not the poor). But it seems Bush studied hard for this class


BUSHIE GRADE: A
QP GRADE: A


Upper division course
Econ 301: Bein’ Fisky Fiscally Responsible with the People’s Money

His Bein’-Fisky-Fiscally-Responsible-with-the-People’s-Money course must have been a total blowoff, because he has certainly not demonstrated his capability to lessen government spending. The day Bill Clinton took office in January of 1993, the total outstanding public debt was about $4.1 trillion. Due to prior administration decisions, the debt grew in 1993 and 1994, but an economic boom and wiser money management kept the debt at about $4.9 trillion for most of 1995. The public debt lurched over $5 trillion for the first time on February 23, 1996. From then until September 11, 2001, a period of 67 months, the debt only grew by about $700 billion. Since that infamous day, the total public debt has skyrocketed. $6 trillion was reached for the first time seven months later, on March 14, 2002. $7 trillion was passed 22 months later on January 15, 2004, and $8 trillion was reached 21 months after that on October 18, 2005. Another 22 months went by before $9 trillion was reached for the first time last month. (Source: Treasury Dept.) It will take at least four more years to achieve surpluses again, according to the CBO, and that’s assuming that Bush cuts troops in Iraq substantially and doesn’t push for making his tax cuts permanent, which is unlikely.


BUSHIE GRADE: A
QP GRADE: F

BUSHIE GPA: 3.67
REAL-WORLD GPA: 1.67

Conclusions:

That degree's worthless.


- QP

Monday, September 24, 2007

My Presidential Guarantee

I've been telling my dad this for months, so I'll go ahead and say it here. I'm going to guarantee that a Republican will win the 2008 presidential election.

I think it's really a pipe dream that we Democrats cling to that the Democratic nominee could really appeal to the majority of the country. It seems to me that whoever wins the Democratic nomination will be seen as too liberal by the center of the country. Barack Obama actually is too liberal, while Edwards and Clinton are merely perceived as too liberal. Meanwhile, Rudy Giuliani is loved by all who remember September 11, even if he is a New Yorker. McCain is always called "the maverick", even though he's the hawkiest candidate of the bunch. Even political hack Mitt Romney has gone from one side to the other and might be seen as some kind of centrist to people who don't pay attention to things, i.e., Americans.

In other words, the Democratic candidates are mostly perceived as "too liberal", even if they're not, while the Republican candidates are mostly perceived as "centrist", even if they're not. Like my dad has frequently said, if it comes to a choice between "Hillary Clinton" and "Satan", he'd rather choose Satan himself. I fear that he's not alone in his viewpoint.

- QP

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Everytime Someone Uses the Phrase "Going Green", God Kills a Kitten

It’s rare that my state’s senior U.S. Senator James Inhofe and I agree on much of anything, from social issues to government policy to the role of the media to the separation of church and state. But when it comes to picking sides in the sparring match between the uber-conservative evangelical Inhoff and uber-rich Hollywood producer and global warming activist Laurie David, wife of Curb Your Enthusiasm’s Larry David and producer of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, I think I’m going to have to fall in line with Inhofe.

I may have my liberal blogger’s special bathroom pass revoked for saying it, but I can’t stand the way people like Laurie David are cramming the green movement down my throat, trying to guilt me into buy new light bulbs, all the while living in giant mansions and chartering private jets. Laurie David has written a new book for children called The Down-to Earth Guide to Global Warming in which she furthers her environmental challenge to kiddos, encouraging them to become green Nazis who go around unplugging people’s toasters and telling strangers that only morons drive gasoline-powered vehicles. Another more self-promoting tip she gives kids is to ask that her movie An Inconvenient Truth be shown in class.

Laurie David is not a scientist, and probably couldn't explain much about the processes that go on in the atmosphere or anything about thermodynamics. Instead, Laurie David's whole point, as expressed in this interview on the Today show this morning, is not to give children a badly needed education in earth sciences, but rather indoctrinate them into this "go green" movement that doesn't require any knowledge of science. Her green army of youngsters is then to nag their parents about why daddy doesn't drive a hybrid.

We're hoping that kids actually nag their teachers, their principals. There's so much that can be done on the school level and at the home level.
Laurie David and her co-author Cambria Gordon are pushing hard to get this book into not just elementary school libraries, but also elementary school curricula. And because the book is published by Scholastic, and Laurie David is rich enough and well-known enough, they have a pretty good chance at succeeding. Which would be terrible, since the book is almost entirely propaganda. Thats the real shame behind it, too. There really is good science behind the theory of global warming (sorry, Mr. Greatest Hoax Ever Inhofe), but we're not teaching children enough to actually understand the environmental studies.

I heard Laurie David interviewed on NPR this morning (yes, I get the bathroom pass back!), and believe me, no quote in print can adequately capture how smarmy and nauseating she is in her activism. She says things like "we have to change all these light bulbs to compact fluorescents..." and "we tell the kids 'whenever you do something, think about how is that contributing to global warming'" and "one thing we want kids to do is start a 'green team' at school" and "we want kids to start a 'no-waste policy' at their cafeteria" and "we want kids to ask their parents 'why are the paper towels in our house not made of recycled materials?' and 'why aren't we driving a hybrid car?' and 'why haven't we changed all our light bulbs?'" It's like it never occurs to her that some people aren't made out of money. Or maybe she just doesn't care.

It all reminds me very much of a religion, and all the professed infallibility and hypocrisy that goes with it.

- QP

Monday, September 17, 2007

Calculus and Benchmarks

“The United States strategy in Iraq, hereafter, shall be conditioned on the Iraqi government meeting benchmarks….” Thus sayeth Public Law 110-28 passed by Congress in May, which among other appropriations required the President and the Government Accountability Office to craft reports regarding the Iraqi government’s successful completion of 18 basic achievable benchmarks. To very little fanfare from the press, the White House released on Friday the Congressionally mandated second of two benchmark assessment reports (the first was released in July) to assess the progress of “the surge” in Iraq. As best I can tell, the White House graded 9 benchmarks as “satisfactory progress”, 4 benchmarks as multiple parts (part satisfactory, part unsatisfactory), 3 benchmarks as “not satisfactory” and two benchmarks as “not applicable”.

The White House benchmark assessment differs in two ways from the Government Accountability Office’s own dismal benchmark assessment released earlier in September, which found that the Iraqi government met 3, partially met 4, and did not meet 11 of the 18 benchmarks. The first difference, merely an academic point, is that the data from the GAO only accounts for activity through July, while the White House’s version goes through August. The second difference, and the much more important difference, is the method by which each benchmark is measured. The GAO gives a pass / fail grading to benchmark assessment, which is what the original meaning of the buzzword “benchmark” would indicate. The White House sees things differently:

To make this judgment (i.e., whether “satisfactory progress . . . is, or is not, being achieved”), we have carefully examined all the facts and circumstances with respect to each of the 18 benchmarks and asked the following question: As measured from a January 2007 baseline, do we assess that present trend data demonstrates a positive trajectory, which is tracking toward satisfactory accomplishment in the near term? If the answer is yes, we have provided a “Satisfactory” assessment; if the answer is no, the assessment is “Not Satisfactory.”


Not only does satisfactory progress not have to be met, but even the trend of satisfactory progress doesn’t have to be positive, as long as the change in trend data demonstrates a positive trajectory. So if we think of “progress in Iraq” as a function f(x), and if we set “benchmark” equal to zero, then the GAO assessment would count satisfactory progress if and only if f(x) > 0. The White House, on the other hand, counts satisfactory progress if and only if d²f / dx² > 0. And even with these low standards, half the benchmarks that the Iraqi government was supposed to have met by now cannot be assessed as satisfactory progress.

- QP

___________________________________________________________


The following is a benchmark-by-benchmark assessment of the White House’s reports and the GAO report, along with Quibbling Potatoes's grading comments.

Benchmark 1: Forming a Constitutional Review Committee and then completing the constitutional review.

WH July: S
GAO Aug: U
WH Sept: S
Comments:
No scheduled vote by Iraqi parliament. Should be U

Benchmark 2: Enacting and implementing legislation on de-Ba’athification reform.

WH July: U
GAO Aug: U
WH Sept: S
Comments:
Laws drafted, but no scheduled votes. Should be U

Benchmark 3: Enacting and implementing legislation to ensure the equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources to the people of Iraq without regard to the sect or ethnicity of recipients, and enacting and implementing legislation to ensure that the energy resources of Iraq benefit Sunni Arabs, Shi’a Arabs, Kurds, and other Iraqi citizens in an equitable manner.

WH July: U
GAO Aug: U
WH Sept: U
Comments: Again, documents have been drafted. What makes this one U but the previous two S, I don’t know. Should be U.

Benchmark 4: Enacting and implementing legislation on procedures to form semi-autonomous regions.

WH July: S
GAO Aug: half S
WH Sept: S
Comments:
Implementation not yet occurred, but will in 2008. Technically a U.

Benchmark 5: Enacting and implementing legislation establishing an Independent High Electoral Commission, provincial elections law, provincial council authorities, and a date for provincial elections.

WH July: Quarter S
GAO Aug: U
WH Sept: Half S
Comments:
They’ve got an IHEC, but it doesn’t do anything yet. Part S = Whole U

Benchmark 6: Enacting and implementing legislation addressing amnesty.

WH July: NA
GAO Aug: U
WH Sept: NA
Comments:
Prerequisite not met, very much a U

Benchmark 7: Enacting and implementing legislation establishing a strong militia disarmament program to ensure that such security forces are accountable only to the central government and loyal to the constitution of Iraq.

WH July: NA
GAO Aug: U
WH Sept: NA
Comments:
Prerequisite not met, very much a U

Benchmark 8: Establishing supporting political, media, economic, and services committees in support of the Baghdad Security Plan.

WH July: S
GAO Aug: S
WH Sept: S
Comments:
Probably done in one afternoon meeting, but a legitimate S.

Benchmark 9: Providing three trained and ready Iraqi brigades to support Baghdad operations

WH July: S
GAO Aug: Half S
WH Sept: S
Comments:
Some nitpicking by the GAO on the readiness of the brigades, I say S.

Benchmark 10: Providing Iraqi commanders with all authorities to execute this plan and to make tactical and operational decisions in consultation with U.S. Commanders, without political intervention to include the authority to pursue all extremists including Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias.

WH July: U
GAO Aug: U
WH Sept: Part S
Comments:
Political meddling continues. What good is an army if it becomes a sectarian militia? Definite U.

Benchmark 11: Ensuring that Iraqi Security Forces are providing even-handed enforcement of the law.

WH July: U, but in some places S
GAO Aug: U
WH Sept: Half S
Comments:
How can the White House say “much has to be done” and still give it a partial S? Definite U.

Benchmark 12: Ensuring that, as President Bush quoted Prime Minister Maliki as saying, “the Baghdad Security Plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation.”

WH July: S
GAO Aug: Part S
WH Sept: S
Comments:
Tricky word, that “ensure”. Seems to me that if there are “safe havens” like in Sadr City, and no one is actively stopping them, then this one gets a U.

Benchmark 13: Reducing the level of sectarian violence in Iraq and eliminating militia control of local security.

WH July: Part S
GAO Aug: U
WH Sept: Part S
Comments:
Don’t know which part the White House was looking at. Both parts of this benchmark have not been met. Definite U.

Benchmark 14: Establishing all of the planned joint security stations in neighborhoods across Baghdad.

WH July: S
GAO Aug: S
WH Sept: S
Comments:
What part of “all” don’t these organizations understand? Establishing 30 of 33 stations is not “all”, even though it is still a good thing. Technically a U.

Benchmark 15: Increasing the number of Iraqi Security Forces units capable of operating independently.

WH July: U
GAO Aug: U
WH Sept: U
Comments:
Decrease = U. Not even the White House could wriggle out of that one.

Benchmark 16: Ensuring that the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi legislature are protected.

WH July: S
GAO Aug: S
WH Sept: S
Comments:
Regardless of whether or not those minority political parties choose to participate in the legislature, this one is an S.

Benchmark 17: Allocating and spending $10 billion in Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects, including delivery of essential services, on an equitable basis.

WH July: S
GAO Aug: S
WH Sept: S
Comments: The money is allocated, but can’t be spent all at once due to some long term projects. Technically a U, but I’ll give it an S for Spirit.

Benchmark 18: Ensuring that Iraq’s political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against members of the ISF.

WH July: U
GAO Aug: U
WH Sept: U
Comments:
Goes with that whole political meddling benchmark.

Total:
WH July: 8 S, 6 U, 2 part S, 2 NA
GAO Aug: 3 S, 11 U, 4 part S
WH Sept: 9 S, 3 U, 4 part S, 2 NA
QP assessment: 4 S, 14 U

QP Grade = 22%

Will the Iraq strategy change now that this report has been released, as mandated by Congress? Yes, but not because of anything the Iraqi government has or has not done. "The Surge" is ending soon, partly because of the recommendations of General David Petraeus, but mostly because of necessity, as frequently stated by Slate.com's Fred Kaplan.

- QP

Friday, September 14, 2007

We need you, Abu Dhabi

Throughout the Iraq War, George W. Bush has made sure to recognize and thank the other nations besides the United States that compose the Multi-National Force, the Coalition of the Willing, or whatever other term the occupying army is called. And yes, even though the United States makes up 90% of this force, it is still seen as a statement of where a nation stands on the war. The Taliban captured South Korean missionaries in Afghanistan in part because the South Koreans have a few soldiers there. Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands, among other European nations, sent in a token 3,200, 1,300, and 1,345 troops, respectively, during the early phases of the war, but completely withdrew them before this year, not because of devastating loss of life or completion of mission, but because of pressure from within to change their nations' stance on the war. Even Iceland's two soldiers have been redeployed.

America understands that even though the war is for all intents and purposes only an American war, it adds legitimacy to mention other nations of the world, especially if the argument for being there is fighting global terror, 'cause fighting global terror helps everybody, y'all. In last night's speech, Bush thanked the 36 nations who have troops on the ground in Iraq, because "[t]he success of a free Iraq matters to every civilized nation." Which brings me to my point: if it matters so much, where are all the Muslim nations in our coalition? If this is really about fighting global terror, why hasn't Indonesia contributed to stopping the spread of extremism in Iraq? You'd think with so many Moldovans, Tongans, and Norwegians, at least a couple of Yemeni could slip in there, or a few Qatari to add legitimacy to this global struggle. You won't find a nation with a crescent on it's flag among those willing to stand with the U.S. in Iraq. I can see why Iranians aren't there fighting (well actually, they are, just not with us), but at least some soldiers from hyper-capitalist Dubai ought to join the Multi-National Force. Terrorism is bad for global investments.

I guess what I'm saying is, it doesn't look good when a bunch of Christian nations get together, march to the Holy Land, and impose their will on an Islamic nation. It would have appeared much more solid if one of the following nations had contributed soldiers: Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Egypt, our new friends Libya, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Tunisia, Turkey (especially Turkey), U.A.E. or Yemen. If we could have gotten some ground support from Saudi Arabia or Pakistan (I know, don't laugh), that would have been a coup. But as it is, it just looks like another Crusade, even if it isn't.

- QP

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Reframing the Debate: Alberto Gonzales Resigns

With two sentences in an otherwise routine speech, President Bush completely changed the complexion of the discourse on the legacy of outgoing Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Last month, after it was announced that Alberto Gonzales was resigning his post of Attorney General amid several different scandals, the President delivered a statement from the Waco airport bidding his close friend and ally an official good-bye. Slipped into the speech, right after recognizing Gonzales's family and right before tapping Paul Clement to temporarily succeed him, Bush gave his opinion of the Justice Department scandal:

"After months of unfair treatment that has created a harmful distraction at the Justice Department, Judge Gonzales decided to resign his position, and I accept his decision. It's sad that we live in a time when a talented and honorable person like Alberto Gonzales is impeded from doing important work because his good name was dragged through the mud for political reasons."
This was clearly meant to be a jab at those who consider the Attorney General to be a servant of the public and the Constitution, and not just of the President. The "unfair treatment" referred to months of congressional testimony given by Gonzales where at different times, he inconsistently claimed innocence, ignorance, or executive privelege regarding the U.S. attorney firings and the Terrorist Surveilance Program. His perjurous testimony did indeed create, among other things, a "harmful distraction at the Justice Department", especially when considering the trouble he got former aides Kyle Sampson and Monica Goodling into, among others.

Bush calls Gonzales "talented and honorable" and claims that he has a "good name". He even called him "Judge Gonzales" to make him sound more unbiased and dignified, even though Gonzales was obviously no longer serving on the Texas Supreme Court. Bush paints a picture of a noble and just hero who tragically fell victim to unfounded accusations from corrupt politicians looking to score political points. But when so many members of both the House and the Senate, including both Democrats to Republicans, from liberal members like Russ Feingold to conservative members like my state's junior senator Tom Coburn, come together in such a bipartisan manner to express dissatisfaction with the actions of one individual, well, your hero cred goes way down. Just another example of "reframing the debate", a tactic expertly and frequently employed by George W. Bush.

As an aside, I agree that the original scandal of the executive branch firing U.S. attorneys, government employees who work at the discretion of the President, was a little bit of political mud-dragging. After all, it may be a black eye to fire someone not for performance reasons but rather for political affiliations, but it's still legal for the President to do. It's really the manner in which the scandal was handled that I have objection to, first with the refusal to meet with members of Congress on the record, then to the refusal of congressional subpoenas, and then with the outright absurd claim of executive privelege, and finally to the lies and contradictions in testimony. Really, if there was nothing to hide, why try to hide it so much?

- QP

Introduction

This blog was created to give an outlet for my political voice, which I try to suppress on my more personal blog for reasons of not-being-a-big-jerk. Hence, if the opinions stated on this blog do not appeal to you, the reader, please feel free to ignore it and never check it ever again.

- QP