Today Gen. Petraeus and Amb Crocker came before the Sen. Foreign Relations and Defense Committees. I was interested to see how the presidential candidates handled it. There is a running diary by Tom Ricks on the WAPO that gives a good summary of the days events. Here’s a post at DailyKos that also discusses how the hearings transpired. Overall I think Hillary went for the outraged gentile attack, McCain took fire for his party as the ranking minority member, and Obama came across as seriously focused and down to business.

The Daily Kos post summarizes it well:

UPDATE IV: George Voinovich was very impressive; I’ll try to find a transcript. Obama is up right now. He’s getting right on to asking questions instead of making a speech. He corners Petraeus about Al Qaeda in Iraq, saying they weren’t in there before we invaded. And he’s asking whether we can ever reach a point where AQI couldn’t reconstitute themselves. He’s trying to pin down Petraeus on some metrics. This seems like a windup for a big pitch. I LOVE that he mentioned that Maliki said there was no room in the security forces for the Sunni Awakening groups and yet he recently added 10,000 Shiite Badr Brigade members, and he’s picked up on Sen. Boxer’s point that the Iraqi government is as pro-Iranian as the “special groups” that Crocker claims is the source of all Iraq’s problems. I think Obama’s remarks reflect a facility with the situation on the ground and a reasonable expectation of the goals we can expect in Iraq when we eventually withdraw. Best of all, Obama is doing his job instead of grandstanding. He added that the two malign groups Crocker and Petraeus keep discussing, AQI and Iran, were a DIRECT result of our initial invasion. He did an excellent job.

Read the Obama Transcript here for the entire conversation but here are a few particular exchanges that I thought were enlightening. You must read the whole exchange to really get a feel for his handling of it as he sets the groundwork perfectly then he jumps in with the tough questions once Petraeus and Crocker were in vulnerable positions. He wasn’t there for a gottcha moment but rather to get them on record on the true nature of the Iraq debate.

OBAMA: Should we be successful in Mosul, should you continue, General, with the effective operations that you’ve been engaged in, assuming that in that narrow military effort we are successful, do we anticipate that there ever comes a time where Al Qaida in Iraq could not reconstitute itself?

GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS, COMMANDER, MULTI-NATIONAL FORCE-IRAQ: Well, I think the question, Senator, is whether Iraqi security forces over time, with much less help, could deal with their efforts to reconstitute. I think it’s…

OBAMA: That’s my point.

PETRAEUS: I think it’s a given that Al Qaida-Iraq will try to reconstitute just as any movement of that type does try to reconstitute. And the question is whether…

OBAMA: I don’t mean — don’t mean to interrupt you, but I just want to sharpen the question so that — because I think you’re getting right at my point here.

I mean, if one of our criteria for success is ensuring that Al Qaida does not have a base of operations in Iraq, I just want to harden a little bit the metrics by which we’re measuring that.

At what point do we say they cannot reconstitute themselves or are we saying that they’re not going to be particularly effective and the Iraqis, themselves, will be able to handle the situation?

PETRAEUS: I think it’s really the latter, Senator, that, again, if you can keep chipping away at them, chipping away at their leadership, chipping away at the resources, that comprehensive approach that I mentioned, that, over time — and we are reaching that in some other areas already.

…

OBAMA: OK. I just want to be clear if I’m understanding. We don’t anticipate that there’s never going to be some individual or group of individuals in Iraq that might have sympathies toward Al Qaida. Our goal is not to hunt down and eliminate every single trace, but rather to create a manageable situation where they’re not posing a threat to Iraq or using it as a base to launch attacks outside of Iraq. Is that accurate?

PETRAEUS: That is exactly right.

More after the Jump……

And Another…

OBAMA: And so my final — and I’ll even pose this as a question and I won’t — you don’t necessarily have to answer it — maybe it’s a rhetorical question — if we were able to have the status quo in Iraq right now without U.S. troops, would that be a sufficient definition of success?

It’s obviously not perfect. There’s still violence, there’s still some traces of Al Qaida, Iran has influence more than we would like. But if we had the current status quo, and yet our troops had been drawn down to 30,000, would we consider that a success? Would that meet our criteria, or would that not be good enough and we’d have to devote even more resources to it?

CROCKER: Senator, I can’t imagine the current status quo being sustainable with that kind of precipitous drawdown.

BIDEN: That wasn’t the question.

OBAMA: No, no, that wasn’t the question. I’m not suggesting that we yank all our troops out all the way. I’m trying to get to an endpoint. That’s what all of us have been trying to get to.

And, see, the problem I have is if the definition of success is so high, no traces of Al Qaida and no possibility of reconstitution, a highly-effective Iraqi government, a Democratic multiethnic, multi- sectarian functioning democracy, no Iranian influence, at least not of the kind that we don’t like, then that portends the possibility of us staying for 20 or 30 years.

If, on the other hand, our criteria is a messy, sloppy status quo but there’s not, you know, huge outbreaks of violence, there’s still corruption, but the country is struggling along, but it’s not a threat to its neighbors and it’s not an Al Qaida base, that seems to me an achievable goal within a measurable timeframe, and that, I think, is what everybody here on this committee has been trying to drive at, and we haven’t been able to get as clear of an answer as we would like.

….

Share

It is being reported that Zimbabwee President/Dictator Mugabe may be looking for a way to leave power and turn things over to the opposition. (Update: BBC is reporting this is not the case according to the opposition and the government) This comes after an election where observers say the opposition clearly won (we are talking exit polling essentially, which can mean little especially in a politically under-analyzed and politically undeveloped location where voting priorities and allegiances may be obscured.), while the official results are being delayed. Initially it was thought the results were being delayed so that falsification of the results could occur and Mugabe could be named the winner, but it is increasingly looking like that possibility will not be coming a reality.

This would be an interesting development as it would mean that democratic elections would potentially result in the ouster of this dictator who could easily be said to have taken his country to the cusp of irrelevancy and a dire state of economic distress. I’m personally not that clear on what the opposition will bring to the table that will benefit the average Zimbabwean, but Mugabe and his party have really messed the country up so I assume this is a good thing. But only time will tell if Mugabe actually leaves, peacefully or not, and weather whoever may replace him is any better for the country in the end.

A couple other links on this:

NY Times

BBC - They are denying any agreement or talks in the works so maybe this is all premature.

 Update (4/2/2008):   It is looking good for the opposition. The ZANU-PF (Mugabe’s party) is behind 50 to 43%. The Wash Post is still reporting a runoff may be necessary, but that doesn’t make sense considering the opposition party has 50.%

Share

Well a needed “vacation” from politics was necessary for me to keep my wits about me. The microfication of everything having to do with this election is causing things to get overwhelming. I’m a junkie so I can only imagine the type of political atrophy the general voting populous is feeling because of all the blabber. Then again maybe I just see more of it. Speaking of blabber, a great(well maybe just decent) article here on the Washington Post about all the punditry and worthlessness of what we call cable news. The general gist is at least somewhat accurate in my mind.

Share

His speech was amazing today and I would be willing to guess that it outlives the campaign. I don’t really have words that haven’t already been expressed here and here amongst may others. The NY Times just released an editorial that is particularly poignant. I hope this is the beginning of a new chapter in the American experience, lead by a statesman who is willing to teach and to direct us through the many difficult and complex issues we face.

The following quote from the NY Times Editorial sums up his speech for me.

Mr. Obama’s eloquent speech should end the debate over his ties to Mr. Wright since there is nothing to suggest that he would carry religion into government. But he did not stop there. He put Mr. Wright, his beliefs and the reaction to them into the larger context of race relations with an honesty seldom heard in public life.

and

We can’t know how effective Mr. Obama’s words will be with those who will not draw the distinctions between faith and politics that he drew, or who will reject his frank talk about race. What is evident, though, is that he not only cleared the air over a particular controversy — he raised the discussion to a higher plane.

You can view his speech here or read it here, though you must see it to appreciate his tone and presentation. Hopefully this is the beginning of the discussion. This man is exactly what we need in a President, someone who can teach, someone who can lead, and someone who can filter the spurious and irrelevant from the important and valuable.

Share

Bear Stearns has been sold to JPMorgan for $250 million. That is straight up phenomenal. I’m a little disappointed about this part:

The companies said that the Federal Reserve would provide special financing in connection with the transaction and that the Fed had agreed to fund up to $30 billion of Bear Stearns’s “less-liquid assets.”

I don’t think we should be bailing out these fools for getting us into this mess in the first place. That doesn’t pass the sniff test. First we print $200 billion which I hear is half the amount the Fed has available to hand out, and now we are backing the riskiest securities of the now dead investment bank. More info on the steps leading up to this available at DailyKos. Get the money printing press going, time to start printing those greenbacks, money for everyone, at least if you’re an investment bank serving the richest of the rich and only the rich. We wouldn’t want the home in the Hamptons to be foreclosed on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/business/16cnd-bear.html

Share

I originally intended to do a regular column on my picks for good tracks, albums, and artists. I’ve been a little negligent in my responsibilities so here is the first issue of Brian’s Music Picks.

The picks this week are focused on EDM (electronic dance music). I have 3 tracks I found particularly appealing, one which has been very recently released and should not be a surprise and another which I found by happenstance which I also found to be a good tune. See the reviews and comments below and follow the links to Beatport to listen to a sample.

Eric Prydz - Pjanoo - Original Mix

This track is a recent release and it should be no surprise that it will be a hit. It is Eric Prydz. I love the repeating lead and how the bass line acoustically changes the feel and cadence of the lead. It may not be groundbreaking, but it is sure to be a club hit and has a great drive to it. Below is a youtube video of the song.

Oliver Klein and Martin Eyerer - Babylon

A great techno track, this song has a minimal feel to it, but doesn’t carry the occasionally overly simplistic monotonous sounds that many other minimal tracks have (that sound where you think a ten year old could have created that). It take something special to take a minimal tack from mediocre to quality. The xylophone like lead has a varying beat that is ever changing but at the same time not grating or unsettling.

Hybrid - Finished Symphony - Deadmau5 Remix

This track is from 2007 so it is far from new, but it still has been flowing through my playlist and I had to throw it in there. I usually loathe strings, synthesized or real in EDM tracks, but somehow Hybrid does it with ease and Deadmau5 applies its characteristic sound in surprisingly effective fashion. Warning: It still sounds like Deadmau5 once things get rolling, so if you suffer from Deadmau5 repetition headaches you may want to avoid this track.

Share

We have a sub-prime crisis that is ravaging consumers and multinational banks alike. So what do I open today? a notice that I’m eligible for the Economic Stimulus Payment that could pay me up to $600 this year.

Dear Taxpayer,

We are pleased to inform you that the United States Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed into law the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, which provides for economic stimulus payments to be made to over 120 American households. Under this new law, you may e entitled to a payment of up to $600 (%1,200 if filing a joint return), plus additional amounts for each qualifying child.

Some may be saying yipee, but I’m sitting here thinking, what does this really do? What am I going to do with $600? I’d prefer the gov’t use it to pay down the debt, but that isn’t going to happen. How does $600 really solve anyone’s problems? At most this is maybe one month of rent, one month of child care, one month of food for a family. It is a small statement and its going to some people who have no need for it. That money would be better spent providing healthcare and other services that would save people much money in the long run. Citizens of this country would benefit more from better healthcare both in cost and care, a solvent Social Security system, VA benefits for war wounded, than they will from this $600 infusion. This is nothing but pandering and is more likely to end up going towards a new plasma TV that it is going to help cover the bare necessities. Does anyone else find this vaguely insulting?

“You lose your home or job? here’s $600 bucks, have a round on me.”

Share

For me, the past week has been filled with commentary on the lack of oversight and standards on the part of our government. It started with watching Whiskey Romeo Zulu, an Argentine film about corruption in that country’s discount airline business. This seems quite timely considering the current controversy over Southwest Airline’s trouble with inspecting airplanes. It was a excellent film based on a true story and the lead role of Enrique Piñeyro was actually played by Enrique Piñeyro. How’s that for realism. It served to illustrate how corporate greed and motivations, when unchecked, can lead to great harms to society. We must always be vigilant, especially in this age of cost-cutting where often the first corner’s cut are those regarding safety, the environment and workers rights.

Later that evening I watched the investigative magazine Frontline’s episode: A Dangerous Business. This episode chronicalled the labor, safety and environmental offenses of a steel pipe manufacturer, McWane. The original report in addition to the reporting by the NY Times back in 2003 resulted in civil and criminal litigation against the company, managers, and supervisors. Supposedly McWane has cleaned up its act in the aftermath of a situation where even the Bush administration was forced to take action because the grievances were so bad. The company’s safety practices were responsible for over 5 deaths in its plants and its environmental practices were responsible for serious pollution violations in the Delaware River and elsewhere. The story illustrated how most worker safety regulations limit penalties to misdemeanors, while environmental penalties can result in million of dollars in fines and years in prison. Both types of crimes should result in strict penalties for corporations. Both result in deaths and long-term consequences for our communities and society.

The week finished off with Bill Moyer’s Journal on PBS on Friday night. This seemed to be a repeat, but nontheless it was an hour interview with Henry Waxman (D-CA) discussing all the happenings in the House Oversight Committee over the last year. Everything from Iraq reconstruction, political activities in GSA (Doan and the Hatch Act), and the use of private security contractors (Blackwater) was discussed. It was depressing in seeing all that is wrong with the system right now, but it also underlined the point that the President is such an important individual, especially in an environment when the Congress seems to be willing to cede its oversight responsibility to the executive. Waxman at times seemed like he didn’t want to take responsibility for having to be the one who initiates the changes. He was aghast congress allowed this to occur, but it begged the question: aren’t you a member of congress and why didn’t you introduce legislation to address all these concerns? Now he did in some cases and his oversight activities now are greatly appreciated, but I feel like many representatives seem so surprised in what is happening in their legislative body. You don’t need to be in the majority to be vocal about preventing these types of activities.

Share

Russia recently “elected” its new President Dmitry Medvedev to follow Vladimir Putin. Many are writing off this change as nothing more than window dressing and expect Putin to continue to hold most of the political power. This may be the case especially due to the current structure of elites, where you have different factions fighting over control of private and public resources, each with the backing of their own security services.

However, there are small signs that he may put his own spin on the Russian political scene. Medvedev is probably slightly less beholden to security services and more closely connected with the economic liberals in the state, elite bureaucracy. The liberal faction and the Siloviki have increasingly been at loggerheads over the past couple years with each side using the courts, prosecutor’s office, FSB (KGB successor), and Drug police to push their own interests at the expense of the other side. Major flashpoints have included the natural resource monopolies such as Gasprom and Rosneft along with the state controlled arms exporter, Rosoroboroneksport, which has been expanding its international commitments and visibility substantially.

So, what will the next 4 years look like under Medvedev? An increase in prominence of the liberal St. Petersburg Liberals, or the strengthening of the FSB aligned organizations? I think initially the liberals will gain in influence, especially as people become tiresome of the corruption that reigns at the local level. The state control of national industries is not really about nationalization and the common good but the pocketbooks of powerful bureaucrats and politicians. State action for “the people” is really just a mask for appropriation by another group of criminals. It is the 90’s only the owners happen to be state representatives who are buying nice dachas.

I then predict a big push, motivated by declining oil and gas production yields due to low investment, towards reducing corruption in the major state industries and possibly more partnerships with western companies. Russia will not be able to fulfill all the export contracts it has signed and will end up in a bind reducing its position as the energy provider of first resort for Europe. Russia’s quick rise to prominence over the last 7 years will then collapse as the domestic situation continues to get worse and unrest grows.

The Putin high can only last so long and eventually major change will occur. Whether this becomes a gradual change to political liberal democracy or more authoritarian rule is anyone’s guess, but I would hazard to guess the hybrid Putin created is over. Only time will tell and I can only provide my thoughts as a starting point. What does anyone else think?

Share

Well, that was disappointing and anti-climactic, but is it really anything we didn’t expect? The last few days have arguably been Obama’s worst few days in the whole campaign. He was down by 10-20 points in Ohio and Texas after Wisconsin so its obvious that his message was resonating. But this isn’t the time to grovel, that should have been over after breakfast.

We may have lost a battle but we still are winning the war. We can’t sit back now and become complacent or think that this is too hard to stand up for what is right and good anymore. That isn’t an option. If we really care about what our future will look like, if we really believe Barak Obama can make a difference for us all, then we owe it to ourselves and to each other to keep fighting, and fight harder.  This is where we dig in and push for the finish line.

We are being tested and we must not fold when times get hard. We need to show the pundits, the cynics, the doubters, and the Republicans out there who would have us rot into oblivion that this movement isn’t an empty call for change, but a promise to fight for our future.

—————————–

Get involved! I know I’m going to do more than just write blog posts now. Go to www.barakobama.com and sign-up to make phone calls in upcoming states. Write letters to the editor, join groups of other Obama activists. We may be late to the cause but I know I sure won’t be giving up.

Share