Interim President of the NAACP, Lorraine Miller, provided the obvious title for today's column because it applied across all the subjects discussed on today's Meet The Press. In making the statement, Ms. Miller was commenting to the racist comments allegedly Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling to his girlfriend. And if it is in fact Donald Sterling's voice on the damaging tape then the NBA should take action to remove him as an owner of a franchise, which would require the other owners, who'd be acting in their own best interest, to vote him out. (We guess that in the context of this situation, Mr. Sterling openly having a girlfriend while being married isn't a big deal.)
Given Mr. Sterling's apparent history of racially related legal troubles, Bryant Gumble's assessment of "it's surprising anyone is surprised" makes perfect sense and now it would leave people surprised to find if it wasn't Mr. Sterling on the tape. And you can include this column in that category, however, we're still a bit uncomfortable with how Reverend Sharpton is always forcefully condemning before confirmation is established. The dear reverend has a track record as you may know but we forgive him for that, can't help but remember it.
Silent therefore accepting of course also applies to the comments made by Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher who broke federal law by using public land for personal profit without permission or paying for it. (We state it that way because that is the fact of the matter and what if you owned the land?) And the simple fact that he began a sentence, "And let me tell you something else about the negro," automatically disqualifies him of any intelligent statement. For many people who advocated for this individual and are now running away in silence, it's deplorable behavior, as much so as Mr. Bundy's statements. Making him into some folk hero was wrong at the start and it never righted itself. Silence on what he said is unacceptable.
Given all this, Mr. Gregory asked the round table for clarification on what Bryant Gumble referred to as the 'mass underneath' [these iceberg tips] earlier in the program. However, their answers left us dissatisfied.
For example, in voting 6-2, the Supreme Court decided that it was up to the individual states to decide whether or not to have affirmative action, Mallory Factor, professor at The Citadel outlined, an outcome with which he seemed to agree - no federal law should apply as to achieve some sort of race neutrality, to use the words of Rich Lowry from The National Review. College applicants' scores and accomplishments should be judged equally without consideration for race. Mr. Factor said that we shouldn't ask one person to tie one hand behind his back so that someone else can get the advantage using two. One, that's not how affirmative action enables people.
What affirmative action does is take into consideration the fact that some people didn't have the same resources, in education at the very least, as another person and therefore the test can not be equal for both. Phrased in another way, does the inner city student generally have the same resources available to him or her as kids in an upper middle class suburb? We all know the answer - no. To deny this reality is willful ignorance.
Race neutrality, as Mr. Lowry described, is a grand idea but achieving it just by proclaiming it isn't really solving the problem. We disagree with him that Clive Bundy's statements are a generational thing and that Mr. Sterling is an outlier. First, if you seen any of the interviews with Mr. Bundy's sons, you'll know that they share his same beliefs on the status of the land, why not on race? Secondly, Jeffrey Goldberg asked the right question - how do you [Rich Lowry] know that Mr. Sterling is an outlier amongst NBA owners?
The pernicious views that the round table repeatedly referred to allude to a subtle, perhaps even casual, institutional racism, which is something that the United States has to acknowledge to ever get passed. It's ok to not be silent and admit that it exists.
Lastly, in a much more broad sense, the U.S., Europe and the rest of the world can not be silent on the cirsis going on in Ukraine, especially in light of White House Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken plainly saying that Vladimir Putin's goal is to destabilize the country. Mr. Blinken did say that it was not his goal to invade, but we would access it a bit differently. It's not Mr. Putin's goal to invade in a traditional sense. What the Russian government is doing is laying the ground by building up opposition to the government in Kiev to create a civil war, one in which Mr. Putin would have considerable influence.
Mr. Blinken outlined how the sanctions imposed by the U.S. have already had a significant effect on the Russian economy, which is projected to grow less than one percent while the ruble is down 20 percent. We agree with Mr. Blinken that Crimea will be a huge weight on the Russian economy as well. As we previously stated in this column, look how well the people of South Ossentia are doing since joining Russia.
Further sanctions will be inevitable because Mr. Putin is willing to jeopardize Russia's economy for hegemony attempting to restore a semblance of the Soviet Union. Europe can not stay silent on this aggressive behavior by Mr. Putin because it does business with him. Leaders in Europe should join with the U.S. to increase support with Ukraine. And though Mr. Blinken didn't refer to it specifically, it was a good idea for the United States to send marines to Poland for joint exercises. Take a strong approach.
And speaking of strong approaches, it's the only thing Tony Blair, former prime minister of England, said in his interview that we agreed with. He didn't have much to say on Ukraine and the reason is that every single interview he does, he has to justify his past actions on Iraq, which frankly are indefensible - so much so you can not even take him seriously.
Round Table: Mallory Factor, best-selling author and Professor at The Citadel;
Jeffrey Goldberg, Correspondent for The Atlantic and Bloomberg View
Columnist; Neera Tanden, President of the Center for American Progress;
Rich Lowry, Editor of National Review
Sunday, April 27, 2014
Sunday, April 20, 2014
4.20.14: Despite Geneva, Ukraine Will Worsen
"I made a clear statement, find these bastards and bring them to justice," is what Arseniy Yatsenyuk, the Prime Minister of Ukraine, said in response to reports that armed pro-Russian protesters and militia were forcing Jews to register in the eastern city of Donetsk.
We start there for two reasons: one, it's refreshing and highly commendable that Mr. Yatsenyuk would not take the diplomatic approach in answering the question and unequivocally stated his feeling on the matter, a righteous one we may add, but sadly when it comes to eastern Ukraine the truth is that his government has little control over preventing such horrendous actions.
The second reason is to illustrate the logic of Putin's approach to the entire crisis in trying to achieve his end goal, which appears to be the territorial recreation of the former Soviet Union, or as close as he can get to it as possible. "Restore the dream of the Soviet Union," Prime Minister Yatsenyuk said when asked his opinion, adding that it would be the greatest disaster of this century to see its reformation. For Putin, this hateful incident causes no emotional stir any which way and is coldly accessed only on the measure of whether it helps achieve the goal or not. Right now, Mr. Putin's government is trying to sew as many seeds of unrest as possible, and even though Mr. Putin didn't orchestrate this new episode of Jewish persecution, he knows it helps his cause. As noted by Radhika Jones, TIME Deputy Managing Editor, Russia wants to create as much as possible before Ukraine's upcoming election.
In the joint interview with Senators Bob Corker (R-TN) and Chris Murphy (D-CT), both members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, they both agreed that the United States should take action now, meaning that punitive sanctions should be put in place immediately. And why not, there no intention on the part of the pro-Russian opposition in eastern Ukraine and it doesn't stop Mr. Putin from doing as he wills. On the other hand, one would have to figure that if the United States were to impose sanctions, in the mind of Mr. Putin's government, that is justification to become directly involved in eastern Ukraine including sending in troops. Mr. Putin would say, "Stop the sanctions and we'll stop moving into Ukraine," but he wouldn't, and then you'd have to consider Senator's Murphy's proposition that a NATO ally could be next. David Brooks described Mr. Putin as 19th century expansionist, which seems completely ludicrous in the 21st century, but here we are.
And for Mr. Obama's part, his administration's focus should be assisting the newly formed Ukrainian government on its feet with aid in all forms. When asked what Ukraine needed the prime minister said that it was an easy question to answer because they were in need of so many things. Most notably they need military assistance, but that is something the Obama Administration is reluctant to do. Even though this is a reenactment of the cold war, supplying weapons could turn a cold war into an actual war, something no one wants. Senator Corker said that U.S. policy has helped in creating the crisis in Ukraine, meaning that U.S. inaction in situations like Syria emboldened Russia. However, the senator's comment isn't constructive because the alternative would be direct military intervention. He also repeatedly said that the United States was 'embarrassed' by Russia, which isn't the case and is even rhetorically an unfortunate choice of words, as it reflects poorly on all government, not just the administration.
But Senator Corker's suggestion of building up the security relationship with Ukraine is a much more prudent idea, but a potentially shrewd one, that we agree with because not only does it help with internal defense, it can create the conditions for a large diplomatic presence, which puts military options on pause.
Chuck Todd explained that even inside the administration (of course outside), people are concerned that the president is not 'alpha dog' enough in his posture. Not many actually disagree with the measures that he's taken, but feel that his rhetoric stance is too quiet. So is it a stylistic approach or actual policy that leads Senator Corker to say that the president's foreign policy is always a day late and a dollar short? In other words, the president doesn't talk tough. We're OK with that, as long as Mr. Obama is thoughtful yet quickly decisive. It is what's demanded of the office, and too much chest-thumping isn't.
Round Table: Chuck Todd, NBC News Political Director & Chief White House Correspondent; David Brooks, New York Times Columnist; Radhika Jones, TIME Deputy Managing Editor; David Shribman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Executive Editor
We start there for two reasons: one, it's refreshing and highly commendable that Mr. Yatsenyuk would not take the diplomatic approach in answering the question and unequivocally stated his feeling on the matter, a righteous one we may add, but sadly when it comes to eastern Ukraine the truth is that his government has little control over preventing such horrendous actions.
The second reason is to illustrate the logic of Putin's approach to the entire crisis in trying to achieve his end goal, which appears to be the territorial recreation of the former Soviet Union, or as close as he can get to it as possible. "Restore the dream of the Soviet Union," Prime Minister Yatsenyuk said when asked his opinion, adding that it would be the greatest disaster of this century to see its reformation. For Putin, this hateful incident causes no emotional stir any which way and is coldly accessed only on the measure of whether it helps achieve the goal or not. Right now, Mr. Putin's government is trying to sew as many seeds of unrest as possible, and even though Mr. Putin didn't orchestrate this new episode of Jewish persecution, he knows it helps his cause. As noted by Radhika Jones, TIME Deputy Managing Editor, Russia wants to create as much as possible before Ukraine's upcoming election.
In the joint interview with Senators Bob Corker (R-TN) and Chris Murphy (D-CT), both members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, they both agreed that the United States should take action now, meaning that punitive sanctions should be put in place immediately. And why not, there no intention on the part of the pro-Russian opposition in eastern Ukraine and it doesn't stop Mr. Putin from doing as he wills. On the other hand, one would have to figure that if the United States were to impose sanctions, in the mind of Mr. Putin's government, that is justification to become directly involved in eastern Ukraine including sending in troops. Mr. Putin would say, "Stop the sanctions and we'll stop moving into Ukraine," but he wouldn't, and then you'd have to consider Senator's Murphy's proposition that a NATO ally could be next. David Brooks described Mr. Putin as 19th century expansionist, which seems completely ludicrous in the 21st century, but here we are.
And for Mr. Obama's part, his administration's focus should be assisting the newly formed Ukrainian government on its feet with aid in all forms. When asked what Ukraine needed the prime minister said that it was an easy question to answer because they were in need of so many things. Most notably they need military assistance, but that is something the Obama Administration is reluctant to do. Even though this is a reenactment of the cold war, supplying weapons could turn a cold war into an actual war, something no one wants. Senator Corker said that U.S. policy has helped in creating the crisis in Ukraine, meaning that U.S. inaction in situations like Syria emboldened Russia. However, the senator's comment isn't constructive because the alternative would be direct military intervention. He also repeatedly said that the United States was 'embarrassed' by Russia, which isn't the case and is even rhetorically an unfortunate choice of words, as it reflects poorly on all government, not just the administration.
But Senator Corker's suggestion of building up the security relationship with Ukraine is a much more prudent idea, but a potentially shrewd one, that we agree with because not only does it help with internal defense, it can create the conditions for a large diplomatic presence, which puts military options on pause.
Chuck Todd explained that even inside the administration (of course outside), people are concerned that the president is not 'alpha dog' enough in his posture. Not many actually disagree with the measures that he's taken, but feel that his rhetoric stance is too quiet. So is it a stylistic approach or actual policy that leads Senator Corker to say that the president's foreign policy is always a day late and a dollar short? In other words, the president doesn't talk tough. We're OK with that, as long as Mr. Obama is thoughtful yet quickly decisive. It is what's demanded of the office, and too much chest-thumping isn't.
Round Table: Chuck Todd, NBC News Political Director & Chief White House Correspondent; David Brooks, New York Times Columnist; Radhika Jones, TIME Deputy Managing Editor; David Shribman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Executive Editor
Sunday, April 13, 2014
4.13.14: Civil and Voting Rights/ Poor Producing on MTP
We appreciate that Meet The Press went to Boston to honor the city and its heroes one year after the Marathon bombing, but the programming of this week's episode was a true disappointment. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't have done the Boston tribute, but it's what they put around it that made for poor Sunday news program television.
First, do the producers of the show have so little faith in its moderator that they feel the need to fill up a good part of the program with recorded segments (Harry Smith's MTP Boston story; Andrea Mitchell's interview with fmr. Sec. Kathleen Sebelius) and weekly features? The interview with Secretary Sebelius should have been conducted on Meet The Press! But sadly, MTP doesn't seem to have the clout that it once did or it would have.
But here's why this week's program was an editorial fall-down. This week is indeed the one year anniversary of the Boston Marathon, but it's also the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon B. Johnson signing the civil rights act. It was all over the news this week and Meet The Press didn't touch it at all. The panel discussed voting rights, during the Boston Marathon segment, first-responder Kent Scarna talked about living in a free and open society, documentary filmmaker Ken Burns discussed his new film about the Gettysburg Address, yet Mr. Gregory never discussed why four living presidents gathered in Austin, TX this week. It was like a bad movie where they keep feeding you foreshadowing that goes no where.
All of today's topics tied into the Civil Rights act in someway so it was so odd to us that it was never brought to the fore of the discussion. Not to mention that there were new developing events in Ukraine over night, also not discussed.
The ad naseum discussion of the Affordable Care Act would have not be necessary had the interview with Secretary Sebelius been on Meet The Press. Mr. Gregory did ask one pertinent question, framing it in the correct context; Politically, should the resignation of Ms. Sebelius be seen as a success or failure? Everything beyond that was superfluous. Did Andrea Mitchell ask the former Secretary good questions? Of course, but that's not the point. The point is that Meet The Press shouldn't have to borrow.
President Obama's comments this week on voting rights, tied into the Civil Rights Acts, spurred the conversation for the Round Table. Mr. Obama said that voting was an issue of citizenship and that it was not an issue of either Democrat or Republican. However, he went on to single out Republicans for trying to suppress the vote by enacting all kinds of restrictions that would work against minorities. As you can imagine, Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal said that there is no evidence that the vast number of laws state Republican legislatures have passed have had any effect on voting. That's true but there hasn't been a national election (a mid-term for example) since many of them have been enacted. We'll have to wait and see, but what we can say is that we shouldn't be making laws to restrict people from voting but to enable more people to do it.
It's what Kara Swisher, editor of Re/Code, was saying that technology in how we do other things - shopping, communicating - should be applied to our civic responsibilities. That's fine, but she missed the point of the question that charged Republicans with making big efforts to prevent that very evolution of expanded voting. But is it really what Republicans are trying to do? Well, they want to win elections so they're doing what ever they can to make those wins happen. The Republican National Committee knows, though would never admit, that Republican chances of taking over the White House, no matter what they do, are becoming slimmer and slimmer. However, where they can win is in local Congressional districts, and through those local wins maintain power and relevance nationally. To facilitate those wins, Republican controlled state legislatures will gerrymander the district, restrict voting by requiring picture identification, shorten registration and advance balloting periods, pour money into advertising, and you may not like any of it. And if you don't, well here's the rub, it's all legal so Republicans are well within the right of the law to make those moves. If Democrats don't like it, they have to get their act together and grind in the corners - compete for those local seats.
Round Table: Re/Code Co-Executive Editor Kara Swisher, Republican strategist Mike Murphy, Wall Street Journal Editorial Page Editor Paul Gigot, and Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD)
Panel in Boston: historian and author Doris Kearns Goodwin, Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), and former Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis. David will also talk with Boston Globe photographer John Tlumacki and former New England Patriots player Joe Andruzzi
A couple of "By the Ways:"
With agree with Mr. Scarna, who we mentioned earlier, that we don't agree with the apologists because this column believes that ultimately it is you who is responsible for your own actions. Should we, as a society, do all that we can to prevent tragedies like the Boston Marathon bombing? Of course. Do we? Of course not.
A thank you to Senator Ed Markey for mentioning that the Boston segment was produced at Logan Airport and reminding us that it was that very airport from which the 9/11 hijackers took off.
(So the production team for Meet The Press flew into Logan Airport and did the show from Logan Airport? They didn't even go into the city... lame. How about a... oh, we don't know... an American historical site in Boston!)
And in honor of the 50th Anniversary of the signing of the Civil Rights Act, below is the entire text of President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, a speech that Ken Burns called the greatest speech ever made in the American English language.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Abraham Lincoln
November 19, 1863
First, do the producers of the show have so little faith in its moderator that they feel the need to fill up a good part of the program with recorded segments (Harry Smith's MTP Boston story; Andrea Mitchell's interview with fmr. Sec. Kathleen Sebelius) and weekly features? The interview with Secretary Sebelius should have been conducted on Meet The Press! But sadly, MTP doesn't seem to have the clout that it once did or it would have.
But here's why this week's program was an editorial fall-down. This week is indeed the one year anniversary of the Boston Marathon, but it's also the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon B. Johnson signing the civil rights act. It was all over the news this week and Meet The Press didn't touch it at all. The panel discussed voting rights, during the Boston Marathon segment, first-responder Kent Scarna talked about living in a free and open society, documentary filmmaker Ken Burns discussed his new film about the Gettysburg Address, yet Mr. Gregory never discussed why four living presidents gathered in Austin, TX this week. It was like a bad movie where they keep feeding you foreshadowing that goes no where.
All of today's topics tied into the Civil Rights act in someway so it was so odd to us that it was never brought to the fore of the discussion. Not to mention that there were new developing events in Ukraine over night, also not discussed.
The ad naseum discussion of the Affordable Care Act would have not be necessary had the interview with Secretary Sebelius been on Meet The Press. Mr. Gregory did ask one pertinent question, framing it in the correct context; Politically, should the resignation of Ms. Sebelius be seen as a success or failure? Everything beyond that was superfluous. Did Andrea Mitchell ask the former Secretary good questions? Of course, but that's not the point. The point is that Meet The Press shouldn't have to borrow.
President Obama's comments this week on voting rights, tied into the Civil Rights Acts, spurred the conversation for the Round Table. Mr. Obama said that voting was an issue of citizenship and that it was not an issue of either Democrat or Republican. However, he went on to single out Republicans for trying to suppress the vote by enacting all kinds of restrictions that would work against minorities. As you can imagine, Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal said that there is no evidence that the vast number of laws state Republican legislatures have passed have had any effect on voting. That's true but there hasn't been a national election (a mid-term for example) since many of them have been enacted. We'll have to wait and see, but what we can say is that we shouldn't be making laws to restrict people from voting but to enable more people to do it.
It's what Kara Swisher, editor of Re/Code, was saying that technology in how we do other things - shopping, communicating - should be applied to our civic responsibilities. That's fine, but she missed the point of the question that charged Republicans with making big efforts to prevent that very evolution of expanded voting. But is it really what Republicans are trying to do? Well, they want to win elections so they're doing what ever they can to make those wins happen. The Republican National Committee knows, though would never admit, that Republican chances of taking over the White House, no matter what they do, are becoming slimmer and slimmer. However, where they can win is in local Congressional districts, and through those local wins maintain power and relevance nationally. To facilitate those wins, Republican controlled state legislatures will gerrymander the district, restrict voting by requiring picture identification, shorten registration and advance balloting periods, pour money into advertising, and you may not like any of it. And if you don't, well here's the rub, it's all legal so Republicans are well within the right of the law to make those moves. If Democrats don't like it, they have to get their act together and grind in the corners - compete for those local seats.
Round Table: Re/Code Co-Executive Editor Kara Swisher, Republican strategist Mike Murphy, Wall Street Journal Editorial Page Editor Paul Gigot, and Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD)
Panel in Boston: historian and author Doris Kearns Goodwin, Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), and former Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis. David will also talk with Boston Globe photographer John Tlumacki and former New England Patriots player Joe Andruzzi
A couple of "By the Ways:"
With agree with Mr. Scarna, who we mentioned earlier, that we don't agree with the apologists because this column believes that ultimately it is you who is responsible for your own actions. Should we, as a society, do all that we can to prevent tragedies like the Boston Marathon bombing? Of course. Do we? Of course not.
A thank you to Senator Ed Markey for mentioning that the Boston segment was produced at Logan Airport and reminding us that it was that very airport from which the 9/11 hijackers took off.
(So the production team for Meet The Press flew into Logan Airport and did the show from Logan Airport? They didn't even go into the city... lame. How about a... oh, we don't know... an American historical site in Boston!)
And in honor of the 50th Anniversary of the signing of the Civil Rights Act, below is the entire text of President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, a speech that Ken Burns called the greatest speech ever made in the American English language.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Abraham Lincoln
November 19, 1863
Sunday, April 06, 2014
4.6.14: More Money and Louder Speech
The 13th year of war.
Twenty-two returned U.S. veterans commit suicide everyday. In the past year, that's 8,030 individuals.
A soldier returns home from war to find service benefits problematic to get, transition into civilian life difficult to make, and possibly the idea that the reason we went to war in Iraqi was based on information that turned out to not be true, leaving that individual disillusioned and lost. This is part of the legacy for making the decision to fight a preemptive war, an unnecessary one.
Admiral Michael Mullen, Fmr. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in his interview with David Gregory, emphasized the mental health aspect in the challenges returned soldiers have adjusting and that there is a shortage of mental health professionals in the military. In fact, he went on to say that it's a national problem as well. The result of all this is another mass shooting incident at the Fort Hood military base in Texas.
The all too obvious answer is that we're not doing enough. One thing that the government could do is making free mental health counseling part of the benefits of service - immediately upon return. When a soldier is finished with his or her service, they have the option to get mental health treatment if they want it. As a matter of fact, a military administrator would tell you that veterans have access to such service, but that not until the person has successfully jumped through all the bureaucratic hoops to get insurance - unacceptable.
For practical measures, Admiral Mullen said that there also needs to be better security military bases, but don't you also find it curious that he didn't advocate for soldiers walking around armed? The former leader of all of the nation's soldiers basically said that he doesn't think it's a good idea for soldiers to be carrying guns when they shouldn't need to. And when they're on base, they shouldn't.
What it says is that the leaders of the world's most powerful military do not think that ubiquitous possession of weapons by its soldiers at all times is a good idea; they feel adding more guns to the equation produces a whole separate set of problems, problems Admiral Mullen didn't specifically address. Yet, for the country's citizenry, it's advocated that everyone should be armed.
We guess all you can say to that is, "Welcome the the United States."
And, if you have enough money, you can get politicians to do what ever you want them to do. That was the case before the Supreme Court decided this week to ban caps on how many candidates you can contribute money to. This week's partisan 5 to 4 decision just further weakened campaign finance rules so that the richest have their more heavily weighted say at the policy table. Mr. Gregory asked both guests, "Could this lead to quid pro quo, a corrupt political system as Justice Steven Breyer suggested?" There's no need to even ask the question really. If there was no quid pro quo then why would oil refinery owners be giving millions of dollars to political candidates in the first place?
In another well done debate segment, Mr. Gregory moderated a discussion between the man who brought the case to the court, Shaun McCutcheon, and president of Public Citizen Robert Weissman. When you initially hear about a court decision like this, most just dismiss it as the rich just 'getting richer' as it were, but when you can put a face to it (Mr. McCutcheon's), you can at least try and see the other side of the argument. Now, one of the main premises of Mr. McCutcheon's argument is that money equals speech. One is entitled to that opinion, one which we would strongly disagree with. During the round table, columnist Kathleen Parker casually stated it as fact and then went further saying that 'lots of money is louder speech,' hence making the person with more money more important. In the overall scheme of American Constitutional philosophy, that shouldn't be the case, but the reality is that today, it is.
However, in a way, we kind of agree with Mr. McCutcheon in as much as there's so much money in U.S. politics already, what difference is this decision going to make anyway? Justice Clarence Thomas said that he didn't see a reason to have any campaign finance caps on money. We rarely, if ever in this column, cast direct dispersions on someone, but Justice Thomas is an idiot and if it were left solely to him to make legal decisions for this country, he'd tank the whole works. There, we said it.
Then again, what's the point of limits and laws and rules if everyone easily circumvents them? What we did find heartening is that everyone, from Mr. Weismann to Mr. McCutcheon to Senator Sununu, agreed that there should be transparency in terms of who donates what to whom. It would actually be better to have no limits but make it a firm law that full transparency is required than having faux limits with no transparency.
With full transparency, public opinion - whether it would accept or ostracize - would definitely make big donors think twice about where they're putting their money.
Round Table: Kathleen Parker, Washington Post Columnist; John E. Sununu, Fmr. New Hampshire Senator (R) and Boston Globe Contributor; Fmr. Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. (D-TN); and Steve Case, Fmr. Chairman & CEO of America Online.
A Last Note:
Harold Ford said the president shouldn't do a victory lap now that over seven million people have signed up for insurance through the exchanges. Mr. Ford is very much for the Affordable Care Act, but also has his concerns. We always find Mr. Ford's punditry frustrating because it seems as though he continual wants it both ways. Now, we realize that every issue has its nuance and every big law like the ACA is in need of fixing, but in terms wanting to have people listen to what you say, you have to sound as though you believe in something more solidly.
Pardoning that brief digression, at the end of this first marathon the president's run, where everyone and their mother has been sticking out a leg to try to trip you, he successfully crossed the finish. Take the lap.
Twenty-two returned U.S. veterans commit suicide everyday. In the past year, that's 8,030 individuals.
A soldier returns home from war to find service benefits problematic to get, transition into civilian life difficult to make, and possibly the idea that the reason we went to war in Iraqi was based on information that turned out to not be true, leaving that individual disillusioned and lost. This is part of the legacy for making the decision to fight a preemptive war, an unnecessary one.
Admiral Michael Mullen, Fmr. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in his interview with David Gregory, emphasized the mental health aspect in the challenges returned soldiers have adjusting and that there is a shortage of mental health professionals in the military. In fact, he went on to say that it's a national problem as well. The result of all this is another mass shooting incident at the Fort Hood military base in Texas.
The all too obvious answer is that we're not doing enough. One thing that the government could do is making free mental health counseling part of the benefits of service - immediately upon return. When a soldier is finished with his or her service, they have the option to get mental health treatment if they want it. As a matter of fact, a military administrator would tell you that veterans have access to such service, but that not until the person has successfully jumped through all the bureaucratic hoops to get insurance - unacceptable.
For practical measures, Admiral Mullen said that there also needs to be better security military bases, but don't you also find it curious that he didn't advocate for soldiers walking around armed? The former leader of all of the nation's soldiers basically said that he doesn't think it's a good idea for soldiers to be carrying guns when they shouldn't need to. And when they're on base, they shouldn't.
What it says is that the leaders of the world's most powerful military do not think that ubiquitous possession of weapons by its soldiers at all times is a good idea; they feel adding more guns to the equation produces a whole separate set of problems, problems Admiral Mullen didn't specifically address. Yet, for the country's citizenry, it's advocated that everyone should be armed.
We guess all you can say to that is, "Welcome the the United States."
And, if you have enough money, you can get politicians to do what ever you want them to do. That was the case before the Supreme Court decided this week to ban caps on how many candidates you can contribute money to. This week's partisan 5 to 4 decision just further weakened campaign finance rules so that the richest have their more heavily weighted say at the policy table. Mr. Gregory asked both guests, "Could this lead to quid pro quo, a corrupt political system as Justice Steven Breyer suggested?" There's no need to even ask the question really. If there was no quid pro quo then why would oil refinery owners be giving millions of dollars to political candidates in the first place?
In another well done debate segment, Mr. Gregory moderated a discussion between the man who brought the case to the court, Shaun McCutcheon, and president of Public Citizen Robert Weissman. When you initially hear about a court decision like this, most just dismiss it as the rich just 'getting richer' as it were, but when you can put a face to it (Mr. McCutcheon's), you can at least try and see the other side of the argument. Now, one of the main premises of Mr. McCutcheon's argument is that money equals speech. One is entitled to that opinion, one which we would strongly disagree with. During the round table, columnist Kathleen Parker casually stated it as fact and then went further saying that 'lots of money is louder speech,' hence making the person with more money more important. In the overall scheme of American Constitutional philosophy, that shouldn't be the case, but the reality is that today, it is.
However, in a way, we kind of agree with Mr. McCutcheon in as much as there's so much money in U.S. politics already, what difference is this decision going to make anyway? Justice Clarence Thomas said that he didn't see a reason to have any campaign finance caps on money. We rarely, if ever in this column, cast direct dispersions on someone, but Justice Thomas is an idiot and if it were left solely to him to make legal decisions for this country, he'd tank the whole works. There, we said it.
Then again, what's the point of limits and laws and rules if everyone easily circumvents them? What we did find heartening is that everyone, from Mr. Weismann to Mr. McCutcheon to Senator Sununu, agreed that there should be transparency in terms of who donates what to whom. It would actually be better to have no limits but make it a firm law that full transparency is required than having faux limits with no transparency.
With full transparency, public opinion - whether it would accept or ostracize - would definitely make big donors think twice about where they're putting their money.
Round Table: Kathleen Parker, Washington Post Columnist; John E. Sununu, Fmr. New Hampshire Senator (R) and Boston Globe Contributor; Fmr. Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. (D-TN); and Steve Case, Fmr. Chairman & CEO of America Online.
A Last Note:
Harold Ford said the president shouldn't do a victory lap now that over seven million people have signed up for insurance through the exchanges. Mr. Ford is very much for the Affordable Care Act, but also has his concerns. We always find Mr. Ford's punditry frustrating because it seems as though he continual wants it both ways. Now, we realize that every issue has its nuance and every big law like the ACA is in need of fixing, but in terms wanting to have people listen to what you say, you have to sound as though you believe in something more solidly.
Pardoning that brief digression, at the end of this first marathon the president's run, where everyone and their mother has been sticking out a leg to try to trip you, he successfully crossed the finish. Take the lap.
Sunday, March 30, 2014
3.30.14: Politicians Pushing The Fragile Reality
Today's Meet The Press, guest moderated well by Chuck Todd, ran through a series of differing yet important topics, which we'll discuss individually, however, the phrase that comes to mind as an overriding theme is that 'politics is all about perception.' What makes that phrase relevant to the discussion about Mr. Putin and Russia, Governor Chris Christie, and President Obama and the Healthcare law is that all three characters are big on the offensive right now, portraying confidence. In observing their respective statements and posture, all of them are in a much weaker position than they let on.
First look at Mr. Putin, who called the U.S. president to discuss a diplomatic resolution to the crisis with Ukraine; the result of which is Secretary Kerry turning his plane around to meet with his Russian counterpart Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Paris. The call between the two leaders shows that amid all the militarily aggressive moves from Mr. Putin he knows that he's in a very vulnerable position. If the second round of sanctions that President Obama is pushing for with the U.S.'s European Allies are agreed upon, Russia's fragile economy is going to get much worse very quickly and in places like Crimea, such as in South Ossentia, they'll be thinking caveat emptor.. for sure.
With that said, the negotiations that Mr. Putin wants are a stall tactic to put off the sanctions. The Obama Administration should recognize this and impose the sanctions anyway.
And before going on, it's worth noting that Rick Santorum's assessment during the round table that this would not have happened and that the relationship is in 'tatters' due to the Obama Administration 'resetting from a position of weakness,' just shows his simplistic lack of depth of the subject.
Mr. Putin played his hand in Crimea, and is using the military build-up along the Ukrainian border as an attempt the broaden his leverage. Mr. Obama should now impose sanctions immediately to provide counter-pressure, and then negotiations should begin. As former ambassador to Moscow Mike McFaul said, Mr. Putin can not be given the leverage to start negotiating other countries' sovereignty. He phrased it, "What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable." That's the perception, but it isn't the reality unless the west makes it so. When Mr. Lavrov says that Russia has no intention of moving into Ukraine, but what he means is that they will not move unless given an excuse to do so.
Another politician, on the more local front, that's also making aggressive moves despite being in a very fragile position of legitimacy is New Jersey Governor Chris Christie who has been on a media offensive this week, showing off his old Christie-style bravado again to the press. He's on the offensive because he indeed knows the fragile reality, and that is his political career hangs in the balance.
When a lawyer, hired by Mr. Christie, issues a report this week that the governor commissioned which did not contain any interviews of any of the five key witnesses in the case, you know it's a purely political document that could in effect only raise suspicions of what really happened and who knew what when even more. And this is what Mr. Christie is hanging his hat on, but the big donors in Las Vegas, like us, aren't totally convinced. Mr. Christie's lawyer called it a vindication, but that's hardly the case at all. Even former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani admitted the report wasn't complete or conclusive, and he's been Mr. Christie's biggest defender. (After Mr. Giuliani admitted that fact, he spent the next few minutes ineffectively nuancing that answer.)
So to use our own forum to answer the Facebook question - Can Chris Christie's presidential prospects recover from the Bridge Scandal? - We'll say that he will to a degree, but this scandal (even if it doesn't blow up any further, which it will) along with other attacks will prevent him from ever getting the nomination.
Lastly, that brings us to the fragile potential success of Mr. Obama's signature healthcare law, the ACA, as we come to the registration deadline. Mr. Todd was spot on when he commented that Jonathan Cohn of The New Republic and Avik Roy of Forbes magazine had a very thoughtful policy debate and that he wished more were like that. Those are the types of debates that should be the standard of Meet The Press, and it's a shame you don't see them as much anymore.
Mr. Cohn, advocating for the law, noted that 6 million sign-ups is a promising sign and that it's too early to tell what the total is since young people tend to wait as long as possible. If the number were to stay at 6 million to start, you would still have to concede (if you oppose the law) that it was successful. However, to Mr. Roy's valid point, if not enough young people sign up, many people could see their premiums go up without receiving any benefit from the ACA. It could in fact end costing much more than Democrats let on, which will be politically disastrous.
Mr. Roy also didn't think the law was beyond repeal, and if you take any stock in the analysis Mr. Todd did on the races for Senate, it's a definite possibility. If Republicans gain control of the Senate to go along with control of the House, you know that a full repeal vote is the first thing on the agenda. But wouldn't that present its own fragile reality? You repeal the law, to the euphoria of the Republican base, but have no real alternative to replace it with in effect taking away insurance from millions of people. How well is that going to go over?
Round Table former Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum; national editor of the Cook Political Report Amy Walter; Peter Baker of the New York Times; and the youngest mayor in the history of Ithaca, NY, Svante Myrick
A Couple of Questions...
We're proud of Senator Ron Wyden's (D-Ore) stand in opposition to the N.S.A.'s mass data collection, but isn't odd that the Senator doesn't have a straight forward answer on the question of whether or not Edward Snowden is a criminal? What ever his answer, no matter, but he doesn't have one?
And when you see Meet The Press produce a new segment "Meeting America," doesn't it make you ask why they don't just bring back the "Meet The Press Minute?" keeping the content more directly relevant to the program itself. It does have the history that the other programs do not.
First look at Mr. Putin, who called the U.S. president to discuss a diplomatic resolution to the crisis with Ukraine; the result of which is Secretary Kerry turning his plane around to meet with his Russian counterpart Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Paris. The call between the two leaders shows that amid all the militarily aggressive moves from Mr. Putin he knows that he's in a very vulnerable position. If the second round of sanctions that President Obama is pushing for with the U.S.'s European Allies are agreed upon, Russia's fragile economy is going to get much worse very quickly and in places like Crimea, such as in South Ossentia, they'll be thinking caveat emptor.. for sure.
With that said, the negotiations that Mr. Putin wants are a stall tactic to put off the sanctions. The Obama Administration should recognize this and impose the sanctions anyway.
And before going on, it's worth noting that Rick Santorum's assessment during the round table that this would not have happened and that the relationship is in 'tatters' due to the Obama Administration 'resetting from a position of weakness,' just shows his simplistic lack of depth of the subject.
Mr. Putin played his hand in Crimea, and is using the military build-up along the Ukrainian border as an attempt the broaden his leverage. Mr. Obama should now impose sanctions immediately to provide counter-pressure, and then negotiations should begin. As former ambassador to Moscow Mike McFaul said, Mr. Putin can not be given the leverage to start negotiating other countries' sovereignty. He phrased it, "What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable." That's the perception, but it isn't the reality unless the west makes it so. When Mr. Lavrov says that Russia has no intention of moving into Ukraine, but what he means is that they will not move unless given an excuse to do so.
Another politician, on the more local front, that's also making aggressive moves despite being in a very fragile position of legitimacy is New Jersey Governor Chris Christie who has been on a media offensive this week, showing off his old Christie-style bravado again to the press. He's on the offensive because he indeed knows the fragile reality, and that is his political career hangs in the balance.
When a lawyer, hired by Mr. Christie, issues a report this week that the governor commissioned which did not contain any interviews of any of the five key witnesses in the case, you know it's a purely political document that could in effect only raise suspicions of what really happened and who knew what when even more. And this is what Mr. Christie is hanging his hat on, but the big donors in Las Vegas, like us, aren't totally convinced. Mr. Christie's lawyer called it a vindication, but that's hardly the case at all. Even former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani admitted the report wasn't complete or conclusive, and he's been Mr. Christie's biggest defender. (After Mr. Giuliani admitted that fact, he spent the next few minutes ineffectively nuancing that answer.)
So to use our own forum to answer the Facebook question - Can Chris Christie's presidential prospects recover from the Bridge Scandal? - We'll say that he will to a degree, but this scandal (even if it doesn't blow up any further, which it will) along with other attacks will prevent him from ever getting the nomination.
Lastly, that brings us to the fragile potential success of Mr. Obama's signature healthcare law, the ACA, as we come to the registration deadline. Mr. Todd was spot on when he commented that Jonathan Cohn of The New Republic and Avik Roy of Forbes magazine had a very thoughtful policy debate and that he wished more were like that. Those are the types of debates that should be the standard of Meet The Press, and it's a shame you don't see them as much anymore.
Mr. Cohn, advocating for the law, noted that 6 million sign-ups is a promising sign and that it's too early to tell what the total is since young people tend to wait as long as possible. If the number were to stay at 6 million to start, you would still have to concede (if you oppose the law) that it was successful. However, to Mr. Roy's valid point, if not enough young people sign up, many people could see their premiums go up without receiving any benefit from the ACA. It could in fact end costing much more than Democrats let on, which will be politically disastrous.
Mr. Roy also didn't think the law was beyond repeal, and if you take any stock in the analysis Mr. Todd did on the races for Senate, it's a definite possibility. If Republicans gain control of the Senate to go along with control of the House, you know that a full repeal vote is the first thing on the agenda. But wouldn't that present its own fragile reality? You repeal the law, to the euphoria of the Republican base, but have no real alternative to replace it with in effect taking away insurance from millions of people. How well is that going to go over?
Round Table former Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum; national editor of the Cook Political Report Amy Walter; Peter Baker of the New York Times; and the youngest mayor in the history of Ithaca, NY, Svante Myrick
A Couple of Questions...
We're proud of Senator Ron Wyden's (D-Ore) stand in opposition to the N.S.A.'s mass data collection, but isn't odd that the Senator doesn't have a straight forward answer on the question of whether or not Edward Snowden is a criminal? What ever his answer, no matter, but he doesn't have one?
And when you see Meet The Press produce a new segment "Meeting America," doesn't it make you ask why they don't just bring back the "Meet The Press Minute?" keeping the content more directly relevant to the program itself. It does have the history that the other programs do not.
Sunday, March 23, 2014
3.23.14: A Threat to the New World Order
"A threat to the new world order," is how New York Times columnist David Brooks described Russian President Vladimir Putin. Rich Lowry explained how when German Chancellor Angela Merkel met Putin, she thought he was 'living in a different world.' The new world order that Mr. Brooks was referring to is one in which economies are integrated and governments don't go invading other countries.
But it can be said that Mr. Putin is living very much in this world because taking that explanation at its face, the United States has also been in violation of what it quote-unquote civilized with its 2003 invasion of Iraq. We're not going to re-litigate that decision for the up-teenth time her today, but there needs to be clarification. What Mr. Brooks is referring to is an ideal, and it is certainly not the reality, but what he's saying is that a G8 country shouldn't be acting in this fashion. There are better ways to achieve power than how Mr. Putin is doing it, but let's face it - a self-absorbed greed is what permeates in this integrated world economy, and given that, anything is possible. And greed is not only relegated to monetary wealth and that's what we're seeing from Mr. Putin.
However, where he is making his biggest mistake is in his hubris that all of these aggressive moves that he has been making will stand without consequences. Not only will the west react as they have already begun to do with sanctions, but what happens as time goes by and all these people newly embraced by Russia realize that there lives have become no better because monetary help from the Kremlin is not coming. Nationalism is a very potent political aphrodisiac, as Andrea Mitchell pointed out, but it's only going to get you so far. Just ask the people of South Ossentia.
Mr. Putin respects the bully mentality and as he looks around the room at the other world leaders, there is no one stepping up that he thinks can slap him down so to speak, and unless President Obama does substantial as Mr. Brooks described, the Russian president will keep annexing resources. However, where we disagree with Mr. Brooks, Congressman Mike Rogers (R-MI) and National Review editor Rich Lowry is in outright arming the Ukrainians. If Mr. Putin continues to be aggressive and western Europe doesn't stand up to him in a unified manner, which they are reluctant to do, willing to have Ukraine's back as it were, then it won't matter how much weaponry you give them, they'll be rolled by the Russia army and you'll give Putin justification for doing so, however flimsy it may come off.
Rep. Rogers, speaking to Mr. Gregory in a prerecorded interview from the Republic of Georgia, presented an interest tidbit for all you conspiracy theorists out there that Edward Snowden who is under the control of Russian intelligence services has provided information to the Russian government that has made it easier Mr. Putin to make aggressive military moves. Mr. Gregory asked what evidence there was for thinking Mr. Snowden has cooperated with the Russians and all Mr. Rogers could offer is that it is a consensus belief in the intelligence community. His non-answer renders this theory as a bit of a stretch, but in a technologically integrated world its already been shown that one individual can cause an 'order changing' amount of chaos.
Round Table: NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell, New York Times columnist David Brooks, National Review Editor Rich Lowry and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter
On Another Note:
Obamacare is four years old this week and two things that were said within the round table discussion struck us: 1) that Rich Lowry was correct that if Republicans control the government in 2017, which is certainly possible, Obamacare will be repealed so it's not a definite that it's here to stay. David Brooks, on the other hand, said that while it's a good thing for many that they now have insurance, the cost controls touted by the president and Democratic officials will not happen. Obamacare is going to end up costing us a lot more than we all anticipated.
And yes, that's worrisome but it wouldn't be if the government did spend so many other dollars in the wrong places, just like the debate on today's program about whether or not college athletes should be paid or not. For us, the answer is no because as NCAA President Mark Emmert said, then they would cease to be students. We kept hearing this general notion that college sports is big business (we all know this as Reggie Love noted) and that universities are profiting heavily on the backs of these athletes. It seems to us that universities are just another place where they're spending big money in the wrong places. We don't claim to be experts but it seems obvious that this is the case - all these millions being made in the big business of college sports yet student loan debt in this country tops $1 trillion; why is that?
But it can be said that Mr. Putin is living very much in this world because taking that explanation at its face, the United States has also been in violation of what it quote-unquote civilized with its 2003 invasion of Iraq. We're not going to re-litigate that decision for the up-teenth time her today, but there needs to be clarification. What Mr. Brooks is referring to is an ideal, and it is certainly not the reality, but what he's saying is that a G8 country shouldn't be acting in this fashion. There are better ways to achieve power than how Mr. Putin is doing it, but let's face it - a self-absorbed greed is what permeates in this integrated world economy, and given that, anything is possible. And greed is not only relegated to monetary wealth and that's what we're seeing from Mr. Putin.
However, where he is making his biggest mistake is in his hubris that all of these aggressive moves that he has been making will stand without consequences. Not only will the west react as they have already begun to do with sanctions, but what happens as time goes by and all these people newly embraced by Russia realize that there lives have become no better because monetary help from the Kremlin is not coming. Nationalism is a very potent political aphrodisiac, as Andrea Mitchell pointed out, but it's only going to get you so far. Just ask the people of South Ossentia.
Mr. Putin respects the bully mentality and as he looks around the room at the other world leaders, there is no one stepping up that he thinks can slap him down so to speak, and unless President Obama does substantial as Mr. Brooks described, the Russian president will keep annexing resources. However, where we disagree with Mr. Brooks, Congressman Mike Rogers (R-MI) and National Review editor Rich Lowry is in outright arming the Ukrainians. If Mr. Putin continues to be aggressive and western Europe doesn't stand up to him in a unified manner, which they are reluctant to do, willing to have Ukraine's back as it were, then it won't matter how much weaponry you give them, they'll be rolled by the Russia army and you'll give Putin justification for doing so, however flimsy it may come off.
Rep. Rogers, speaking to Mr. Gregory in a prerecorded interview from the Republic of Georgia, presented an interest tidbit for all you conspiracy theorists out there that Edward Snowden who is under the control of Russian intelligence services has provided information to the Russian government that has made it easier Mr. Putin to make aggressive military moves. Mr. Gregory asked what evidence there was for thinking Mr. Snowden has cooperated with the Russians and all Mr. Rogers could offer is that it is a consensus belief in the intelligence community. His non-answer renders this theory as a bit of a stretch, but in a technologically integrated world its already been shown that one individual can cause an 'order changing' amount of chaos.
Round Table: NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell, New York Times columnist David Brooks, National Review Editor Rich Lowry and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter
On Another Note:
Obamacare is four years old this week and two things that were said within the round table discussion struck us: 1) that Rich Lowry was correct that if Republicans control the government in 2017, which is certainly possible, Obamacare will be repealed so it's not a definite that it's here to stay. David Brooks, on the other hand, said that while it's a good thing for many that they now have insurance, the cost controls touted by the president and Democratic officials will not happen. Obamacare is going to end up costing us a lot more than we all anticipated.
And yes, that's worrisome but it wouldn't be if the government did spend so many other dollars in the wrong places, just like the debate on today's program about whether or not college athletes should be paid or not. For us, the answer is no because as NCAA President Mark Emmert said, then they would cease to be students. We kept hearing this general notion that college sports is big business (we all know this as Reggie Love noted) and that universities are profiting heavily on the backs of these athletes. It seems to us that universities are just another place where they're spending big money in the wrong places. We don't claim to be experts but it seems obvious that this is the case - all these millions being made in the big business of college sports yet student loan debt in this country tops $1 trillion; why is that?
Sunday, March 16, 2014
3.16.14: Ukraine, Like a Mystery Airliner, Begs More Questions
With the entire world still wondering what exactly happened to Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, the Malaysian government has now opened up a criminal inquiry, meaning that the plane was purposely diverted by the pilot who also turned off the transponders cutting off any tracking capability. The information out there only leads to more questions about what happened to the plane. They can not find any wreckage debris but given the amount of time the plane was in the air after last contact, it had to be low on fuel. Whether a terrorist act, an accidental crash, or commitment to suicide, everything is speculation until the plane is found.
Where there are just as many questions with no clear answer is with the crisis in the Ukraine. Today, the Crimean region, which is officially part of the Ukraine, is holding a referendum on whether they will secede from Ukraine and join the Russian Federation. White House Senior Adviser Dan Pfeiffer stated that the referendum is an illegal act that the United States would not recognize it.
Moderator David Gregory said that he was working on the assumption that Crimea is lost to Russia and none of his three guests - Mr. Pfeiffer or Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) or Jeff Flake (R-AZ) could say anything to counter that assessment. And the fact is that President Putin, one way or another, is going to annex Crimea into the Russian Federation just as he had done with the Republic of Georgia.
All this leads to the question of whether Russia will then move into eastern Ukraine, emboldened by the lack of response from the west so far. However, the Senators and Mr. Pfeiffer said that sanctions, from both the United States and western European countries, would be forthcoming in days. The sanctions have been essentially approved by the United Nations security counsel that voted to condemn Russia's actions with regard to Crimea, with China notably abstaining.
We're of the opinion that the countries of the west should impose sanctions but we also think that the sanctions will provide the impetus for Russia to move into eastern Ukraine because at that point, Mr. Putin is going to care even less than he does now about what the west thinks or does. It goes with the logic that once you've made someone mad at you, the increasing degrees of which matter less and less. And what Putin, and everyone else for that matter, knows is that western Europe's appetite for a large scale military confrontation are nil. Europe simply will not go there again, but Mr. Putin will not even risk that outside chance so he annex as much as he possibly can, stopping just short of risking an armed confrontation.
Fresh off a trip in Ukraine, Senator Flake described the Ukrainian military as 'hollowed out.' Mr. Pfeiffer said that there was an economic aid package on the floor of Congress for a vote, but there wasn't one for military aid to the country, nor will there be, which translates into more leverage for Mr. Putin. With that, we found it refreshing that Mr. Flake, with a seemingly deeper understanding of the situation there, stated that there was nothing that President Obama said or did that further emboldened Mr. Putin to act the way he has - a concession that runs counter to what his fellow Republican colleague have been saying in criticism of the president.
But Senator Flake's candid observation runs tandem with something else that he said that we completely agree with, which is that there is nothing we can do to withstand a Russian move on the Ukraine. That's just being non-politically honest.
Senator Durbin didn't concede ground as easily but it was more than evident that the two men were certainly on the same page, as it were, which despite the direness of the situation, lends itself well to the notion of the United States having more sound foreign policy, at least for this particular circumstance.
That's certainly not the case on domestic issues despite Dan Pfeiffer thinking that there is still a window of opportunity for there to be immigration reform this year. The round table declared it all but dead as well, and for good reason. It's the perfect conundrum for the president in the eyes of Republicans, a classic lose-lose as it stands right now. For Democrats, as Mr. Gregory noted to the senior adviser, without immigration reform, Mr. Obama is becoming known as the deporter-in-chief while Republicans can rhetorically hammer away that the president wants to give amnesty to millions. There's no reason why Republicans would want to change that dynamic, especially in an election year.
Speaking to the overall trust issues the public has with the president and Washington in general, it's easily to understand why. You don't trust the president to get things done because you know that he will stiff opposition simply because of who he is, never mind the idea.
With the subject of truth in mind, the CIA spying on Congress? For now, we'll reserve comment while this develops... #politically juicy.
Round Table: NBC News Political Contributor Robert Gibbs, the Heritage Foundation’s Israel Ortega, Jon Ralston of “Ralston Reports,” and New York Times Washington Bureau Chief Carolyn Ryan
Where there are just as many questions with no clear answer is with the crisis in the Ukraine. Today, the Crimean region, which is officially part of the Ukraine, is holding a referendum on whether they will secede from Ukraine and join the Russian Federation. White House Senior Adviser Dan Pfeiffer stated that the referendum is an illegal act that the United States would not recognize it.
Moderator David Gregory said that he was working on the assumption that Crimea is lost to Russia and none of his three guests - Mr. Pfeiffer or Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) or Jeff Flake (R-AZ) could say anything to counter that assessment. And the fact is that President Putin, one way or another, is going to annex Crimea into the Russian Federation just as he had done with the Republic of Georgia.
All this leads to the question of whether Russia will then move into eastern Ukraine, emboldened by the lack of response from the west so far. However, the Senators and Mr. Pfeiffer said that sanctions, from both the United States and western European countries, would be forthcoming in days. The sanctions have been essentially approved by the United Nations security counsel that voted to condemn Russia's actions with regard to Crimea, with China notably abstaining.
We're of the opinion that the countries of the west should impose sanctions but we also think that the sanctions will provide the impetus for Russia to move into eastern Ukraine because at that point, Mr. Putin is going to care even less than he does now about what the west thinks or does. It goes with the logic that once you've made someone mad at you, the increasing degrees of which matter less and less. And what Putin, and everyone else for that matter, knows is that western Europe's appetite for a large scale military confrontation are nil. Europe simply will not go there again, but Mr. Putin will not even risk that outside chance so he annex as much as he possibly can, stopping just short of risking an armed confrontation.
Fresh off a trip in Ukraine, Senator Flake described the Ukrainian military as 'hollowed out.' Mr. Pfeiffer said that there was an economic aid package on the floor of Congress for a vote, but there wasn't one for military aid to the country, nor will there be, which translates into more leverage for Mr. Putin. With that, we found it refreshing that Mr. Flake, with a seemingly deeper understanding of the situation there, stated that there was nothing that President Obama said or did that further emboldened Mr. Putin to act the way he has - a concession that runs counter to what his fellow Republican colleague have been saying in criticism of the president.
But Senator Flake's candid observation runs tandem with something else that he said that we completely agree with, which is that there is nothing we can do to withstand a Russian move on the Ukraine. That's just being non-politically honest.
Senator Durbin didn't concede ground as easily but it was more than evident that the two men were certainly on the same page, as it were, which despite the direness of the situation, lends itself well to the notion of the United States having more sound foreign policy, at least for this particular circumstance.
That's certainly not the case on domestic issues despite Dan Pfeiffer thinking that there is still a window of opportunity for there to be immigration reform this year. The round table declared it all but dead as well, and for good reason. It's the perfect conundrum for the president in the eyes of Republicans, a classic lose-lose as it stands right now. For Democrats, as Mr. Gregory noted to the senior adviser, without immigration reform, Mr. Obama is becoming known as the deporter-in-chief while Republicans can rhetorically hammer away that the president wants to give amnesty to millions. There's no reason why Republicans would want to change that dynamic, especially in an election year.
Speaking to the overall trust issues the public has with the president and Washington in general, it's easily to understand why. You don't trust the president to get things done because you know that he will stiff opposition simply because of who he is, never mind the idea.
With the subject of truth in mind, the CIA spying on Congress? For now, we'll reserve comment while this develops... #politically juicy.
Round Table: NBC News Political Contributor Robert Gibbs, the Heritage Foundation’s Israel Ortega, Jon Ralston of “Ralston Reports,” and New York Times Washington Bureau Chief Carolyn Ryan
Sunday, March 09, 2014
3.9.14: Who's Teaching Whom?
President Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken and Congressman Peter King (R-NY) both explained on today's program that the United States should impose 'iron-clad' sanctions on Russia and freeze the assets of the oligarchs that run the country. But you know who's not on board with this strategy? Andrea Mitchell pointed out that Germany and U.S. corporations are hesitant about this strategy. For Germany, we understand because Russia is a major trading partner for them and a lot of natural gas from Russia is exported to Germany. However, for U.S. corporations, all we can say is, "Suck it up."
Is the United States run by its corporations? The answer is [should be] no, but what does it say that of ourselves as Americans that our corporations have so much influence on U.S. foreign policy? If you consider that our Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are essentially people and these 'people' with all the money have influence over the foreign policy of the U.S. government, we would call those people - you guessed it - oligarchs.
It was good to hear Mr. Blinken say that the president has been working the phones with foreign leaders over the weekend because this is really where it counts. The United States is not going to get into an actually war with Russia, but the aggression Putin's government has exercised in Crimea can not stand. All this means is that President Obama needs to get everyone on board with the idea of isolating Russia economically. Energy supplies are the most significant point of leverage, as we know, and the United States should bully its way to a larger share of the European energy market, pushing Russia aside. This along with sanctions would have a real impact on Russia's bullying behavior.
However, one very troubling development in this crisis is the upcoming referendum Crimea is having as to whether or not to break from the Ukraine and join Russia. Mr. Blinken rightly said that the United States would not recognize the outcome if the people of the Crimean region decided to join the Russian Federation, which they technically can not do because they are part of the Ukraine, point of fact. But where does that leave things. Is the Ukraine going to throw itself into civil war where Ukrainian troops are basically fighting a war with Russia? Given what Mr. Blinken said, the United States would side with Ukraine, which put the U.S. directly into the conflict. The United States
Senior Political Columnist and Editorial Director at the National Journal Ron Fournier asked the best question - where is the United States intelligence community (C.I.A./ N.S.A.) in all this? With all the uproar about the N.S.A.'s capability to listen to everyone's conversations, you mean to tell us that no general in Russia made a phone call to tell the troops where to go? The United States has the capability to act proactively, but it seems that they can only be reactive and as long as they are in that position, they'll not be able to stem Russia's aggressive moves.
New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan called Pope Francis a good teacher because he gets us asking questions that we don't necessarily know the answers to. By that rationale, Mr. Putin has been a good teacher to the United States because he definitely has the administration asking questions. As Mr. Fournier mentioned, the United States government needs to see Mr. Putin as he is (judging him by his actions) instead of how they expect him to be. It's now painfully evident that Mr. Putin's government doesn't shared any of the same attitudes as the Obama Administration on anything foreign policy related. As Mr. Gregory reported, Mr. Obama and Mr. Putin are talking past one another.
Even though Mr. Reed had unequivocal criticism of President Obama in the way he's handling the situation in the Ukraine, he said there are no real answers. Then he went on to say that the president's option are indeed limited but what ever option he goes with, he must project strength. As unhelpful and empty as Mr. Reed's criticism was, the strength will come from the United States rallying its allies and friends - it's the only way.
While we're commenting on Mr. Reed's statements, we understand him to be a man of faith. After all, he is the Chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, but given that, we just can not put him in the same pious category as Pope Francis, or Cardinal Timothy Dolan for that matter. Mr. Reed expressed that the poor is the center of the gospel and the Republicans' message needs to include them. Fair enough but if you consider that the Republicans voted to cut food stamps for the poor while maintaining agribusiness subsidies, one would conclude evidence to the contrary. Also Mr. Reed, with his statements and body language, comes off completely disingenuous to us, as evidenced when he untruthfully said that most millennials are pro-life, when 6 in 10 are in fact pro-choice.
And to not just call Mr. Reed's credibility into question, we have to call attention to something Cardinal Dolan said about his interpretation of what Pope Francis is trying to do while leading the Catholic Church. He said that the Pope was trying to restore the luster of the Church, to bring back the romanticism and the mystery. What?
That's what he wants, but it's a complete misreading of what we've seen of this pope's actions and statements where he has expressed openness, compassion and contrition. 'Mystery,' Cardinal Dolan, translates into 'lack of transparency' which means 'stop asking questions.' Mystery is what got the Church into trouble in the first place, and yes, they should be singled out for their actions contrary to what the Cardinal said. After all, they profess to be teachers, teachers of the word of God.
Jeez...
Round Table: California Democratic Congresswoman Karen Bass; Chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition Ralph Reed; Senior Political Columnist and Editorial Director at the National Journal, Ron Fournier; and NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell.
Is the United States run by its corporations? The answer is [should be] no, but what does it say that of ourselves as Americans that our corporations have so much influence on U.S. foreign policy? If you consider that our Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are essentially people and these 'people' with all the money have influence over the foreign policy of the U.S. government, we would call those people - you guessed it - oligarchs.
It was good to hear Mr. Blinken say that the president has been working the phones with foreign leaders over the weekend because this is really where it counts. The United States is not going to get into an actually war with Russia, but the aggression Putin's government has exercised in Crimea can not stand. All this means is that President Obama needs to get everyone on board with the idea of isolating Russia economically. Energy supplies are the most significant point of leverage, as we know, and the United States should bully its way to a larger share of the European energy market, pushing Russia aside. This along with sanctions would have a real impact on Russia's bullying behavior.
However, one very troubling development in this crisis is the upcoming referendum Crimea is having as to whether or not to break from the Ukraine and join Russia. Mr. Blinken rightly said that the United States would not recognize the outcome if the people of the Crimean region decided to join the Russian Federation, which they technically can not do because they are part of the Ukraine, point of fact. But where does that leave things. Is the Ukraine going to throw itself into civil war where Ukrainian troops are basically fighting a war with Russia? Given what Mr. Blinken said, the United States would side with Ukraine, which put the U.S. directly into the conflict. The United States
Senior Political Columnist and Editorial Director at the National Journal Ron Fournier asked the best question - where is the United States intelligence community (C.I.A./ N.S.A.) in all this? With all the uproar about the N.S.A.'s capability to listen to everyone's conversations, you mean to tell us that no general in Russia made a phone call to tell the troops where to go? The United States has the capability to act proactively, but it seems that they can only be reactive and as long as they are in that position, they'll not be able to stem Russia's aggressive moves.
New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan called Pope Francis a good teacher because he gets us asking questions that we don't necessarily know the answers to. By that rationale, Mr. Putin has been a good teacher to the United States because he definitely has the administration asking questions. As Mr. Fournier mentioned, the United States government needs to see Mr. Putin as he is (judging him by his actions) instead of how they expect him to be. It's now painfully evident that Mr. Putin's government doesn't shared any of the same attitudes as the Obama Administration on anything foreign policy related. As Mr. Gregory reported, Mr. Obama and Mr. Putin are talking past one another.
Even though Mr. Reed had unequivocal criticism of President Obama in the way he's handling the situation in the Ukraine, he said there are no real answers. Then he went on to say that the president's option are indeed limited but what ever option he goes with, he must project strength. As unhelpful and empty as Mr. Reed's criticism was, the strength will come from the United States rallying its allies and friends - it's the only way.
While we're commenting on Mr. Reed's statements, we understand him to be a man of faith. After all, he is the Chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, but given that, we just can not put him in the same pious category as Pope Francis, or Cardinal Timothy Dolan for that matter. Mr. Reed expressed that the poor is the center of the gospel and the Republicans' message needs to include them. Fair enough but if you consider that the Republicans voted to cut food stamps for the poor while maintaining agribusiness subsidies, one would conclude evidence to the contrary. Also Mr. Reed, with his statements and body language, comes off completely disingenuous to us, as evidenced when he untruthfully said that most millennials are pro-life, when 6 in 10 are in fact pro-choice.
And to not just call Mr. Reed's credibility into question, we have to call attention to something Cardinal Dolan said about his interpretation of what Pope Francis is trying to do while leading the Catholic Church. He said that the Pope was trying to restore the luster of the Church, to bring back the romanticism and the mystery. What?
That's what he wants, but it's a complete misreading of what we've seen of this pope's actions and statements where he has expressed openness, compassion and contrition. 'Mystery,' Cardinal Dolan, translates into 'lack of transparency' which means 'stop asking questions.' Mystery is what got the Church into trouble in the first place, and yes, they should be singled out for their actions contrary to what the Cardinal said. After all, they profess to be teachers, teachers of the word of God.
Jeez...
Round Table: California Democratic Congresswoman Karen Bass; Chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition Ralph Reed; Senior Political Columnist and Editorial Director at the National Journal, Ron Fournier; and NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell.
Sunday, March 02, 2014
3.2.14: What Do Secretary Kerry's Tough Words for Russia Really Mean
Secretary of State John Kerry did not mince words on today's Meet The Press when discussing Russia's actions in the Ukraine saying at the start that Russia's sending of troops into the Crimean region of the Ukraine was 19th century behavior in the 21st century. He then posed the possibility of the Putin government creating a phony pretext to annex the region, later calling it an invasion. In between other statements, he called Russia a kleptocracy and Mr. Putin himself a tyrant.
So let's just clarify that yes, indeed, Mr. Putin wants to annex control of the Crimean region, clearly, and while central governmental control in Kiev is haplessly weak, Mr. Putin is free to move in. As was the general consensus amongst the round table guests, Mr. Putin is not a leader that cares in the slightest what other around the world think. He is going to do everything he can within his power to restore Russian greatness, as he sees it. Plus the Crimean region is mostly ethnically Russian so people can see annexation as something very different - protection. And in Mr. Putin's mind, it's time for Russia to have complete territorial access to their Black Sea Fleet.
Despite the tough words from Secretary Kerry, Mr. Putin knows that President Obama's response will be limited. In fact, when the moderator, Mr. Gregory, asked the Secretary what the 'or else' would be when Mr. Obama warned Russia on Friday that they shouldn't act military against the Ukraine 'or else,' he didn't really have an answer. Realizing this, he outlined the economic actions the United States could take to pressure Russia in pulling back. He mentioned the G8 Summit that is supposed to happen in Sochi and its possible cancellation with the potential of expelling Russia from the G8. However, we agree with Chuck Todd who said that the summit should already be cancelled, no more warnings that it might be. In fact, in hindsight, the U.S. should have taken these steps with Russia because of their actions in Syria and their support of Assad.
And does anyone see it as a good idea, in Russia or the United States, to have a hot war between the two countries? Everyone's trying to avoid the reinstatement of a new cold war, however, if you take Secretary Kerry at his word, that's exactly what we're headed for. The round table seemed in agreement that the U.S. should already be hitting Russia hard with economic sanctions, along with their NATO allies, they should isolate Russia economically.
Here's the rub, as was pointed out, Mr. Putin doesn't care what others think and given that he'll do business with whomever he wants whether or not the United States likes it or not; countries lie Iran, Syria, Nigeria, and North Korea come to mind. His actions indicate that he has no problem moving completely away from the European Union and the West all together.
With all the talk of the geo-political consequences for Russia's actions, it still is about the Ukraine and its people and the country is just that, a country that has sovereignty, it's not a province of Russia so Mr. Kerry was justified in calling the Russian troops moving into the Ukraine, an invasion. With such talk from the Secretary of State, which followed Mr. Obama's Friday statements, some definitive action must be taken, no more moving around the periphery. Mr. Obama faces unprecedented hatred domestically and has tried to be well liked instead by all of the international community. It's time to ruffle feathers and establish that the notion that Russia needs to be part of the international community more than the international community needs Russia to be included. The means also forcing China to make a decision but that's a topic for another day.
Given that Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), a member of Foreign Relations Committee, also appeared on the program to comment on the situation in the Ukraine, it must be noted that what hampers the president's credibility to act is the fact that Republicans do not have his back. Senator Rubio said that he was encouraged by Mr. Kerry's statements, but went on to criticize the president's relations his approach to Russia. What Republicans in Congress need to recognize that Mr. Kerry is speaking on behalf of the president and that they all need to get together - leaders of both parties to craft a responsible course of action.
Remember that Mr. Kerry advocated sending missiles into Syria and when the President brought it to Congress because they constantly complained that the president wasn't consulting them, they rejected a military option, internationally making the president look weak, which was a stupid thing to do.
Having said that, Mr. Rubio's words for Russia were just as harsh as Mr. Kerry's, calling Russia a government of liars and going so far to say that Russia is an enemy of the United States. Mr. Rubio isn't ready for prime time [read: He's not presidential material], but he is a Senator and a member of the Foreign Relations committee and as such he and other Republican leaders need to work with the president on a policy that is best for the United States as it relates to Russia, or these provocative moves by Mr. Putin will continue.
The precedent was set with the military action Mr. Putin took in Georgia during the Bush Administration. Democrats, especially Senatorial ones, needed to help strengthen the president's hand then with Mr. Putin and didn't do it. It was a diplomatic failure of inaction that is being played out again in the Ukraine. On one degree though, we have to be fair to Democrats in saying that Mr. Cheney was a major impediment for cooperation between the two parities. The United States government needs to get passed it because if they can talk all the tough words they can muster, either party, but they won't make a difference in changing rivals' behavior because the U.S. government can't ever seem to state them with one unified voice, hence they would mean nothing and emboldening Mr. Putin even more.
Round Table: Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, Washington Post columnist
Kathleen Parker, NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd, Founder of
Women in the World Tina Brown, and Bloomberg View columnist Jeffrey
Goldberg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)