Kartik's world

CNBC is Dangerous

2009-03-16T09:54:00.000-04:00

My colleague Scott Gaillard penned a very instructive piece about Jim Cramer the other day. I agree with his sentiments entirely on Cramer. But I want to thank Jon Stewart for his willingness to take on this fight: for several years now I have complained about CNBC outward bias to anyone who was interested in listening. I had even said to many that I believe CNBC to be a bigger threat to progressive causes than Fox News. This was often met with laughter or a simple, "you're crazy" from whomever I was speaking to.

Here is why:

CNBC is a network of the intelligentsia. The average CNBC viewer unlike the average FOX News viewer has the resources and the capability to shape opinion. CNBC is also a network staffed by intelligent, sometimes witty people unlike FOX which is staffed by talking heads and glorified news readers who parrot the same arguments over and over. Perhaps most importantly FOX talks about divisive social issues which have little bearing on our everyday life while CNBC talks about basic economics and the markets which affect everything we do regularly.

CNBC has popular show hosts like Cramer, and Mario Bartiromo whose job it appears is simply to pump up the market and the profits of the Wall Street tycoons that patron the network. Rick Santelli's outburst at President Obama a few weeks ago was far from an isolated incident, but just the letting out of entitlement CNBC's personalities have towards protecting lenders, investors and corporations from what they perceive as the heavy hand of Government.

Cramer is actually much more likable and objective than the average CNBC host on after 11 am ET. Bartiromo pushes anything that may help pump the market upwards while Larry Kudlow advocates cutting taxes almost every day. The Afternoon show "Power Lunch" features a round table discussion which inevitably leads to taxes and government spending and interference in the economy.

Jack Welch, the former head of GE which owns NBC Universal, and thus CNBC is a very market driven conservative. Welch is given credit for turning GE around but also likely had his impact on CNBC's editorial content. Prior to the launch of FOX Business Channel, The Wall Street Journal signed a long term partnership with CNBC and their editorial content seems to make its way into the minds of CNBC's personalities.

CNBC unlike rival Business network, Bloomberg News is determined to pump up certain stock or commodity prices quickly to ensure profits for certain investors and viewers. Using an entertaining backdrop, and knowledgeable anchors the network's personalities all make rational arguments for why certain investments are stronger than others.

That's not to say all of CNBC is bad. The very objective and credible David Faber as well as the worldly Erin Burnett, and cynical Mark Haines anchor the morning program which tends to be more focused on long term trends than short term profits. But the rest of the network with few exceptions have become the chattering bug for the capitalist class. Faber especially seems more concerned about objective journalism than simply protecting Wall Street investors.

While FOX News may speak for red state America, CNBC speaks for those Wall Street and anti Tax crusaders who want President Obama or any liberal to fail. The network unlike FOX uses intelligent arguments made by exceptional people, not parroted arguments made by college dropouts to make its case.

Jon Stewart has learned what I have known for years: CNBC is the TV network which represents the biggest threat to the progressive movement in the America.

Iraq: The British Should Have Led the Coalition

2009-02-23T16:11:00.002-05:00

The Iraq War was a complete debacle from the beginning of the insurgency in May 2003 until mid 2007. The United States and its civilian planners were completely out of their depth in understanding the causes of the insurgency and how to combat it. While Afghanistan and Pakistan were the central fronts in the war on terror, Iraq in the Rumsfeld/Bremer years became a dangerous sideshow.

But one must ask the question. Why was Baghdad so dangerous while Basra, Iraq’s second largest city was relatively speaking calm? Simple: The British occupied Basra, the Americans Baghdad.

The United Kingdom is a mature country with a mature understanding of diplomacy, war, and economics. The United States on the other hand is a highly reactionary country that gets caught up in the moment and the quest for vengeance. Even when the US has had mature leadership in the form of Woodrow Wilson, Dwight Eisenhower or Richard Nixon, the unsophisticated whims of domestic politics have always undermined their greater goals.

Additionally, thanks to years of combating the terrorist Irish Republican Army (IRA) in Belfast and even on the streets and in the train stations of London itself, the British understand how to stamp out an insurgency and how not to alienate a local population. The British patrolled the streets of Basra on foot working with the locals to stamp out any Shiite groups that were working with Iran or with Moktada al-Sadr. It is also worth mentioning that British troops are generally more disciplined than American troops in urban settings.

By contrast, Paul Bremer alienated the local population and shut down the Shiites leading paper, Al-Hawza whose editors had actually welcomed the US led overthrow of Saddam Hussien. Americans patrolled in Humvees and armored tanks setting up the look of an armed occupation, or even worse a war for conquest.

Of course nobody knows more about wars of conquest than the British. A Hundred Years ago the British Empire was the largest in human history, and had been more or less conquered through disgraceful means. So the British knew if you are “liberating” a population how to appear: it’s distinctly different than if you are “conquering” a nation.

Tony Blair may have alienated many on the left in the UK and US but he remained a credible worldwide voice and an inspirational figure throughout his Premiership. Had Blair taken the public worldwide lead instead of the bombastic, unrefined George W. Bush, world opinion towards the US led invasion of Iraq probably would have been different.

Blair could have been the spokesperson while his Government did the military planning in consultation with the Americans. Troops commitments did not need to change from either ally: in fact had it been done the British way, aka the right way, less troops may have been needed and less causalities would have ensued.

In the forthcoming, almost inevitable conflict with either Iran or the Taliban, President Obama would be wise to consult with the British about strategy and public relations. The world hopes that the west will not have to militarily disarm Iran, but in all honesty time is not on our sides.

While diplomacy may eventually work with Iran, it will never work with the Taliban. Winning the war in Afghanistan and helping Pakistan stabilize itself while keeping India from lashing out militarily at Pakistan or the Taliban is now the key. India may believe they have the right to strike at Pakistan due to the almost constant threat of terrorism on Indian soil. Perhaps India is right: but an Indian attack on Pakistan could launch us into the biggest armed conflict since World War II, and it is incumbent on all parties to diffuse the situation.

If the US and UK are forced to engage in another massive military conflict, allowing the UK to leverage its immense soft power and formulate the military strategy would be a good idea.

The Adams Dynasty: A Historical Look

2008-12-29T10:40:00.007-05:00

John Adams has now been immortalized for a new generation by an HBO series based on the revisionist work of David McCullough. Adams, the temperamental founding father who was least suited to leadership now become a cult hero of sorts to younger fans of history who are unaware of Adams shortcomings thanks to McCullough's glossing over of these realities in his work. While the HBO series shows some of Adams troubles it still does a poor job of conveying his insecurities and ineffectiveness while in high office.

Richard Brookhiser is a conservative commentator and historian who wrote an insightful work on the Adams family, America's First Dynasty, a few years ago. I've always been dubious about reading anything written by Brookhiser. A longtime writer and editor for the National Review, his writing and commentary has always been at the extreme right of American political discourse. His biography of Alexander Hamilton, while well researched and written was tremendously biased towards Hamilton who modern day conservatives have tried to claim as one of their own. His denunciations of Jefferson are equally biased because modern day liberals claim Jefferson, although a strong argument can be made that with the current Northeastern/urban elitist emphasis of the Democratic Party, Hamilton should be claimed by liberals and since the GOP's emphasis has drifted south and to small town America, Jefferson should be the Conservative hero.

My reservations about Brookhiser aside, his work on the Adams family is a must read. Unlike McCullough and HBO he does not gloss over John Adams obvious flaws. He also puts Adams actions in the proper context of someone who was partriotic to a fault but also vain and insecure. The book then continues to cover the career of Adams son John Quincy Adams. Putting a great emphasis on the younger Adams experience abroad, he demonstrates how J.Q. Adams was more practical and ultimately more effective as a politician than his father.

The work then continues to focus on Charles Francis Adams and his son Henry Adams. Four generations of Adams are covered in the book, with the constant theme of dynasty and the evolution of America. I am a fan of Henry Adams who was perhaps the best historian the United States has ever produced. Henry Adams like his grandfather and father (but unlike his great grandfather, the second president) was shaped by experiences abroad at a young age and was thus able to put American policies in its proper international context. Henry Adams favorite subject was non other than his great grandfather's great rival, Thomas Jefferson.

Gary Wills, who ironically taught Brookhiser at Yale is a liberal historian. But Wills draws a similar conclusion about Henry Adams in his recent work, Henry Adams and the Making of America. Wills spends a great deal of time in the book describing Henry Adams fascination with the South and with Jefferson in particular. Wills also picks apart areas of the history where he disagrees with Henry Adams, most notably on Jefferson's embargo act and on the treason trial of Aaron Burr. Wills is among the group of historians who in the last ten years have subtly tried to rehabilitate the image of Aaron Burr. Wills engaged in similar defenses of Burr in his recent study of Jefferson, something not apparent in his earlier books about Jefferson.

Both Brookhiser and Wills books are must reads for anyone interested in American History. They are easy reads which give a quick overview of important historical figures while drawing some important and valid conclusions.

Clinton's Conflicts Worrying in the Context of History

2008-12-19T16:20:00.017-05:00

All Americans should take note, not just those with partisan motivations on the right. Former President's Bill Clinton whose wife has been nominated to be the new Secretary of State has numerous conflicts of interest that could affect American foreign policy adversely.

Their is no precedence for this in American history. Some previous Secretaries of State have had pre-disposed biases towards foreign nations and thus did not serve in the position well. Thomas Jefferson was a notorious Francophile whose bias towards the French Revolution put him on a collision course with President George Washington and his closest confidante Alexander Hamilton, the Secretary of the Treasury. James Monroe's similar bias towards the French precluded the Madison administration from truly staying neutral in the Napoleonic Wars and as Henry Adams correctly surmised in his masterpiece History, this had a clear bearing on our Declaration of War on Great Britain in 1812.

It's no small irony Henry Adams close friend John Hay became perhaps the model Secretary of State in American history. Hay was not predisposed towards any great power and had come of age as Lincoln's private secretary during the Civil War. Hay helped position the US as an arbitrator of disputes and ultimately as a defender of liberty despite the disgraceful American actions in the Philippines.

Today we have a situation where a former President has sought individual fame and perhaps self realization by cozening up to interests abroad. This former President's wife has been nominated for Secretary of State. This is the same President who broke countless Campaign Finance rules in his 1996 re-election campaign by taking money from foreign interests and even allegedly involving his administration in a quid pro quo to use American forces militarily based on receiving campaign funds.

While I do not believe President Bill Clinton compromised American security with his illegal fund raising he certainly allowed access to the White House for arms dealers and in the case of James Riady and the Lippo Group, may have been close to giving the Chinese Intelligence service unfathomable access to American officials. Clinton did not want to help the Chinese. He wanted to help himself raise money: once again the Clinton's ambition to raise money and keep power met national security head on and the power of ambition won. In other words, we as Americans should be thankful Riady, Charlie Trie, and John Huang among others were caught before national security was in fact compromised.

But this is the problem. Clinton's need to be admired and to raise money now for his Global Initiative could compromise his wife's work as Secretary of State. According to Bloomberg News, "Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and Brunei all contributed between $1 million and $5 million, as did the Taiwan Economic and Cultural Office. An Irish government aid program gave at least $500,000."

The first four nations on that list are all oil producing states who firstly would probably like to see the price of oil stabilized with American cooperation and would love to see the US continue its dependence on petroleum, be it domestic or foreign. Taiwan is a nation the US does not even diplomatically recognize and one of President Bush's few accomplishments in office has been the remarkable fusion of American and Chinese interests he has helped to create. Should Hillary Clinton show any deference to Taiwan in the future, America's most strategic partnership abroad with the world's other great power could be threatened.

Bill Clinton has never exercised proper discretion since becoming a national political figure in 1988. That year he rambled on at the Democratic convention even as the red lights were buzzing to try and get him to stop speaking. Since then he has had an unknown number of affairs with women, and skirted the law many times. He has has absolutely no reservations about taking money for whatever cause promotes him personally from anybody willing to contribute. This is very dangerous with America's foreign policy hanging in the balance.

We can only hope Hillary Clinton has the proper discretion to avoid being influenced by her husbands numerous conflicts of interest that could undermine American security abroad. I have no problem with Senator Clinton personally, but her husband the former President who helped to polarize America in the 1990s needs to be kept as far away from President Obama and his national security team as possible.

Indian Hypocrisy

2008-12-03T09:56:00.001-05:00

The western world's eyes were glued on Mumbai last week as Islamic terrorists took over strategic locations within the city and held many of them for several days. Post incident analysis in the west has focused on radical Islam, but not on India's own role in fostering these radicals. Additionally little emphasis has been put on the hypocrisy of many leaders in India who have attacked the west for imperialism and yet conduct its own imperialistic policies in its region.

Many an Indian commentator and political leader have attacked the United States wars in the Middle East, the Balkans and Vietnam as signs of western imperialism. This issue is certainly up for debate, but it should be noted the United States has not tried to blatantly conquer or hold territory since the unfortunate war in the Philippines in the late 1800s.

Yet India's policies in Kashmir can be called nothing but imperialism. The area north of Jammu what I consider Kashmir proper is 95% Muslim and 4% Hindu. (This area excludes Jammu which should remain in India and has not seen much of the insurgency.) India itself is 83% Hindu 11% Muslim and 2% Christian. A typical Indian including most members of my family will retort that Kashmir has always been part of India and then give some convoluted explanation of the 1947 partition. The reality is Kashmir was often part of Muslim kingdoms in India and happened to have a Hindu maharajah who acceded to India in 1947 probably against the wishes of his population.

Whatever the legal case is, the results have been disastrous. Just like American engagement in the Middle East, Indian efforts to quell dissent and separatism in Kashmir have helped to radicalize a generation of young Muslims not only in India but also in Pakistan and Afghanistan. India prides itself on being the world's largest democracy. But this Democracy ends when you arrive in Muslim majority Kashmir where elections are often suspended or fixed. Since the Kashmiri insurgency began in 1989, 47,000 Kashmiris have died. This is a startling number for an area under military occupation, much like the shocking numbers coming from Iraq under American occupation. (a chief difference though is that the US has actually kept its word about when elections would be held in Iraq: India has not in Kashmir.)

Why a country of over one billion people feels the need to control an area of less than 6,000,000 people whose ethnic makeup is not compatible with the rest of the country is mind boggling for the neutral observer. This comes at a time when the BJP, an extremist Hindu nationalist party has incredible powers of persuasion over the Indian media. The BJP who was in power nationally from 1998-2004 have made helped to turn a previously secular democracy into a religious semi-theocracy that marginalizes Muslims and to a lesser extent Christians as "un-Indian." The always secular Congress party has been forced to abandon its Nehruite tradition of tolerance and cow tow to the lowest common denomonator in Indian politics. The leadership of Sonia Gandhi put Congress back in power in 2004, but since the party has been unable to control the winds of intolerance the BJP ushered in the 1990s and are likely to lose the next national election which must be held before May.

India's selfish and irresponsible actions have been exploited by Pakistan, the world's largest supporter of international terrorism. Pakistan, which has always been a rogue state, even when supported by the United States during the Cold War is now the center of international terrorism as it has been since the mid 1990s. The Pakistani Government exists to a large extent in name only as successive leaders have shown an inability or an unwillingness to actually reign in terrorism and disparate factions within the country supporting terrorism. Pakistan is not a nation: it is a hodgepodge of different groups thrown into a nation-state without a distinct identity. Instead of attempting to forge a national identity as Tito did in Yugoslavia, Pakistan's leadership has for sixty years decided to use India and at times Russia/Soviet Union as the enemy to rally the populace. I hear concerns about Pakistan becoming a failed state in the west: it's always been a failed state. The country exists in name only and at this point serves little purpose unless some strong man with a greater will than Pervez Musharaf comes to power.

The actions of India are not under the western microscope the way they should be. When Israel engages in less aggressive actions in the occupied West Bank, half of the west is up in arms. But the Arab-Israeli dispute has less impact on international terrorism than does the Indo-Pakistani dispute. Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden used the Kashmir dispute and targeted India long before Israel or the United States were his targets. Israel and the US were always in the crossfire from Hamas and Hezbollah, but neither group has the logistic capability to pull off large terrorist attacks globally as do the terrorist groups radicalized in South Asia.

India's behavior needs to change. The United States needs to deliver this message loud and clear. Pakistan's behavior will not change, and thus the state needs to be worked around and marginalized as we move forward in a very dangerous time.

A Public Works New Deal Needed

2008-11-28T09:39:00.002-05:00

America's transportation infrastructure is crumbling. Bridges much like the one in Minnesota that collapsed in 2007 teeter on the edge of failure. Roads are more and more congested and Mass Transit isn't working the way it should.

Barack Obama has an opportunity when he takes office. He can make rebuilding America's crumbling infrastructure a priority and also put millions of Americans to work on repairing bridges, building roads and other public works projects. President Clinton had a similar idea but it was sidetracked by Democratic Congressional Appropriators who were not going to be bossed around by someone who had barely received 43% of the national popular vote in a moderate turnout election. Now Obama having received close to 53% in a huge turnout election has the onus and less entrenched appropriators to deal with to try and push this agenda.

Under the GOP, widening and rebuilding interstate highways between cities that ran through rural areas were often a priority. Pushing funding for new interstates in the South was also a priority. (intrestingly though Florida, a key swing state has gotten less federalhighway money per capita than any other southern state as it did under the Democrats leaving the state and local governments to build and manage highways with little or no federal help.) Under the Democrats repairing urban roads and pushing urban mass transit must be a priority.

I'll have some specific proposals for highway and bridge funding as we approach the swearing in of the new congress in January.

Florida Election History: Discrimination is Nothing New

2008-11-11T09:13:00.011-05:00

This past Tuesday, Florida voters sent a historic message by electing Barack Obama statewide. At the same time worrying signs were apparent in Florida's election results which reminded us of Florida's dubious history. Areas of the original Florida or what many in our state's capitol refer to as the "real Florida" voted for John McCain by much bigger margins than they had supported George W. Bush. The only counties in the state where McCain won by a much bigger margin than Bush were west of Tallahassee: in an area traditionally very Jeffersonian and Segregationist. Counties such as Liberty, Calhoun and Jackson had actually given Democrat Bill McBride substantial victories over Jeb Bush in 2002. McBride got only 43% statewide when compared to Obama's 51% yet these formerly segregationist counties showed many whites willing to vote for a weak and possibly unqualified Democratic candidate for Governor were unwilling to vote for a winning African-American candidate for President. Many elected Democrats in the state legislature had felt focusing on this area of the state was more important than focusing on the I-4 corridor in the early part of this decade. That can explain why in 2002 McBride was routed in Pinellas, Hillsborough, Orange and Volusia counties, urban Central Florida areas Obama carried in 2008 by a large margin. The 2008 results should show beyond a reasonable doubt as did the 2002 results, that these counties don't matter in Florida elections if you can win along the I-4 corridor.

Statewide however, Amendment 2, an effort by far right conservatives to legislate the definition of marriage into the Florida Constitution was passed statewide with 62.5% of the vote. The same conservatives who decry judges who "legislate from the bench" like the great Earl Warren or Thurgood Marshall are willing to attack moral codes and legislation to the state's constitution. This once again demonstrates the rampant hypocrisy of most conservatives. But we digress: the issue here is that Amendment 2 continues Florida's pattern of discrimination. A pattern we saw rise up in the 1970s when Anita Bryant came to Florida to protest Dade County's then revolutionary gay rights statute.

Bryant's campaign came just a few short years after George Wallace carried 66 of Florida's 67 counties in the Florida Democratic Primary. Wallace running on a campaign opposing school busing and using code words which meant "I'll keep the blacks in their place." was a hit statewide. The northern elite media who had many friends and perhaps family that lived in Florida had mischarecterized the state as being "less Southern than Northern" in the lead up to the primary. Thus primary night, a shock ran through liberal precincts of the North when Florida decisively made Wallace the victor.

Florida is a state that had more per capita lynchings than any other in the 1910s and 1920s, even though Mississippi had a Governor James K. Vardamann that openly advocated the murder of blacks. The Rosewood Massacre outside Orlando took place in this period of time as well. The state around the same time elected a Governor, Sidney Catts whose entire platform was based on discrimination, particularly against Catholics who were populating Northern cities and may move South. Despite being part of the previously "solid south" for the Democratic Party, Florida cast its electoral votes in 1928 for Herbert Hoover against Catholic Al Smith. The same thing happened in 1960 when Richard Nixon carried his only southern state running against the Catholic John Kennedy. When the Democrats nominated a die in the wool segregationist like Woodrow Wilson, the state's voters proudly cast their ballots for the party that ruled the south. But when a northern liberal like Adlai Stevenson or worse yet a Catholic like Al Smith was nominated by the party that dominated the state, Floridians crossed over and voted Republican.

This may seem like a remarkable set of coincidences but chances are they are not. While Florida took one giant step forward with the victory of Barack Obama in the state, we are reminded of Florida's not so proud history with the passage of Amendment 2 and the votes of many North Florida counties against Obama.

The Post Clinton South: More Democratic, Less Polarized

2008-11-06T14:18:00.005-05:00

Bill Clinton was more successful than most post civil rights Democratic Presidential nominees winning five former Confederate states each time he ran for President. However Clinton's unpopularity in the rest of the South led to unprecedented losses for the Democrats in the region from US Senate right down to local offices. When Bill Clinton left office in 2001, Republicans controlled the US House delegations from each former Confederate state other than Mississippi and Texas. Now as Barack Obama prepares to enter the White House, Democrats control the House delegations in Mississippi, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Virginia (pending a recount in the 5th district.) Democrats have also picked up seats in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama since Clinton left office.

Much of this has to do with the Democrats refocusing on kitchen table issues and dumping polarizing personal politics of the Clinton years. While the South remains one of the two most conservative regions in the country (the Mountain West being the other) a focus on economics can win over enough Southern voters to help maintain Democratic majorities in the House. President Clinton's divisive social agenda: gays in the military, banning assault weapons, funding abortion providers abroad, and of course his opposition to the ban on partial birth abortion turned the South against the Democrats. Not that Clinton should have abandoned his views on those issues, but the volume with which Clinton's White House pushed those social items to gain support for the President among Northeast elites made it very easy for the South to turn against his party.

Race is often cited as a simple reason why the South has turned Republican. No doubt that race has been a factor, but even as late as 1992 the Democrats controlled the majority of congressional seats in the former confederacy. Race was an issue, but not the only issue for Southern white voters. After being wiped out in the 1990s and early 200s the positive message of the nation's first major party African American Presidential nominee has helped elect more Democrats from the South to Congress since the 1992 Election. Obama in fact ran ahead of white Democratic nominees from 2000 and 2004 in Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Texas. Only in post Katrina ravaged Louisiana, Al Gore's home state of Tennessee and Bill Clinton's home state of Arkansas did Obama run worse than Gore and Kerry.

Obama's positive message on economics and unity can play well in the South. Unlike President Clinton, Obama shows no signs of polarizing the nation and thumbing his noses at those who did not support his election. The South may have been lost for a generation of Democrats after Civil Rights, but it seems slowly the South is coming home to its ancestral party.

Moving Past the Clintons

2008-11-05T09:37:00.015-05:00

Senator Barack Obama's historic victory Tuesday ushers in a new era of post partisan and potential post racial politics throughout much of America. Obama's sweeping victory and uplifting campaign stands in direct contrast to the most recent Democrat to occupy the White House, whose wife Obama defeated to win the Democratic nomination. This also creates a new opportunity for the Democratic Party to create a Governing majority. The fact that this comes so quickly after the Party's fortunes had ebbed to its lowest point since before the New Deal and talk of a long term GOP domination of electoral politics outside the Northeast was prevalent is all the more remarkable.

Regardless of what Democratic activists may claim the emergence of Bill and Hillary Clinton on the national stage was a near fatal blow for the Democrats as a national majority party. During Bill Clinton's tenure as President, the Democrats lost over 65 House seats, 10 Senate seats and 15 Governor's chairs. Only in 2006, with the election of many new Democratic Congressional candidates and Governors did the party begun to recover its national footing. In 2008, with Hillary Clinton safely out of the picture, American voters cast the majority of their ballots in Governors races, Congressional races, Senate races and the Presidency for Democrats for the first time since 1964. Also, for the first time since 1964, a Democratic Presidential nominee garnered more than 50.2% of the national vote last night as well.

While Clinton backers continue to claim to this day that President Clinton was not responsible for the catastrophic Democratic losses in Congress in 1994 and the subsequent failure to regain either House or Senate during the remainder of his tenure, it is very difficult to intellectually defend this view. The reality is that Democratic members of the House in particular and to a lesser extent the Senate had made themselves immune to the whims of voters in Presidential Politics. When Nixon routed McGovern in 1972 the Democrats lost seats but continued to hold a comfortable Congressional majority. In 1984 when Reagan defeated Monday by 20 points, the Democrats actually picked up a Senate seat and continued to hold a comfortable House majority.

This all changed with President Bill Clinton. His partisanship knew no bounds the first two years in office and the new President's inability to even deal with his own party's leadership in Congress delivered disastrous results. The first GOP Congressional majorities in forty years were ushered into power not as a reaction to Congress but as a reaction to the ideological bent and governing ineptitude of President Clinton.

Instead of taking the fight to the GOP Congress, President Clinton felt compelled to defend his relevance to the Washington Press Corps, declaring one famous March 1995 afternoon that "the constitution makes me relevant." Hardly the sort of statement you would expect from the leader of the free world. Eventually Clinton picked small battles with the GOP but on big ticket items like welfare reform, Free Trade and the GOP Budget he made deals with the new Congressional leadership, often times far to the right of the Democratic mainstream.

This left Democrats completely rudderless and in many ways devoid of an identifying set of principles to run elections on. Clinton's desire for self promotion and self preservation made it appear to many media observers at the time that he was running in tandem with the GOP leadership. So complete was Clinton's shift away from Democratic principles that Minority Leader Richard Gephardt gave the closing speech on the House floor against the Presidents 1997 Budget. Clinton's over indulgence in illegal campaign fund raising in 1996 also had the affect of denying the part an opportunity to retake the House just when the generic congressional polls had broken in favor of a Democratic takeover.

After impeachment Clinton continued his previous pattern or deal cutting and ideological meandering that left his Vice President, Al Gore searching for a new set of ideas to run on in 2000. Critics have claimed Gore's campaign lacked focus and a clear message: while I agree with that assessment I cannot help but place a good amount of the blame on President Clinton himself. Congressional Democrats had the same problem and until the unifying posture of opposition to the Iraq War became a rallying cry in 2006, the Democrats were often times fighting battles on the turf where Clinton had taken them. These battles often served as virtual re-enactments of Custer's last stand.

Barack Obama's victory not only gives hope to millions of American citizens. It gives hope to longtime Democratic operatives like myself that the Clinton era is officially and finally dead in party politics.

House Race Ratings: Nov 4

2008-11-04T06:07:00.005-05:00

As the polls prepare to open and Senator John McCain appears much more poised to close out a heroic upset electoral college win than just two days ago, let's go over our final Congressional ratings. McCain has in this analysts estimation about a 30% chance of winning the Presidency up from about 5% a week ago. He's closing in the right states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia) and has taken the lead in several red states (Missouri, North Carolina) even though the national poll movement is not strong enough to carry Republicans to victory in Congress. Chances are Obama still wins the Presidency although it is no longer a slam dunk to quote George Tennent and could very well be a cliffhanger. I personally will be working the polls all day long for Democratic Candidates in Florida and will not update this during the day.

Changes in status since the last edition in RED

DEM HELD SEATS

LIKELY GOP

FL 16 (Mahoney)
PA 11 (Kanjorski)

LEANS GOP

TX 22 (Lampson)

TOSS UP

PA 12 (Murtha)
MS 1 (Childers)
LA 6 (Cazayoux)
GA 8 (Marshall)

LEANS DEM

AL 5 (Cramer/Open)
IL 14 (Foster)
WI 8 (Kagen)
NH 1 (Shea- Porter)
KS 2 (Boyda)
CA 11 (McNerney)
PA 4 (Altimire)
KY 3 (Yarmouth)

REPUBLICAN HELD SEATS

LIKELY DEMOCRATIC

VA 11 (Davis/Open)

LEANS DEMOCRATIC

AZ 1 (Renzi/Open)
FL 8 (Keller)
FL 24 (Feeney)
NC 8 (Hayes)
AK-AL (Young)
NY 13 (Fossella/Open)
NY 25 (Walsh/Open)
NY 29 (Kuhl)
NM 1 (Wilson/Open)
IL 10 (Kirk)
MN 3 (Ramstad/Open)
MI-9 (Knollenberg)
OH 15 (Pryce/Open)

TOSS UP

FL-25 (M Diaz Balart)
NY 26 (Reynolds/Open)
MN 6 (Bachman)
NV 3 (Porter)
OH 2 (Schmidt)
OH 16 (Regula/Open)
IL 11 (Weller/Open)
CT 4 (Shays)
WY-AL (Cubin/Open)
WA 8 (Reichart)
CO 4 (Musgrave)
NE-1 (Terry)

LEANS GOP

MD 1 (Gilchrist/Open)
AL-2 (Everett/Open)
CA-4 (Doolittle/Open)
OH-1 (Chabot)
FL 21 (L. Diaz Balart)
NJ 5 (Garrett)
ID-1 (Sali)
PA-3 (English)
AZ 3 (Shadegg)
LA-4 (McCrery/Open)
IL-18 (LaHood/Open)
NM-2 (Pearce)
MI-7 (Walberg)
MO-6 (Graves)
MO-9 (Hulshof)
VA-4 (Drake)

LIKELY GOP (Florida only)

FL-13 (Buchanan)

House Race Ratings: Nov 3

2008-11-03T11:59:00.007-05:00

Changes in status since the last edition in RED

DEM HELD SEATS

LIKELY GOP

FL 16 (Mahoney)
PA 11 (Kanjorski)

LEANS GOP

TX 22 (Lampson)

TOSS UP

PA 12 (Murtha)
MS 1 (Childers)
LA 6 (Cazayoux)
GA 8 (Marshall)

LEANS DEM

AL 5 (Cramer/Open)
IL 14 (Foster)
WI 8 (Kagen)
NH 1 (Shea- Porter)
KS 2 (Boyda)
CA 11 (McNerney)
PA 4 (Altimire)
KY 3 (Yarmouth)

REPUBLICAN HELD SEATS

LIKELY DEMOCRATIC

VA 11 (Davis/Open)

LEANS DEMOCRATIC

AZ 1 (Renzi/Open)
FL 8 (Keller)
FL 24 (Feeney)
NC 8 (Hayes)
AK-AL (Young)
NY 13 (Fossella/Open)
NY 25 (Walsh/Open)
NY 29 (Kuhl)
NM 1 (Wilson/Open)
IL 10 (Kirk)
MN 3 (Ramstad/Open)
MI-9 (Knollenberg)
OH 15 (Pryce/Open)

TOSS UP

FL-25 (M Diaz Balart)
NY 26 (Reynolds/Open)
MN 6 (Bachman)
NV 3 (Porter)
OH 2 (Schmidt)
OH 16 (Regula/Open)
IL 11 (Weller/Open)
CT 4 (Shays)
WY-AL (Cubin/Open)
WA 8 (Reichart)
CO 4 (Musgrave)

LEANS GOP

MD 1 (Gilchrist/Open)
AL-2 (Everett/Open)
CA-4 (Doolittle/Open)
OH-1 (Chabot)
FL 21 (L. Diaz Balart)
NJ 5 (Garrett)
ID-1 (Sali)
PA-3 (English)
AZ 3 (Shadegg)
LA-4 (McCrery/Open)
IL-18 (LaHood/Open)
NE-1 (Terry)
NM-2 (Pearce)
MI-7 (Walberg)
MO-6 (Graves)
MO-9 (Hulshof)
VA-4 (Drake)

LIKELY GOP (Florida only)

FL-13 (Buchanan)

The Conservative QB Club

2008-11-03T09:39:00.015-05:00

I've theorized for many years that Football players and fans represent the more conservative elements in American society: If you want to understand red America go to a College Football game on Saturday or if you want to understand purple America go to an NFL game. This is in contrast to College Basketball and the NBA where the players and fans tend to lean to the left with some very notable exceptions (Bob Knight anyone?).

This year as with almost every Presidential or Congressional cycles current and former NFL Quarterbacks are making their voice known in the political process. Almost in unison these stars are stumping for John McCain and local Republican candidates. Let's start with John Elway a longtime Republican whose presence on the campaign trail has helped John McCain close the gap in Colorado. Brady Quinn has been dispatched in Ohio, and Indiana states where he has played NFL and College football. Troy Aikman is hitting the trail for McCain. In the recent past Jim Kelly, Peyton Manning, Terry Bradshaw, Mark Brunnel, Matt Hasslebeck, Jim Harbaugh, Chris Weinke and of course the former Congressmen Jack Kemp and JC Watts have all openly stumped for GOP candidates.

The sheer number of former QBs and other former football stars that have run for office like Steve Largent, Peter Boulware and others has to be attributed to a combination of financial considerations as to the violent ruggedness of Football as opposed to the soulful individualism of Basketball. For years Basketball players have tended to lean left. Bill Bradley and Tom McMillen went to Congress as liberal Democrats, and currently Kevin Johnson is running for Mayor of Sacramento on a very liberal platform. National Championship coaches Bill Self and Rick Pitino have stumped for Democrats previously in the red states they coach in and the great Dean Smith was perhaps the most liberal minded and politically charged Basketball coach of all. Other former NBA players like the late Dave DeBusschere, Walt Frazier, Julius Erving, Phil Jackson, Ernie Grunfeld and even Michael Jordan, have stumped for Democrats. This year Alonzo Mourning, and LeBron James lead the legion of NBA players for Democrats.

The Football/Basketball divide can even be found among fans from my experiences. While crossover fans come from both political parties and all ideological stripes, fans who openly prefer one sport to the other tend to fall into the Conservative category if Football fans or the Liberal category if Basketball fans.

The Democrats have had successes wooing a single former QB to its ranks. Heath Shuler, the runner up for the 1993 Heisman Trophy and classic NFL failure was elected to Congress as a Democrat in 2006. Shuler is very conservative on social issues in the QB/Football mold even preferring not to campaign on Sundays and taking the typical conservative line on abortion, guns and gay rights. However, Shuler is an economic populist putting his view on financial issues and Government spending at direct odds with his Quarterback club brethren, and making him fit comfortably on the Democratic left on economics. Perhaps his fellow QBs even mutter the terms "socialist" and "tax ans spend liberal" to discuss Shuler who has clearly deviated from the standard NFL QB position.

Can McCain ride the popularity of NFL QBs and Football fans in general to an Election 2008 victory? Likely not, but it's interesting to note for all the Hollywood bashing Republicans do, that they have their own arsenal of celebrities lining up to play the attack dog role for Conservative ideals.

House Race Ratings: Nov 1

2008-11-01T17:23:00.001-04:00

Changes in status since the last edition in RED

DEM HELD SEATS

LIKELY GOP

FL 16 (Mahoney)
PA 11 (Kanjorski)

LEANS GOP

TX 22 (Lampson)

TOSS UP

PA 12 (Murtha)
MS 1 (Childers)
LA 6 (Cazayoux)
GA 8 (Marshall)

LEANS DEM

AL 5 (Cramer/Open)
IL 14 (Foster)
WI 8 (Kagen)
NH 1 (Shea- Porter)
KS 2 (Boyda)
CA 11 (McNerney)
PA 4 (Altimire)
KY 3 (Yarmouth)

REPUBLICAN HELD SEATS

LIKELY DEMOCRATIC

VA 11 (Davis/Open)

LEANS DEMOCRATIC

FL 8 (Keller)
FL 24 (Feeney)
NC 8 (Hayes)
AK-AL (Young)
NY 13 (Fossella)
NY 25 (Walsh/Open)
NY 29 (Kuhl)
NM 1 (Wilson/Open)
IL 10 (Kirk)
MN 3 (Ramstad/Open)
MI-9 (Knollenberg)

TOSS UP

FL-25 (M Diaz Balart)
NY 26 (Reynolds/Open)
MN 6 (Bachman)
NV 3 (Porter)
OH 2 (Schmidt)
OH 15 (Pryce/Open)
OH 16 (Regula/Open)
AZ 1 (Renzi/Open)
IL 11 (Weller/Open)
CT 4 (Shays)
WY-AL (Cubin/Open)
WA 8 (Reichart)
CO 4 (Musgrave)

LEANS GOP

MD 1 (Gilchrist/Open)
AL-2 (Everett/Open)
CA-4 (Doolittle/Open)
OH-1 (Chabot)
FL 21 (L. Diaz Balart)
NJ 5 (Garrett)
ID-1 (Sali)
PA-3 (English)
AZ 3 (Shadegg)
LA-4 (McCrery/Open)
IL-18 (LaHood/Open)
NE-1 (Terry)

LIKELY GOP (Florida only)

FL-13 (Buchanan)

House Race Ratings: Oct 31

2008-10-31T10:31:00.002-04:00

Changes in status since the last edition in RED

DEM HELD SEATS

LIKELY GOP

FL 16 (Mahoney)
PA 11 (Kanjorski)

LEANS GOP

TX 22 (Lampson)

TOSS UP

PA 12 (Murtha)
MS 1 (Childers)
LA 6 (Cazayoux)
GA 8 (Marshall)

LEANS DEM

AL 5 (Cramer/Open)
IL 14 (Foster)
WI 8 (Kagen)
NH 1 (Shea- Porter)
KS 2 (Boyda)
CA 11 (McNerney)
PA 4 (Altimire)
KY 3 (Yarmouth)

REPUBLICAN HELD SEATS

LIKELY DEMOCRATIC

VA 11 (Davis/Open)

LEANS DEMOCRATIC

FL 8 (Keller)
FL 24 (Feeney)
NC 8 (Hayes)
AK-AL (Young)
NY 13 (Fossella)
NY 25 (Walsh/Open)
NY 29 (Kuhl)
NM 1 (Wilson/Open)
IL 10 (Kirk)
MN 3 (Ramstad/Open)
MI-9 (Knollenberg)

TOSS UP

NY 26 (Reynolds/Open)
MN 6 (Bachman)
NV 3 (Porter)
OH 2 (Schmidt)
OH 15 (Pryce/Open)
OH 16 (Regula/Open)
AZ 1 (Renzi/Open)
IL 11 (Weller/Open)
CT 4 (Shays)
WY-AL (Cubin/Open)
WA 8 (Reichart)
CO 4 (Musgrave)

LEANS GOP

MD 1 (Gilchrist/Open)
AL-2 (Everett/Open)
CA-4 (Doolittle/Open)
OH-1 (Chabot)
FL 21 (L. Diaz Balart)
FL 25 (M. Diaz Balart)
NJ 5 (Garrett)
ID-1 (Sali)
PA-3 (English)
AZ 3 (Shadegg)
LA-4 (McCrery/Open)
IL-18 (LaHood/Open)

LIKELY GOP (Florida only)

FL-13 (Buchanan)

House Race Ratings

2008-10-30T13:48:00.008-04:00

For the last five days before Election 2008 I have decided to mimic Stu Rothenberg and Charlie Cook the best way I can: by producing my own ratings for each strongly contested House race in the nation using the most recent public poll data as well as my long standing knowledge of these districts which in most cases goes back to the early 1990s. Also factored in are historical trends. I will produce these lists daily until the election.

Here are the ratings for Thursday October 30th

DEM HELD SEATS

LIKELY GOP

FL 16 (Mahoney)

LEANS GOP

PA 11 (Kanjorski)
TX 22 (Lampson)

TOSS UP

AL 5 (Cramer/Open)
PA 12 (Murtha)
MS 1 (Childers)
LA 6 (Cazayoux)
GA 8 (Marshall)

LEANS DEM

IL 14 (Foster)
WI 8 (Kagen)
NH 1 (Shea- Porter)
KS 2 (Boyda)
CA 11 (McNerney)
PA 4 (Altimire)
KY 3 (Yarmouth)

REPUBLICAN HELD SEATS

LIKELY DEMOCRATIC

VA 11 (Davis/Open)

LEANS DEMOCRATIC

FL 24 (Feeney)
NC 8 (Hayes)
AK-AL (Young)
NY 13 (Fossella)
NY 25 (Walsh)
NY 26 (Reynolds)
NY 29 (Kuhl)
NM 1 (Wilson/Open)
IL 10 (Kirk)
MN 3 (Ramstad/Open)
MI-9 (Knollenberg)

TOSS UP

MN 6 (Bachman)
FL 8 (Keller)
NV 3 (Porter)
OH 2 (Schmidt)
OH 15 (Pryce/Open)
OH 16 (Regula/Open)
AZ 1 (Renzi/Open)
IL 11 (Weller/Open)
CT 4 (Shays)
MD 1 (Gilchrist/Open)
WY-AL (Cubin/Open)
WA 8 (Reichart)
CO 4 (Musgrave)

LEANS GOP

AL-2 (Everett/Open)
CA-4 (Doolittle/Open)
OH-1 (Chabot)
FL 21 (L. Diaz Balart)
FL 25 (M. Diaz Balart)
NJ 5 (Garrett)
ID-1 (Sali)
PA-3 (English)
AZ 3 (Shadegg)
LA-4 (McCrery/Open)
IL-18 (LaHood/Open)

LIKELY GOP (Florida only)

FL-13 (Buchanan)

For daily updates please visit kartiksworld.blogspot.com

Will the South Sink Obama? (And what the term Socialism means in the South)

2008-10-28T23:37:00.001-04:00

Since the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, Democrats have won exactly three Presidential elections. In the seven losing Democratic campaigns, Democratic nominees have only once carried a a single southern state (I define Southern states as former Confederate states. So in other words Kentucky and Oklahoma are not Southern states by my definition): Hubert Humphrey carried President Johnson's home state of Texas in 1968 and Jimmy Carter carried his own home state of Georgia in 1980. In the three victorious Democratic campaigns, the party has carried a grand total of 20 Southern states. In fact the Democrats have carried every single state in the South in a victorious Presidential election since 1968 with the exception of Virginia, traditionally the most reactionary rim south state which last voted for a Democrat in 1964.

Barrack Obama is my choice for President. I have editorialized at length during the primary how limited I believed Senator Hillary Clinton was a national candidate. I correctly foretasted that Senator Obama would be much more competitive in the interior western states as well as in Midwestern populist states like Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa than the cookie cutter Democrat with baggage that Clinton is. I however appear to have been wrong in believing Obama's ability to transcend race and regional appeal would make him attractive in the South. Sadly this is not all Obama's fault nor due to Southern voters being left to their own devices. They are being manipulated.

Surprisingly Obama currently leads by a big margin in Virginia, increasingly suburban and less reactionary than it once was. But Obama is not even slightly competitive in rim/border South states like Arkansas and Tennessee which have a much greater progressive tradition than the deep south. Obama looks to have a slight shot of carrying North Carolina on election day but is not polling well in Louisiana, a state Bill Clinton carried twice or Georgia which Clinton carried in 1992 and lost by a single point in 1996. It is also highly likely inspite of the current polls that Obama will not carry Florida.

Obviously the National Democratic Party is too toxic right now in the Deep South to seriously entertain thoughts of competing in South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama or Mississippi. However, Obama's poor poll numbers in Tennessee, Arkansas, and Louisiana are to me very worrying. In fact in the case of Tennessee and Louisiana it is possible Michael Dukakis ended up with a better percentage of the votes than Obama will. That's flat out unacceptable for a new kind of Democrat, but perhaps this owes itself more to John McCain's race baiting.

Much of this is not Obama's fault. Southern whites of course vote based on race more often than any other white voters in the nation. Moreover, the national media which is made almost entirely of elites in New York and Washington who look down upon the South, have not picked up on the use of code words by John McCain. Calling Obama a socialist is like throwing red meat to white southerners. "Socialist" in Southern political lingo means "for the blacks." Southern whites fear Government programs and interference will help poor blacks: that's why code words like welfare and crime are often used also in Southern campaigns. Some examples of the socialist terminology:

In 1964 when Hayden Burns was running against Robert King High in the Democratic Primary for Florida Governor, Burns from Jacksonville attacked High from Miami as a "socilaist." His justification? High supported civil rights for African-Americans. Burns won the primary.
In 1966 George Wallace accussed Alabama Attorney General Richmond Flowers of "bringing socialism to Alabama." Flowers crime? Enforcing federal civil rights laws that protected blacks.Flowers got the ultimate revenge sending his son, future Olympian Richmond Flowers Jr. to the University of Tennessee to play Football. The younger Flowers became the Alabama Crimson Tide's biggest nemesis for the next few seasons.
In 1964 Strom Thurmond in his speech leaving the Democratic Party accused President Lyndon Johnson was "moving the country towards a socialist dictatorship." Johnson had just signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In 1967 John Bell Williams was elected Governor of Mississippi as a Democrat despite attacking the National Party as a " Soviet Style Socialist Party." Williams would become a loyalist to Richard Nixon years later.

John McCain has been an honorable man in the past. But being from Arizona a state that was largely settled by Southerners and that has the reputation of being the most reactionary and perhaps the most racist state since the 1960s (which is why McCain voted against the MLK Holiday while many Southern Conservatives voted for it) McCain knows what he is saying and is being done to provoke a specific reaction from the South. This appeal is likely to work. I do not expect Obama to carry Florida or North Carolina, and I firmly believe Virginia could also fall to McCain thanks to this naked race baiting. Arizona Republicans used race to achieve local political goals. McCain voted against several Civil Rights acts that even former Segregationists John Stennis and Robert Byrd openly supported. McCain allies Fife Symington and Evan Meachem prevented Arizona from honoring the MLK holiday even after its passage and lost the state revenue and business over this racially charged stand. McCain stood with the Arizona GOP during this period.

Senator McCain has now added to his legacy as a typical Arizona Republican by race baiting his way to a potential Presidential victory. For someone who served his country so honorably in the past it is a sad way to conduct what could be his last campaign.

Congressional Races Galore

2008-10-27T10:02:00.000-04:00

As a student of Congressional politics (I've worked in Washington DC in the House and obsesses over the body so much that I have every Almanac of American Politics since it was first published in the early 1970s) Florida has been a boring place to be through the years. Since the past 1980 census redistricting, Florida has had close races here and there. The 1988 race where longtime incumbent Bill Chappell was knocked off, the 1994 open seat race for Jim Bacchus old seat and the 2000 Shaw/Bloom race. But for the most part, Florida has been a bore. Sitting in Florida election night working on localized races has meant watching the TV ticker or the computer to find out what trends were developing in Congressional races nationally. However, 2008 has changed that.

Florida is the battleground in the US House. Florida has become what Ohio, Pennsylvania and even in recent times Texas or Illinois has become: a test as to whether a congressional election is actually a wave election. For example in 1996, when Bill Clinton was re-elected he found himself embroiled in a campaign fund raising scandal which turned a potential Democratic rout, into a Republican year in everything but the Presidential race. (The Dems actually picked up House seats but almost all were against fluke GOP winners from two years earlier: almost every close race cut towards the GOP that year.) Now in 2008, Florida will test whether or not this is truly a wave election.

Here are the congressional races to watch in Florida:

Incumbent Republican Tom Feeney vs Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24)

Feeney drew his own district as State House Speaker in the 2000-2002 term which included redistricting. However, the district was always only marginally Republican. With the incumbent the sitting House meber most closely linked to Jack Abramoff, this should be a Democratic pickup in a year like this.

Incumbent Republican Ric Keller vs Alan Grayson (FL-8)

The Democrats should have picked up this seat in 2000, but did not. Keller has been a survivor and the district is more Republican than it was before redistricting now encompassing parts of Lake and Marion counties. Grayson can self finance and this should be a close race.

Incumbent Republican Vern Buchanan vs Christine Jennings (FL-13)

Buchanan was fortunate to beat Jennings in 2006 but he's performed well by all indications in this campaign and in his brief house tenure and should hang on in this Sarasota based district.

Incumbent Republican Lincoln Diaz Balart vs Raul Martinez (FL-21)

Martinez is the strongest possible challenger the Democrats could have fielded in this solid Republican district. Will Cuban-Americans bound to support Senator McCain split their tickets? Polling indicates enough may for Martinez to pull the upset.

Incumbent Republican Mario Diaz Balart vs Joe Garcia (FL-25)

If you are looking for a potential Freshman who could emerge as a Congressional Leader it is Joe Garcia who is already connected in Washington. However Diaz Balart could hang on here thanks to the portion of the district in Collier County. Still this district is on the whole less Republican than District 21.

Should Al Qaeda Hope for a McCain Victory?

2008-10-24T21:04:00.009-04:00

John McCain projects an image of a military veteran who supported the Iraq war. But for multiple reasons, the leadership of Al Qaeda must be hoping for a McCain victory on November 4th. John McCain is an American hero. He has done more over a lifetime to earn the Presidency than Barack Obama. No one whether you support Obama or McCain can objectively dispute otherwise. (Here in Florida, exit polls recorded in 1998, that 93% felt Buddy McKay had done more to earn the Governorship than Jeb Bush, but of course Bush won 55%-45%.)

However McCain has several liabilities at this time which will empower Al Qaeda. Foremost among these is McCain unwillingness to use American forces to cross the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and crush Bin Laden and his deputies in tribal controlled areas of Pakistan. In the second debate McCain claimed Obama's declarations that he'd chase down Al Qaeda in Pakistan unilaterally showed Obama's naivety. In fact it showed McCain despite supporting virtual unilateral action in Iraq, in violation of Iraq's sovereignty was naive enough to respect the sovereignty of Pakistan who currently harbour terrorists that killed over 3,000 Americans.

I am with Obama on this. The United States has gotten past the point where we need to ask Pakistan's permission to attack Al Qaeada. For seven years the Pakistani authorities have assured President Bush they were chasing Al Qaeda and for seven years they have failed. Under McCain's naive strategy the US would be at the mercy of Pakistani authorities who are responsive first and foremost to an anti-American, pro Islamist public.

McCain's support of the sideshow in Iraq helped Al Qaeda recruit terrorists who hate America at an alarming rate. Yet McCain's continued emphasis on "winning the war in Iraq" and discussions of Iran seem to ignore the fact that those who perpetrated the greatest crime on humanity on September 11th 2001 are still at large. Those terrorists whose very survival threatens America are not important to John McCain. By persecuting the war in Iraq, Al Qaeda has grown stronger and American interests have been compromised. McCain's lack of decisiveness in the economic crisis of this month also demonstrated a potential lack of strong Presidential action should terrorists strike America. This we cannot afford.

A McCain victory would likely result in the United States allowing Al Qaeda more time to regroup in the mountains of Northwestern Pakistan. With a McCain victory comes more time for terrorists to plot attacks on the United States and a less defensible homeland since we will have tied up many of the most essential troops in the Iraqi war a sideshow in the global war on terror. The central front in the war on terror is Afghanistan and Pakistan. John McCain wants to tread carefully in that region while Barack Obama wants to kill the terrorists. If you were in Al Qaeda's shoes wouldn't you be hoping for a McCain victory?

Bush's Legacy: Coddling Dictators

2008-10-23T11:09:00.001-04:00

For all the machismo that George W. Bush's administration conducted his foreign policy with, the lasting legacy of the Bush years could be the coddling of dangerous dictators. President Bush and his administrations foreign policy team have now been responsible for taking two very dangerous nations, Libya and North Korea of the list of state sponsors of terrorism. This list which includes Cuba and Iran still, has been used for many years as a political tool more than an actual list of state sponsors of terrorism. For example Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Tunisia (who for years "hosted" the PLO) were never on the list.

The decision a few years back to take Libya off the list and to normalize relations was shocking. Yet the mainstream American media, so fundamentally misinformed about global politics allowed this to pass without any criticism. They accepted the Administrations tired line that the action against Iraq scared Libya and that Mummar al Qaddafi was somehow a changed man. The reality is Libya has been responsible for more terrorism directly aimed at American citizens than any nation on earth, with Qaddafi pulling the trigger.

The Achile Lauro hijacking where American citizen Leon Klinghoffer was murdered
The hijacking of a Pan Am plan in Karachi
The bobing of a TWA flight in Athens
The murder of two American serviceman in a Berlin discotech
The Pan Am 103 bombing
The first World Trade Center bombing.

Conservatives often times state you can deal with terrorists. John McCain and his campaign have labeled Barack Obama's plans to talk to Iran, et al as dangerous. Let me state as an Obama supporter I'm not in love with these plans. Terrorists are dangerous and talking directly to them is a risky idea. Making deals with them is even worse as the Bush administration has done with Libya and is doing currently with North Korea.But Iran is a more stable and legitimate government than North Korea's or Libya. Iran has existing democratic institutions and has acted at many times more responsibly on the global scene despite the bravado of their current powerless president than Libya or North Korea. Iran is after all on fairly good terms with the U.K., Germany France, Russia and China. For years the US has gone at Iran alone, unlike Libya and North Korea who were until Bush's actions essentially boxed in.

North Korea's record of despotism and support for terrorism is arguably unmatched on the planet. Yet the decisive unilateral actions Bush supported against a tin pot dictator who posed no threat to the US in Saddam Hussien have not been even tried with North Korea. Instead Bush hid behind the Chinese, who national growth has been accelerated by his Presidency (as has India's and both nations posses a long term threat to our economic and political interests globally.) and tried for multilateral talks. Now Bush and his Secretary of State Condelezza Rice have given North Korea approval of their bad behavior with defacto recognition of their nuclear program and a removal of the nation from the list of terrorist nations.

We need a President who will stand up for America, not for Libya, North Korea, India or China. George W. Bush. We entered the Bush years as a preeminent nation on the planet. We had the goodwill of those across the globe and could have spread our empire through our culture and corporations abroad. Instead we resorted to unwise military adventurism in Iraq, an inconsequential nation and when that went badly panicked and made deal with dangerous dictators. Our empire is in taters: the American brand so to speak has never been less marketable. Ben Franklin and John Quincy Adams, two legendary diplomats who projected American weakness into power in the courts of European rules should be rolling over in their graves. The Bush years have been a disaster and the next President would be hard pressed to do worse.

P.S. The initial opening between Libya and west may have been when Qaddafi gave the British Government information about the IRA which he had armed for years. While Qaddafi cooperated when he needed to keep power, the fact that he so closely sponsored DOMESTIC terrorists in the UK should have given both the American and British governments pause about dealings with him.

Election Coverage

2008-10-22T17:46:00.002-04:00

Beginning Monday October 27th we will have daily blurbs on election related happenings in Florida. Not just the Presidential race, but Congressional and State Legislative races as well. Please check back beginning Monday for updates.

South Florida Expressways Never Built: Part I

2008-10-14T10:51:00.001-04:00

In the 1960s, Broward County was growing rapidly a bedroom community to already congested and urban Dade County, Florida's only true Metro area at the time. Dade County also was facing a huge traffic crisis. Interstate 95 began being built through the area in 1958 with the portion from SR 84 southward to the current I-195 (which was routed as I-95 for a time) being worked on. In 1962 the Palmetto Bypass was opened. At the time the road now known as the Palmetto Expressway was a rural beltway the circled Miami. The state had incredible foresight to build this road. The completion of the Palmetto Expressway and I-95 through Dade and portions of Broward led planners to propose many new roads. Some like SR 836/Dolphin Expressway, and SR 874 now known as the Don Shula Expressway got built in the 1960s and 1970s. However many more were never built and could have been useful in this day and age of congestion.

Included in the never built roads we will feature in the near future on this site are:

The proposed Miami Beach to West Dade, Hialeah Expressway
The original proposal for the University Freeway which was later rerouted and scaled back as the Sawgrass Expressway
The Sheridan Expressway
The Snake Creek Expressway
Le June Expressway
Rock Island Exrpessway
Interama Expressway
Miami International Airport Spur (to run along 20th or 14th street NW)
Cypress Creek Freeway

If anyone has memories at all about these expressways that were never built and the political battles that surrounded them please email me at kkfla737@yahoo.com

Blogged with the Flock Browser

The Negro President by Gary Wills

2008-10-02T21:24:00.001-04:00

Gary Wills is among my favorites historians. As a left leaning thinker at Northwestern University he doesn't write the same sort of uncritical books about our founding fathers as Joseph Ellis, Gordon Wood and most notably David McCullough have written. He also doesn't simply trash all the figures in American History the way the likes of Gore Vidal and Howard Zinn do. Simply put, he's an objective contemporary historian.

The Negro President is largely about Jefferson. That much you could guess. However it is not about Sally Hemmings: her name is mentioned scarcely if at all in the book. The title is a reference to Thomas Jefferson's election as President in 1800 over John Adams based on the 3/5 vote rule in slave states. Basically African American Slaves while held in bondage in the South we counted a 3/5 a person in the census which gave several Southern states undue extra electoral votes and threw the election to Jefferson.

The book is a fascinating overview of the power of slaveholders in American politics. While Thomas Jefferson professed an egalitarian ideology largely for political reasons he never strayed far from the line of the slaveholders. This included his successful attempts to aid those trying to put down the Haitian Revolution and his open advocacy of the planter class in the West Indies. Jefferson claimed to be a revolutionary and someone who detested royalty and aristocracy but as Wills convincingly argues, Jefferson's foremost concern was the maintenance of slave power.

Most of the Federalists who opposed Jefferson were against Slavery. John Adams and his wife Abigal opposed slavery, but Mr. Adams never made much of a public stand around it. Alexander Hamilton was anti-slavery but was more interested in successfully building American commerce (partly as a bulkwurk against slave holding South) and cozying up to the British. The real anti slavery leader among the Federalists was Timothy Pickering, who took consistent principled stands against the power of the South and slaveholders throughout his career as Secretary of State and in the Congress. Wills work allows us to rediscover a lost heroic figure of the early years of the American Republic: Timothy Pickering.

Pickering is the other major character in the book and is cast as the Federalist "anti-Jefferson." Up until his death in 1829 Pickering led the resistance to Slavery in Washington, and his legacy was fulfilled by Charles Sumner, William Lloyd Garrison and others. Another interesting side note about Wills book is that he does not take the knee jerk historical view of Aaron Burr. Burr, Wills points out was well within his rights to pursue the Presidency in 1800 and 1801 when the Electoral College was deadlocked and that Burr in fact took some very principled stands with the obvious exception of his duel with Hamilton. Wills theorizes that Burr's Western adventure which led to his trial on treason offended Jefferson not because it threatened the union but because it threatened slaveholders in the areas that are now Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee. Burr after all was himself strongly opposed to slavery.

This book is a great read and a refresher course on the Thomas Jefferson that most modern day historians avoid.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Conservative Hypocrisy: Confessions of a Liberal Operative

2008-09-02T09:06:00.005-04:00

I had originally believed Gov. Palin was a brilliant choice for VP: a game changer, or even a game closer as someone with experience in polling, I believe Sen. Obama due to his race is actually 5-7 points behind where he stands in the polls. Gov. Palin's win over Frank Murkowski in the primary and then Former Gov. Tony Knowles in the 2006 General were to me sure signs that she was an impressive vote getter, slaying two of the three biggest names in Alaska politics in one election cycle. (Many Democrats believed running Gov. Knowles again meant we'd walk back into the Governor's office) But now as ugly revelations about Gov. Palin's family have come to the surface more important questions have to be asked.

I have maintained for years that political conservatives actually represent the most socially decadent folks in the nation. Hiding behind religion and a moral crusade, it is conservative male politicians who consistently cheat on their wives, while pushing onerous legislation trying to keep Women in "their place." Gov. Sarah Palin's daughter having a child at 17 is a problem. Perhaps from a pure social perspective I am more conservative than most but I have a fundamental problem with children having children. Call me a prude but a family that would either turn a blind eye to such a problem or even worse encourage their child to get pregnant and then get married when it became politically convenient for the parents is not fit to be in a high public office or spotlight.

I've heard the talking heads discuss how these revelations should be off the table. I believe they should not be. I will admit my own failings in this regard: As a liberal operative knowing information about certain conservative candidates and families I choose not to politicize these issues. Once elected the candidates that defeated my clients advocated socially repressive legislation while living double lives. We've been forced as liberals to allow conservatives to promote a puritanical view of American society while themselves living lives in some ways as decadent than the rich and elite Roman society. What's worse is liberals don't get the same treatment from a media that often times is more interested in socializing with conservatives at cocktail parties and thus not losing their access to stories rather than being a fair and objective watchdog of the political class. Family problems are an issue: a legitimate issue as to how you live your life and how you will govern. When you run for public office you make the choice, and it is a choice to expose your family and your life to intense scrutiny. These issues should not be off the table and I personally regret my role in taking them off the table in some previous political campaigns. I've often said a potential President or Vice President should not be having affairs because that makes them susceptible to being duped by a foreign agent. I held this view with Bill Clinton whose affair with Monica Lewinsky was an issue for me and I hold this issue with anyone seeking the highest office in the land: They need to be held to a higher standard.

What's even more stomach turning for me is that Sarah Palin is anti-choice after giving birth to a child with downs syndrome. It a sad thing that someone blessed to have a child with a disability would advocate a point of view that takes the most important decision ever made by a family away from families and doctors and in the hands of government bureaucrats be they in Juneau or Washington. But at the same time Gov. Palin should be commended for trying to raise the child properly. But she should do this out of the public view.

John McCain's reputation as a Maverick helped him win the favor of a Washington press corp that is elitist and loves to hot nob with conservatives after hours. Now, they are giving him a pass on the most important decision he ever made. Did he properly interview Gov. Palin and did he have a formalized process for VP after sending out disinformation for the better part of two months? (including using the terminally ill Robert Nowak two months ago to claim he'd pick a VP early) Is having two westerners on a Presidential ticket for the first time ever something that represents the best interests of the American people? Is this a return to the John McCain pre circa 1996 when a knee jerk Arizona conservative advocated positions to the right of most of his Republican Senate colleagues? None of these questions have been asked, and all need to be answered.

Condolezza Rice Restores American Credibility

2008-08-23T12:22:00.001-04:00

After all the damage that an administration that Dr. Rice was an intregal part of between 2001 and 2004, most including myself had very low expectations for her tenure as Secretary of State.
After all Dr. Rice seemed to be more critical than any figure domestically to sell the war in Iraq a war I opposed openly before it began. (Unlike many cowardly Democrats who hide behind the "if I knew then what I know now mantra.). At the time I favored an attack on Iran instead since they represented the greatest threat to American security at the time. (I also favored reconciliation with Saddam Hussein and the possibility to using Saddam's Iraq to confront Iran) But following the military debacle in Iraq itr has now become impossible to formulate a successful military operation against the despotic regime in Tehran.

The cowboy rhetoric of one time moderate Don Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney have now been replaced by the strong iron diplomacy of Dr. Rice. While mistakes have clearly been made in the handling of Vladimir Putin's Russia, the strong position on Human Rights carved out by George W. Bush on Tibet after five plus years of inaction, as well as the engagement of our Western European allies has gone miles towards restoring American credibility after being trashed in Bush's first term.

Now the United States is involved in many multi lateral diplomatic actions that were lacking in Bush's first term when Secretary of State Colin Powell and his chief deputy Richard Armitage did not have the ear of the President. Rice's close personal relationship with Bush has helped to soften US rhetoric and actions when dealing within multilateral channels. All of this is ironic given Dr. Rice attacks on Bill Clinton's administration for using multilateral ism to project American power, for example in the Balkans. (A war that most Neo-Conservatives actually supported but Dr. Rice despite an alliance in the first Bush term is clearly not a Neo-Con)

American credibility will never be fuilly restored until Bush is out of office. But given the disastrous standing of the US in the world community a few years ago, Condolezza Rice's tenure has to be considered an unqualified success.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Putin: The Master of the new Energy Politics

2008-08-17T18:48:00.001-04:00

Vladimir Putin has restored Russian pride. A battered people after defeat in the Cold War and dismantling of an empire that spanned almost three centuries from the days of Catherine the Great to the fall of the Soviet Union. Russia is used to dominating its neighbors and has through many years of resettling managed to create significant ethnic Russian minorities in many nations surrounding its borders. Simply put, each of the other fourteen nations that were once Soviet Republic and much of Eastern Europe is seen as a Russian sphere of influence by the Kremlin.

NATO expansion which has antagonized the Russians in addition to the soft treatment this administration under the thumb of Russophile Condelezza Rice has brought us to the brink of a new cold war. But the war can never truly be cold, because these days the Russians have much more economic influence over Western Europe. In other words thanks to Gazprom, the former Yukos, and other Russian natural gas and petroleum companies, The Kremlin has more ability to influence events in the West than ever before. Gone are the days of clandestine cloak and dagger spy games: Today Putin can dare the west and use the ultimate weapon: not a the threat of a Nuclear holocaust, but instead he could threaten to cut off the Gas supply to the West.

This would have a devastating affect on the world economy. Coddling Putin has allowed Russian economic and military strength to assert itself. As I predicted three years ago on this website, Russia would represent the biggest threat to American interests both economic and political. the time has come for the West to get tough with Putin and to also accelerate the development of alternative sources of energy. What's even worse than depending on Saudi Arabia is depending on Russia to meet our energy needs.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

The Cost of Conservatism: French Defeat in World War II

2008-07-28T09:32:00.014-04:00

American Conservatives are self righteous and convinced that they alone have the best interests of the nation and the American people in their hearts. Conservative politicians throughout the globe behave in this fashion and try and portray their opponents as decadent, irresponsible and unpatriotic.

These themes mirror the conservative movement in France of the late 1930s. When Leon Blum and the popular front ( a coalition of liberal parties) were elected in 1936 to lead France, the right began what can only be called a crusade against him and the government. It did not help that Blum was Jewish.

The right in France used religion, particularly Catholicism and morality to advance their cause. As Hitler and Mussolini began their march through Europe, the French right showed sympathy for the fascist dictators whose domestic policies and opposition to the United Kingdom were appealing to conservatives. The fear and hatred of socialism and the Soviet Union was so intense among the French right that Adolf Hitler was seen in some quarters as the best leader in Europe. Hitler's anti-communist and anti-Jewish agenda was soon to be replicated in France by the right.
While it has become commonplace in the post war world to assign blame for French defeat on outdated military tactics, much of the blame lies with political conservatives whose sympathy for Nazi Germany and whose apprehension about alliance with Great Britain led to a rapid French capitulation. Once Winston Churchill tried to rally France to fight on, the French right began to discuss an armistice with Germany. For these conservatives a deal with Hitler, despite the fact that it was a violation of the Anglo-French alliance that had been in place since before the First World War was preferable to being submissive in any way to the British. What I am saying here is quite clear: In violation of all standards of human decency and in violation of the interests of the French Republic, these conservatives sought to make a deal with Hitler. The fact that many on the right did not respect Democracy and had blamed the French Republic whose governments were often voted in the by masses and filled with Jews for all of France's problems. These conservatives preferred a return to Monarchy or even a Nazi style government for France. When Prime Minister Paul Reynaud sent Charles DeGaulle to London on June 14th, 1940 he made it clear he did not want to give up the fight. Two days later Reynaud was deposed in what can only be described as an illegal coup by the right wing within his conservative government and six days later he was arrested and sent to Germany as a prisoner where he remained until May 1945.

Once the Armistice was signed and the new Vichy French state formed, it became a military dictatorship. On July 10th the National Assembly voted dictorial powers to Marshall Philippe Petain, the hero of Verdun in World War I but also the instigator of the illegal coup against Reynaud, a noted Anglo-phobe and supporter of French antisemitism.

Petian immediately began to reshape French society on a more conservative model which also means collaborating with the Nazi's who had not only defeated France and occupied 60% of its territory but whose ideology the new French leadership sympathized with. The National Revolution was launched which began to reshape French society on religious lines. Pétain used his power to order the dismissal of republican civil servants, the installation of exceptional jurisdictions, the proclamation of anti-Semitic laws, and the imprisonment of his opponents and foreign refugees. His government also without a formal deceleration of war did everything it could do to help the Axis cause against the British by trying to hold French colonies in North Africa and attacking British forces in the Middle East. During this time the French forces in Syria even battled Free French forces under the leadership of General Charles DeGaulle who was fighting alongside the British. DeGaulle, who like Petain was a member of Reynaud's cabinet was tried in absentia and sentenced to death should he return to France from London. DeGaulle however had the ear of Winston Churchill (but not Franklin Roosevelt who preferred to cultivate moderates in Petain's government) and as time wore on the majority of French colonies in Africa and Asia submitted to DeGaulle as the legitimate leader of France, not Petain.

Petain's Government did many things that undermined the French resistance cause and continued France's new status as a satellite of Nazi Germany. Multi party democracy was rejected in favor of a single party, conservative dictatorship. Petain was portrayed as a hero in posters and government propaganda. The cult of personality of Petain became the central focus of the French state. Thousands of Jews were stripped of French citizenship and forced to wear a yellow badge. Eventually Jews were put in concentration camps. Known Communists who had been legitimate members of government under the Republic were often times simply rounded up shot.

The France of commerce and city life was rejected in favor of a more agrarian and traditional France. Abortion policy was restricted and official government propaganda promoted the role of woman as merely servants of men who were to raise a family and stay home. This is in sharp contrast to the role of woman in wartime Anglo and American societies. In addition, active collaboration with the Nazi's was encouraged and a death sentence was ordered for anyone who was convicted of listening to the BBC.

France's conservative movement had succeed in destroying the republic, rejecting its alliance with the U.K., promoting fascism and ostracizing the Jews. Conservatism worldwide promotes itself as a strong force for good. But when we are faced with conservative leaders we must recall the lessons of France and hold our leaders accountable for any slide towards fascism.

Changes to This Site

2008-07-19T12:25:00.002-04:00

I've been away from blogging about general items in a while as the work load from the summer's soccer tournaments has weighed down on me.

In the next few months I plan on breaking this site into a few areas:

Aviation History
A history of Florida's Expressways
General Western History: Rome and beyond

I will continue general blogging, but would love contributors for these topics. Those interested please email me at kkfla737@yahoo.com .

Heathrow Airport: Terminally Ill

2008-06-05T21:17:00.012-04:00

This past week I once again had the displeasure to travel via Heathrow Airport as I visited London to attend the US-England International Football (Soccer) match. This was probably the 10th or so time I had been through Heathrow in my life, but traveling into and out of London on different days once again emphasized how poor the experience is, and why savvy business travelers go out of their way to avoid Heathrow and by extension London.

The U.K. I have maintained for years is the most inefficient western country. The recent flap over the opening of Terminal 5 placed BAA, British Airways and the whole nation once again in a terrible light. Unlike most American airports, or even better designed and more efficient European airports like Frankfurt Int'l, Amsterdam-Schiphol or Zurich, connecting at Heathrow is bigger ordeal in many cases than the flight itself. For example if you land at Terminal 4, which up until April was Heathrow's newest terminal and was used by primary tenant British Airways to Terminals 1,2,3 (Terminals 1 &2 host the majority of intra-European routes) you can expect a long walk out of T4, and then a bus ride upwards of an hour to one of the other terminals. Terminal 5 is situated closely to T 1,2&3, so that too represents a hike from T4. Complicating matters further is the length of immigration lines at the airport. Every time I have flown into and disembarked at Heathrow going back over 20 years, it seems the passport control lines have been under staffed and amazingly slow for an airport that prides itself on transiting more international passengers than any other on the planet. My passport control line the day of the US-England match was close to an hour long despite only one flight arriving in T4 at the time.

The debacle around the opening of T5 has been well documented so I won't repeat the depressing details. However it speaks loudly to the inefficiency of entities within the UK, and the inefficiency of the privatization of previously Government run entities pushed by Margaret Thatcher and the Tories in 1980s.

Transportation in and out of Heathrow continues to be survival of the fittest and I clearly wasn't the fittest. Not only do very few signs exist that point you towards where public transportation exists and as always is the case at Heathrow, the workers aren't particularly helpful. London 's public transportation is legendary for its scope and usefulness. However you have to be able to find a bus or tube route that suits you and have to have the money to pay for it in today's climate of high fuel costs and a weak dollar.

Heathrow has a train system between its terminals and the city which is a new service which opened only a few years back. However £ 17.50 is a pretty pence to pay for a trip to nearby Paddington Station. Also bus service to nearby hotels, including mine which was right on one of the runways cost £ 4.00. With prices like this, traveling to London which for many English speakers be it in the US, Australia, India, the Middle East or elsewhere represents the traditional first trip outside ones home region is simply not affordable. Add these prices to the general inefficiency of Heathrow, and the many gifts of London itself may seem less enticing for travelers in the future.

I'll have my review of Wembley Stadium and the transportation to/from the facility in the near future.

The Violent End to the Roman World

2008-05-22T02:31:00.005-04:00

In recent years under the direction of the European Union and academic forces in Western Europe and the USA and attempt has been made to essentially re-write history. The motivation for this is simple: when the ancestors of today's Northern Europeans and many Americans took over the former Roman lands a decline in civilization, learning, engineering and knowledge took place. However, today it has become fashionable to replace the theory of the "Dark Ages" with a term known as Later Antiquity which encompasses the gradual change from Roman life to the Middle Ages.

The new theory holds that the Dark Ages never truly existed and that the Early Middle Ages were simply "different" from Roman times and that civilization was in no way inferior. This new way of thinking about the Fall of Rome which has significant political backing is in the opinion of one scholar of Roman History flat out wrong.

Bryan Ward-Perkins, a history professor at Oxford makes a compelling and in my opinion a convincing case that civilization did decline during the period of time when Roman rules was falling and Germanic kingdoms rising in the west. Ward-Perkins book, The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization, focuses on archaeological evidence to demonstrate a few key points:

1- The Roman Empire in the west was violently conquered by Barbarians
2- The transition from Roman rule to Germanic rule led to a decline in comfort for most citizens of the west
3- The intracity of finished goods such as pottery, coins, and agriculture declined during the 5th, 6th and 7th centuries.
4- The masterful advances brought by Roman Engineering such as aqueducts and roads lay in decay after Rome's fall.
5- The convenience of Roman life was never replicated in the Early Middle Ages.

The book is a brilliant retort to those who seek to re-write history for the sake of making ones ancestors appear more civilized and advanced (as well as less violent) than they in fact were.
The book published by Oxford University Press is a must read for those like me who are curious as to the everyday man and woman's life while Roman civilization collapsed.

Gibbon's Decline and Fall: Volume Three, Pre-Justinian Volume Four

2008-04-30T14:26:00.013-04:00

Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire Volume Three races through the events which saw the final dissolution of the Western Empire and the survival of the East. Volume Four begins with an account of some of the consequences of this fall. For the purpose of this analysis they should be tied together.

The reigns of the sons of Theodosius the Great, who had been the last emperor to govern over East and West was a lamentable era for the Empire and indeed for the civilized world. The incompetence of the Emperor Honorius and the feeble Arcadius (who for some reason escapes Gibbon's wrath perhaps because he looks favorable when compared to his brother) provided the Germanic Barbarians with a wonderful opportunity to destabilize Rome.

The General Stilico was entrusted with the care of both boys by a dying Theodosius but soon ran afoul of Arcadius and the East. But the General was skilled in war and diplomacy and he was able to hold the Goths at bay until his arrest and execution on trumped up charges in 408 AD. That opened the door for a Gothic raid on Italy and in 410 Rome was sacked, a shameful episode while Honorius sat at his court in Ravenna totally unconcerned about the plight of the leading city in the world and his capitol.

The Roman legions at the same time also abandoned Britain and failed to properly secure Gaul, where a massive depopulation of cities occurred. The transition from heavily cultured city life enhanced by trade, a system of roads and running water, to rural anarchy with little trade and no culture or learning was an unfortunate bi-product of the collapse of Roman rule in the West. In a hundred years, society literally went from being highly educated and worldly to being warlike, and agrarian. That may seem like an unkind generalization, but the destruction of culture, learning, engineering and trade by the Barbarians is not an unkind myth propagated by people who romanticize Rome. Western Europe arguably had not reached the standard of living and learning of the Roman Empire until a 1,000 years after Rome's sacking by the Goths.

The Western Empire survived feebly after 410 but in reality lost its taxing ability and many provinces realized they were better off cutting deals with the Barbarians rather than being over run and killed by them. This situation while clearly not preferable to the enlightened rule Rome had provided to most of Western Europe for over 500 years was preferable to the sword.

However, the collapse of Roman rule led to a free for all, where the sword, not the laws the Romans had codified through the years or the institutions of government became the ultimate judge. The collapse of the Empire led to an upsurge in previously successful city dwellers into refugees to monasteries. While Christianity had helped in Gibbon's eyes accelerate the decline of Rome, it now provided a sanctuary to those fleeing from the terror created by Barbarian rule. While Gibbon fails to give enough credit to the religion for this, his overall premise about Christianity's role in the fall of the Roman west is accurate.

The Fall of Rome in 476, led to a period of shifting alliances between Barbarian kings. Some kings, like Theodoric of the Ostrogoths were better than others, and respected Roman culture and encouraged city life. Others raped and pillaged the land and terrorized the citizens and accelerated the transition from the enlightened world of Rome to the Dark Ages.

The Eastern Empire based in Constantinople survived the fifth century chaos. But as Gibbon correctly points out, much of this was due to its willingness to buy off the Barbarians and encourage them to move West. Moreover, the Eastern Empire wasn't able to influence events in the West as much as it would have liked as evidenced by Theodoric and Clovis (the Frankish king who in 486 had over run the last vestige of Roman rule in Gaul) working together to dilute the influence of Constantinople over the West.

With the Barbarians in control of the West, and the Romans still controlling modern day Greece, Turkey, and the Middle East, an epic showdown was about to occur as Rome made one last ditch effort to regain its past glory. That will be subject of my next posting.

Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: Volume Two

2008-04-28T17:20:00.010-04:00

Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire turns from clever narrative to intense introspection of religion and social troubles within the Roman world in Volume II. Constantine the Great changed the planet forever with his conversion to Christianity something Gibbon clearly feels was motivated by personal ambition and a desire to upset the existing order once he attained power.

Constantine's family didn't persecute Pagans according to Gibbon but used the institutions of the Empire to promote Christianity. Constantine's family began a pattern unique to The Eastern Roman/Greek world through the fall of Byzantium in 1453: that of dueling heirs who often times delved the state into civil war to achieve ultimate victory. Pre-Constantine, pagan Rome had sibling conflicts but rarely if ever Empire wide bloody civil wars between members of the same family. The ascension of Constantine's line also ended the period of time where soldiers and generals ran the Roman world. In the future both through Constantine's line and then the line of Theodosius, generals much like the period from 27BC thru 193 AD worked for the Emperors. Sadly this change to civilian rule and dynastic houses wasn't the best thing for Rome as capable generals such as Stillico and Aetius were eventually killed due to the ineptitude of the Emperor.

In 360 AD, Julian a nephew of Constantius (Constantine's son and survivor of a bloody reign where his brothers and other nephews and cousins were all killed) ascended to the Roman throne. Julian known as a the Apostate by history is clearly Gibbon's favorite Emperor of this period.

Julian was a remarkable man, having been educated in the classics as a youth in Athens and having led the Roman army on a campaign against the Germans in Gaul. His embrace of Paganism and the classical history of Rome is why, according to Gibbon he has been judged harshly by history. Julian led the Roman army into yet another war with the Persians in 363 AD and ended up losing his life, not in battle but perhaps under mysterious circumstances in Mesopotamia.

With Julian's death, the continued rise of Christianity and decline of Paganism accelerated in the Roman world, culminating with Theodosius declaration in 395 AD that Christianity was the official religion of the Empire. This came after the devastating battle at Hadrianople (modern Edirne in Turkey) where Emperor Valens was killed by the Goths, and the Roman legions for centuries invincible seemed pathetically weak and suspect. This set up the final century of misery for Rome, which is discussed in volume three.

What's the Matter With Kansas? Clinton Elites Think Kansas Doesn't Matter

2008-04-26T15:02:00.005-04:00

While the continued drumbeat from the Clinton campaign about Senator Barack Obama's "elitism" is mildly amusing, It is in fact Senator Clinton and her husband who continued the long descent of the Democratic Party away from the ideals and values of Middle America. Thomas Frank's 2004 bestseller discussed the Democratic Party's bi-coastal elitism and its complete disconnect from middle America. That process has been completed in the 2008 fight for the Democratic nomination by Senator Hillary Clinton, whose campaign has indicated the only criteria important for determining who would be a stronger Democratic nominee is how the candidates perform in states which the Democrats have carried in the last four Presidential elections. How candidates perform in states the Democrats will need to pick up to create a clear national majority does not matter to the Clinton elites. States like Colorado, Virginia, Missouri and yes Kansas that have been trending Democratic lately are unimportant. States in the midwest that have been trending Republican like Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa are too unimportant. Each of these seven states were carried by Barack Obama in the primaries and they represent perhaps the most important set of states in the 2008 General Election. The only states that matter are states which Senator Clinton carried, where independents and moderate Republicans will likely stay in the GOP fold because of the reputation of John McCain as a maverick.

A recent poll in the Indianapolis Star showed that Barack Obama, despite trailing in the Democratic Primary is in a much stronger position to win moderate Republican votes in the fall than is the uniquely polarizing Senator Clinton. Add to this the recent irresponsible, cowboy rhetoric by Senator Clinton with regards to use of nuclear weapons and the US military and you realize Republicans disaffected by George W. Bush's war policies may find a more reasonable, statesmanlike and sane alternative in Senator McCain should Senator Clinton steal the Democratic nomination.

But electoral math and logic does not matter to the Clinton team. They are determined to win the nomination regardless of the long term negative impact it creates for the Democratic Party of for Progressive Liberalism. They are even willing to lose a Presidential election for the Democratic Party in order to stay in power.

Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: Volume One

2008-04-23T14:07:00.005-04:00

Edward Gibbon's timeless classic, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, continues to be in the twenty first century the historical standard it was when it was written in the late Eighteenth century. Gibbon's reputation has taken a hit in recent years for his emphasis on the role of Christianity on the fall of Rome and his trashing of Byzantium.

Volume One covers the period of time from the end of the Pax Romana (180 AD) to Constantine's victory at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge outside Milan in 312 AD. The gist of the volume focuses on a narrative of the confusing third century which saw usurpers and despots claim the Roman throne and breakaway provinces claim their own right to rule the Roman world. After Diocletian ascended to the throne in 284 AD, the Roman world's luster was restored and order prevailed. However, it was Diocletian's persecution of Christians beginning in 297 AD that has undermined the reputation of the last truly great Roman Emperor.

Gibbon spends the last two chapters of volume one discussing Christianity and its origins. The author makes an impassioned defense of Roman paganism and its impact on developing the culture and knowledge of the Roman world. Gibbon also spends much of these chapters stating that the persecution of Christians by Roman authorities while unjust has been greatly exaggerated throughout history. In Volume Two, he picks up with this theme and follows it through the reign of Constantine's family. Shortly I will review that work as well.

What is apparent is that unlike many modern historians who simply write narratives, or others that simply right cause/affect type books, Gibbon's emphasis on primary sources leads him to interweave both together. Very few works give you an explanation not only of when events happened by why actually they happened, and what the background was that created an environment for this to happen. David McCullough, much celebrated these days in the United States is the worst violator of this principle. His major works, including the now re-created John Adams has very little background material discussed in it. McCullough's Pulitzer Prize winning biography of Harry Truman is one of the least substantial works about the great former President, I have read. Yet, McCullough always fascinates and impresses me as a TV host and as former narrator of Ken Burns' PBS specials. In other words, McCullough is a very good TV historian turned poor author. Trained historians and those simply fascinated by history like myself need to give Gibbon a re-read if for no other reason, to understand his methodology.

Cowgirl Clinton's Rhetoric More Dangerous than Bush's

2008-04-22T15:01:00.008-04:00

I am absolutely flabbergasted by the rhetoric coming from the mouth of Democratic Presidential hopeful Senator Hillary Clinton in the past few days. We know Senator Clinton has tried to stake out moderate ground on foreign policy as opposed to her more dovish and inexperienced opponent, Senator Barack Obama, but her recent statements not only show Clinton to be a poor campaigner, but possibly too reactionary to be trusted as Commander in Chief.

Senator Clinton discusses her qualification to answer the phone at 3am in a recent television advertisement and consistently berates her opponent for the Democratic nomination as inexperienced and naive. However, two comments by Senator Clinton in the last week have me, a liberal Democrat believing John McCain would be a more responsible leader when it comes to foreign policy than Senator Clinton. (I do not however think Senator McCain has the depth of understanding of domestic and economic issues to be taken seriously as a Presidential candidate)

Last week Senator Clinton took a completely irresponsible and indefensible position of using nuclear weapons to protect gulf states such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait from a potential Iranian attack. This comment made during a Presidential debate was sadly not challenged by Senator Obama. But let's get something straight. Using nuclear weapons to protect Saudi Arabia, one of the largest exporters of terror and one of the nations most hostly opposed to the ideals of Western Christendom and the secular governments of the West, of which the United States belongs is not an acceptable position for the United States to be in. Moreover, these sorts of bombastic, cowboy like statements make the job of our policymakers in the State Department, including Secretary Rice (who despite her other faults has been trying to avoid a military confrontation with Iran) much more difficult.

Now Senator Clinton has used her bully pulpit to actively advocate using nuclear weapons to defend undemocratic regimes in the gulf. Yet many of her supporters continue to claim she will be reasoned and thoughtful in office.

Following that statement Senator Clinton dug in claiming she would under the right circumstances "totally obliterate Iran in the next ten years." Liberals who have poked fun at George W. Bush's many mis-statements and have claimed his rhetoric is over the top have thus far today been silent in their denunciation of Mrs. Clinton's cowgirl rhetoric. These sorts of statements not only reflect poorly in Senator Clinton but on the entire United States. Despite President Bush's many over the top comments about foreign policy, he has never talked about obliterating countries.

I understand that some of Senator Clinton's problem is as a woman with a polarizing liberal reputation she feels she has to appear to be tough. But a fine line exists between being tough and being dangerous and right now Senator Clinton has crossed the line into murky territory.

Northwest-Delta Merger a Mixed Bag

2008-04-15T10:23:00.007-04:00

Delta and Northwest have agreed to merge with much fanfare. The combined airline which will be called Delta will be the world's largest. The merger should work because the route systems of the two airlines are probably the most unique and distinct of any major US carriers. However, some pitfalls do exist.

Northwest is the one US carrier with a "brand name" abroad in the post TWA/Pan Am world. This brand name applies only to Japan, but Northwest has had since 1946 "fifth freedom" rights to pick up passengers and cargo in Japanese cities and fly them to Asia without touching American soil. Delta has a very bad reputation in the Asian market and re-branding Northwest as Delta may not go over real well in Japan. The strength of Northwest in Japan and East Asia is from my vantage point the only thing that really made Northwest an attractive merger partner for any airline.
The combined airline is still pathetically weak in the Southwest and Texas. Delta closed its Dallas/Fort Worth hub several years ago and Northwest has virtually no presence in the region either.
I find it particularly laughable that the combined airlines says they will not close any hubs. How can an airline justify a hub in a second tier market like Cincinnati when Detroit is so close by and is clearly a much more desirable place to have a large operation.
What will the EU think of Air France whose partner Delta bought Northwest right after Air France bought KLM, who has a long standing alliance with Northwest. Will the EU feel this will border on a transatlantic monopoly? KLM/Northwest had the authority granted by the EU to co-market transatlantic ops long before Delta and Air France did, but I am thinking British Airways, American Airlines, Lufthansa and United may find this combined carrier (essentially a four way merger for trans atlantic operations purposes) to have too much bite particularly at large airports like Paris (CDG), Amsterdam, and New York (JFK).
What about fleet commonality? Delta flies all Boeing and McDonald Douglas (MD 80s and MD 90s) aircraft. Northwest flies a large number of Airbus aircraft and still has age old DC-9s based in Detroit and Minneapolis. In addition, Northwest has a number of 747-400s which in this era of increased fuel costs is not the type of plane you want to depend on. However, the combined airline has no other plan that can carry the cargo capacity or the number of passengers the 747-400 can.

This combined airline should be strong but merging corporate cultures and dealing with the problems noted above need to be taken into consideration.

Marcus Aurelius: Transitional Emperor

2008-04-12T20:38:00.012-04:00

The period between 98 AD and 161 AD represented the apex of Roman power and the period from 193 AD to 284 AD was a period of outright administrative chaos. But the period in between was one of intense contradiction and the beginning of the long decline of the Roman Empire, a decline that would not culminate until the late 5th century. What to make of this 33 year period between the apex and the beginning of the fall?

Marcus Aurelius is a famous figure in European history. He was learned, philosophical emperor whose humanity is legendary. He also ended up making war throughout his reign and even though it was not acknowledged at the time his years as Emperor sowed the seeds for Rome's decline. Some of it was simply bad luck: After defeating the Parthians in AD 166, the Roman army returned west with the plague, and a percentage of the Roman population perished even in what were the best of times (unlike the plague of 1347-1348).

Marcus also faced the first full scale Barbarian threat to the northern frontier in well over a hundred years. This threat was a harbinger of the almost constant instability in what is now Germany from the mid 200s until the mid 400s. Marcus also left the empire to his incompetent son Commodus, who is regarded as one of the worst emperors in Roman history, after several successive emperors who had "adopted" a non blood line but capable successor.

The life of Marcus Aurelius is chronicled in the work of Anthony Birley, a historian. The work written in 1966 (when he was only 29) is an outstanding and timeless look at the contradictions in Marcus' reign and the successes of humanity he brought to the empire.

Thoughts on CBS Masters Coverage

2008-04-12T16:17:00.005-04:00

Well another Masters weekend is here and as always CBS is mixing good and bad with their coverage. As in past years (except 2007) we're going to spend sometime analyzing the TV coverage on the blog of Golf's majors.

I don't understand why CBS fired Lanny Wadkins. Nick Faldo was ruined for me by working with Mike Tirico on ABC as well as with the Golf Channel. As good a golfer as he was the idea of taking Golf Channel or Disney quality color commentators and placing them on 18 at August makes me wont to vomit.
The coverage of Amen Corner on Directv channel 704 with Bobby Clampett is outstanding.
I've always liked Ian Baker Finch and felt it was ridiculous when ABC felt they needed to bring Paul Azinger and Nick Faldo in to replace him. He is doing a solid job as always this week.
Jim Nantz is annoying on Basketball but I cannot imagine the Masters without him. Losing Ken Venturi was tough but Nantz has either called the 15th or been the host of the broadcast since I began watching this tournament religiously some twenty three years ago.

Airline Carnage: The Immediate Future

2008-04-07T21:53:00.014-04:00

2008 has started a carnage that only 1991 had seen. That year Eastern Airlines which ten years earlier had been the largest airline in the free world, Pan Am who had long been the largest US international airline (and for many years the most recognizable American corporation abroad) and several other less well known carries went belly up under the burden of high fuel costs. Eastern and Pan Am were the two largest private employers in south Florida, and their liquidation meant an economic depression for the region that was only furthered by Hurricane Andrew.

Now in 2008 other parts of the country are feeling what south Florida and to a lesser extent New York/New Jersey felt seventeen years ago. (Eastern and Pan Am also had huge operations in New York City and TWA which was struggling and would never recover from 1991 and eventually go under moved its HQ and maintenance operations from New York at this time) I feel very badly for all the cities and towns affected by the shutdown of Aloha, ATA, and Skybus. The latter shutdown, Skybus is particularly stinging because so many airports had overhauled their infrastructure and hired new employees just to attract Skybus which was seen by many as a concept airline that would be wildly successful. Airports here in Florida such as Punta Gorda (Charlotte County Airport) and St Augustine find themselves without commercial air service after spending taxpayer money to overhaul their operation and hire employees.

The big question today is what will be next shoe to drop? Will a large airline like Delta or Northwest go under if they don't merge or will smaller, more cost conscious airlines like Jet Blue and Air Tran end up being the new major, bailing out their larger rivals and perhaps taking the "brand names" of their larger rivals?

Here are some thoughts about what I see happening.

The few large US Airlines that bought the fuel efficient Airbus 319/320/321 series of aircraft instead of the MD 80/90 series or the Boeing 737-800 probably will have some overall cost savings. This benefits US Airways, and United.
A Delta/Northwest merger would be risky because both airlines despite a national route system are still lacking a major west coast presence. Delta's Salt Lake City hub isn't comparable to United's Denver operation, and Northwest despite being a massive carrier across the Pacific has very little feed to these routes. However, I am not sure either airline can survive on its own and since they already have an extensive partnership, a merger makes sense.
American Airlines has an extensive point to point network featuring such large airports as Boston, Los Angeles, and New York (LGA and JFK). American may want to be creative and leverage this advantage to overfly their primary domestic hubs in Dallas and Chicago as well as Miami, their largest international hub. Offering point to point service that avoids congested hubs may seem less efficient, but ultimately cuts fuel costs, transiting costs and will allow AA to charge more for premium seats and nonstop service to offset some of the increasing fuel costs.
American has already announced new international flights from Chicago to Moscow, New York to Milan, Miami to Cartagena, Fort Lauderdale to Kingston, and Dallas to Lima. I'd expect to see more of this soon as American seeks to take the pressure of their domestic operation which is losing money.
Delta has clearly mortgaged their future on flying internationally, and I expect this continue while Delta continues the rapid pulldown of domestic routes not touching hub cities that we have witnessed in the last two months. We discussed Delta's international route structure on the website last year.
Continental needs to relieve their delay prone Newark hub with more flights routed via Cleveland and perhaps more international flying from Cleveland as well.
Air Tran has an opportunity to establish the operation at Chicago Midway they sought when they attempted to buy ATA. Air Tran has focused on Milwaukee lately but the opportunity now exists with empty gates from ATA's shutdown and only Delta flying from Midway to New York, to drive a weak Delta from the market and lock down big city flying from Midway that Southwest is unwilling to take on.
Several smaller carries fly Airbus A 320 family aircraft almost exclusively. These airlines are Frontier, Spirit and Jet Blue. These airlines could conceivably merge with each other to form a mega carrier: Spirit has a large Latin American operation based in Fort Lauderdale. Jet Blue operates a large base in Fort Lauderdale, along with Boston and New York. The only challenge would be cost structure. Spirit's cost structure is much lower than Jet Blue's or Frontier's. I would not be shocked to see at the very least, Jet Blue and
Spirit who compete vigorously on routes from Fort Lauderdale, Fort Myers and Orlando to New York as well as flights to the Carribean to call a truce, team up and take American Airlines for supremacy flying to the Carribean from Florida and New York.

The industry has enormous challenges in front of it. Here's hoping fuel costs stabilize soon and we are not talking six months from now about the loss of a major "legacy" carrier.

Politicians and Affairs: A Dangerous Game

2008-04-04T10:33:00.009-04:00

It's not simply about sex as some Democratic activists claimed during President Clinton's troubles. It's not simply about power as many felt during the Elliot Spitzer situation. Politicians having affairs is dangerous for their constituents, for the process and for the country.

My view on this subject is about as conservative as it gets, or as puritanical as it gets despite my liberal views on most other issues. I do not believe someone prone to having an affair with a young lady should be allowed to live in the White House or chair an important Congressional committee. Thus someone like Senator David Vitter or Senator Larry Craig should be barred from serving as the head of a major committee should the GOP regain control of the Senate anytime soon.

Here's why:

1- Let's say a young lady turns out to be a foreign agent, or worse yet someone who later sells information to a hostile foreign government.
2- What if the young lady is a lobbyist for some industry or corporation affected by legislation pending in front of Congress or the President? What if as in the first case after having an innocent affair, the young lady spills the beans to people with influence among a corporation or industry with regulatory legislation pending?
3- Ultimately many politicians who have affairs are male chauvinists who see Women in an ancient sense. These male politicians in most cases look down as females as a way to demonstrate their manhood and power.

Far fetched? Perhaps, but not that far out of the realm of possibilities and certainly not worth taking the chance with so much at stake for our nation.

Public service is a special calling. Elected officials to high offices have a moral obligation to serve the public and not behave a fraternity brother or a good time Charlie. If a male official has a fondness for the ladies or other similar weaknesses they should not run for higher office. The stakes in this post 9/11 world, where China and India's economies are becoming threats to the United States and Russia is behaving more like a cold war adversary than a friend coupled with all the threats from the Islamic world to me say we cannot afford the risk of having a politician in the White House or a high position in the Congress prone to being compromised so easily.

I'm not saying female elected officials don't have affairs, but one case for Senator Hillary Clinton
's candidacy is that women who are in public office tend to be more consciousness and interested than serving the public than men. While that seems like a crass generalization, I believe it after fifteen plus years of being involved in the process to be very true. However Senator Clinton has her husband to deal with. Campaign cash in many ways behaves like sex does for a politician. President Bill Clinton proved this on two occasions when he altered US foreign policy because of a campaign donation. The first occasion as we have talked about previously was when he got a phone call from donor Charlie Trie who was bust illegally raising foreign money in Little Rock. The second time was when President Clinton thanks to his dealing with an internationally infamous arms dealer (who also had some White House contacts in the Reagan years) approved an oil pipeline through the Caucucus Mountains in a reversal of longstanding American policy. Now can you imagine if Monica Lewinsky had been a foreign agent and hadn't been given a hush job by master Clinton donor (and co-author of the recent letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi) Bernard Schwartz?

Politicians having affairs is nothing new. However in this new information driven age, when blackmail is possible, and the challenges abroad are immense, having a leader less susceptible to compromise is not only wise, it's essential.

Evan Goldman's New Blog

2008-03-31T09:17:00.002-04:00

Check out our buddy Evan's new blog. He posts far more frequently than I do and his content is outstanding. Evan knows politics backwards and forward and understands the American ethos better than just about anyone around.

Factors Leading to the Fall of the Roman World

2008-03-28T09:28:00.002-04:00

The late Michael Grant wrote in the early 1990s an excellent book that looked more at the societal reasons behind the collapse of the Roman world particularly in the west between the years AD 375 and AD 476. Unlike most works on the fall of Rome, this particular book is not written as a chronological narrative so it is easier to digest from a social standpoint.

Here are Grant's Thirteen factors leading to Rome's Fall:

1- The Generals against the state
2- People against the army
3- Poor against the state
4- Rich against the state
5- The middle class against the state
6- The people against Bureaucracy
7- The people against the Emperor
8- Ally against Ally
9- Race against Race
10- Drop outs against society
11- The state against free belief'
12- Complacency against self help
13- This world against the other world

In the upcoming few weeks I'll explore a number of these topics in greater detail based not only on Grant's writing but those of other historians that studied the time including Gibbon.

The Surge Worked: So What's Next?

2008-03-19T13:03:00.004-04:00

Temporary Military Success Cannot Overcome the Reality that Iraq was a Major Mistake

As we commemorate the fifth anniversary of one of the great strategic blunders of post World War II, America, we are confronted with a daily drumbeat of how President Bush's surge "worked" and we are winning the war. But what exactly constitutes the surge "working" and how do we define "winning " the war?

The reality of the situation is this. After campaigning against nation building in 2000 and having his chief national security adviser, Condelezza Rice attack the Clinton Administration's policy on any number for foreign policy issues, The Bush White House has taken our nation into the biggest quagmire for nation building purposes we have ever conceived. Instead of engaging in a game of Real Politic where we could have played two hostile states whose dislike for one another equaled their dislike for us (Iraq and Iran) against each other, we choose the weaker one to destabilize and stronger one and more reflexively anti-American one to form a quasi alliance with by befriending Iranian agent Ahmed Chalabi (who was wanted for numerous felonies in Jordan, an ally of the U.S.) and openly siding with Iran's backed Shiite's over the Sunni's backed by our allies Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Now we've reversed course and blame Iran for destabilizing the region and Al-Qaida for attacking us when in fact Al-Qaida is trying to stamp out Iranian influence in Iraq and the Shiites backed by Iran are trying to run Al Qaida out of Iraq. Confused? So is the administration who has failed to set any sort of goal for victory besides the rhetoric of fighting terrorists.

The Administration has consistently lowered the bar on what constitutes victory. As someone who believes in using our military aggressively to stamp out terrorism and threats to the United States this entire operation has been poorly conceived and quite frankly a complete embarrassment to the good men and woman who represent our nation in the Armed Forces.

In 2003 it was stamping out Weapons of Mass Destruction
By late 2003 it was stamping out an insurgency created by our own ineptitude in disbanding the Iraqi military and Baath part dominated bureaucracy and replacing them with twenty something Republican political operatives.
In 2004 it was creating a functioning government
By 2005 it was making sure the Shiite majority ran the country in show of "democracy"
In 2006 it was stamping out Iranian influence which was at an all time high thanks to our decision to essentially side with the Shiites in a Civil War
In 2007 it was reducing terrorism
In 2008 it is a blanket statement to win the war?

So in other words even though the surge has worked militarily what is the solution? To keep upwards of 150,000 US troops on the ground for years to come, trying to referee a civil war? This being a Civil War where Washington cannot decide which side we are on, or which side we should back and has in fact HELPED BOTH SIDES KILL AMERICANS AND EACH OTHER by virtue of a confused and conflicted official policy? What are the definitions of victory that the administration can put forth? In addition, how is this war that was to be fully paid for according to then Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld by oil revenue going to be sustainable financially, considering the economic downturn brought on largely by this administration coddling of Wall Street? Will our dedicated fighting men and women have the necessary equipment to not become sitting ducks in the crossfire of a Civil War in which America realistically has no stake? How does this continued boondoggle take us away from our need to aggressively confront militarily and diplomatically terrorist cells in Western Europe, Latin America and other parts of the Middle East? The Surge may have worked militarily but as the Romans learned countless times it's better to cut your losses and re-allocate your resources when it comes to war and the economy than to keep fighting a for a cause that means less than so many others that need to be fought.

Gibbons Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

2008-02-28T18:30:00.002-05:00

I have dedicated myself to re-reading the entire UNABRIDGED version, all six volumes this year. I have decided to begin tonight and read a little bit every night until I finish. I will point out that the idea to re-read the entire series came from Robert Caro's Master of the Senate where he described Senator Richard Russell, as a loner and a devotee of reading Gibbon over and over again. I see myself in the same light when it comes to Gibbon but have distaste for Russell's Southernism, general conservatism and defense of racial segregation. (He was a new dealer at one time but that was only to promote welfare for the south.....it's funny how conservative southerners continue to benefit the most from the largess of Government while attacking government as evil) In short I in no way see myself as an heir to Richard Russell, but do appreciate his sense of the history of Rome.

Deception, Distortion and Dishonesty: The Clinton Way

2008-02-18T20:26:00.004-05:00

Today's sorry drama of "plagiarism" by Barack Obama reminded me of why I so disdain the Clinton family and why the Democratic Party has had a certain moral bankruptcy over the past several years. For the Clinton's winning, even at the expense of the party whom they have used as a vehicle to power or at the expense of the few causes they may truly find near and dear to their heart is the ultimate goal.

This is a family who as America's first family engaged in in a ruthless battle to the death with their political opponents, and so polluted the air in Washington that the politics of personal destruction became the way of the capitol. Barack Obama, promising a new politics not only threatens the Clinton's personal survival, but the survival of the culture of petty partisanship and shouting that the Clinton's fostered and their cronies have profited from. As someone involved in Democratic Party politics during the Clinton years, the stew that was brewed by the Clinton machine was so distasteful to someone like myself who puts values and issues above personality and petty hatred. Thus, while I am Democrat to my core I don't involve myself in partisan activities any longer.

The Clinton's violated the most basic Campaign Finance laws in the 1996 re-election campaign. These laws were meant to protect American citizens from a large and corrupt government and stop the potential sabotage of American policy by foreign governments or foreign interests. While I do not believe President Bill Clinton compromised American security with his illegal fund raising he certainly allowed access to the White House for arms dealers and in the case of James Riady and the Lippo Group, may have been close to giving the Chinese Intelligence service unfathomable access to American officials. Clinton did not want to help the Chinese. He wanted to help himself raise money: once again the Clinton's ambition to raise money and keep power met national security head on and the power of ambition won. In other words, we as Americans should be thankful Riady, Charlie Trie, and John Huang among others were caught before national security was in fact compromised.

Hillary Clinton's campaign operatives have accused Barack Obama or potentially having a problem of stealing others words. In a future post I will explore Mrs. Clinton's own record on this issue, including passages from her book "It Takes a Village." But even if Obama does steal words from others, stealing words is a lot less dangerous than potentially compromising national security. If a Clinton restoration was to occur, and times got tough, and Senator Clinton like her husband had such a poor first eighteen months in office that the GOP swept Congress like it did in 1994, would the same temptation occur for Mrs. Clinton to raise illegal money from foreign sources who are enemies of the United States as her husband did. Why should we take the chance? Why should we as Democrats allow our party to be prostituted for the gain of a single power hungry family? Why should we as Democrats live in the gutter with the equally destructive and nasty Republicans when we have an opportunity to make a clean break with Barack Obama? Why should we aspire to race to the bottom when Obama can restore our national and partisan pride?

The Clinton Dynasty: Victory By Any Means

2008-02-12T13:47:00.001-05:00

The continued attempts by Bill and Hillary Clinton to manipulate the media and public opinion for personal gain hearken us back to the selfish nature of the Clinton presidency itself. While the comment of MSNBC's David Shuster (whom I consider to be among the finest political correspondents on TV) were misplaced the ensuing bitterness and attacks on MSNBC by the Clinton "spin" machine make me recall why Howard Kurtz's late 1990s book Spin Cycle, was so well received throughout the country.

Careful subterfuge has always been a Clintonian trait. Impeachment looming? Wag the Dog! Bomb a foreign embassy with huge diplomatic consequences? Blame old maps! Records sought by Congress firing travel office staff and a land scandal? Attack the messenger! Losing primaries in caucuses in areas Democrats need to win? change the subject! Losing a grip the nomination that your family feels is owed to them? Subvert Democracy by courting super delegates to correct the "mistake" the heathens (the Democratic Party's rank in file voters) are making!

Everything has worked out the way it was meant to for the Clintons. Mario Cuomo got gun shy and didn't run for the Presidency in 1992. the GOP despite being in an upswing due largely to the ineptitude of the first Clinton term (after winning both houses of Congress in 1994 running against Bill Clinton) nominated a weak candidate and in 2000 Al Gore's failure to secure the Presidency after winning the popular vote and essentially winning Florida as well served the machine well. With Gore out of the picture, the Clinton's could count on eight years of George W. Bush as an interlude in the dynasty. Senator Clinton's votes and "reconciliatory" behavior in the Senate was meant in many ways to enable a Bush re-election to serve her own political needs. The greater cause of liberal/progressive politics was rejected in favor personal political gain, much as it was throughout the 1990s when personal survival was the name of the game in the Clinton White House.

The Clinton's arrogance has never failed to amaze me. Now their desire to win at all costs and reclaim something they feel entitled to makes them willing to trump Democracy, and the will of the party they have allowed as an enabler to their selfish needs. It's about time Democrats got up and smelled the stench coming from Clinton HQ and finally reclaimed the party which has been hijacked for the better part of fifteen years for the Clinton Dynasty and the dis-enlightenment it provides.

Obama Shows Red State Strength

2008-02-06T10:26:00.000-05:00

Today on my early morning flight to Houston I reflected on the most significant theme of last night’s virtual national primary. As I have again thought through last night on my flight my analysis remains similar to what I stated late in the evening on AM 1460 in Jacksonville (around 11:30 pm ET) when I mentioned that Obama’s rural strength in the interior west and southwest was to me remarkable. The media this morning as I can surmise from limited viewing at the airport seems to have some basic themes: Clinton wins California, McCain wins big and Huckabee wins in the South. But to me the story of the night and in fact the story of this primary/caucus season may be the growing strength of Barack Obama among rural white voters outside the South and Northeast.

The returns from Massachusetts and New Jersey did not surprise me. Despite the frequent pontificating of elites from the Northeast racial and ethnic voting (The election of Duvall Patrick excepted) seems to be prevalent in what is allegedly the most liberal region of the nation than anywhere else. Polls that showed New Jersey (a state I consider to have among the most racially polarized electorates and a state where racial code words have often been used to defeat Democratic candidates) close, I rightly believed were faulty. In the South, the trend of rural white voters away from Obama that we observed in Florida continued in Arkansas, Oklahoma and Alabama but seemed to recede in Georgia and Tennessee.

But the big story is the West and the Rocky Mountain states. Even though Nevada was won by Senator Clinton, Raymon Day, Congressman Charlie Bennett’s former Chief of Staff noted that rural whites had preferred Obama to Clinton. That trend intensified last night. Lily white states (and moderately conservative even among Democrats), Idaho, North Dakota, Alaska and Utah gave Obama huge margins over Clinton. In fact, Idaho delivered the largest winning percentage of the primary/caucus season for any candidate. Idaho’s population is about 1% African-American. Colorado and Minnesota two states with a progressive bent (particularly Minnesota) which the Democrats MUST carry in November to win the Presidency were won by very wide margins by Senator Obama. Minnesota is a state with a liberal tradition and a tradition of racial tolerance best exemplified by Hubert H. Humphrey one of the greatest champions of Civil Rights in modern American political history. However, Minnesota too is a very white state with a very religious (Lutheran) electorate. Much like Utah which is 89% Mormon and 95% white, Minnesota has a dominant religion that is not prevalent in many other parts of the nation. Utah itself gave Obama a wide margin in its primary, and like Nevada where many of the rural white voters are Mormons, Senator Obama’s success there speaks well to the tolerance of a religion many fundamental Christian voters are intolerant towards.

Senator Hillary Clinton’s victories yesterday were almost exclusively in what are referred to as “Blue” states and “Purple” states where the party insiders and establishment control the political process. Obama’s victories were largely in Red and Purple states. This speaks well to Obama’s electability and ability to be competitive in places the Democrats must win and also to Senator Clinton’s limited appeal beyond the Democratic base. This is a consideration Democrats must ponder going forward. Senator Clinton’s negatives are sky high nationally and as I observed last night on Jacksonville’s AM 1460, I do not recall (since 1984 when I’ve began following the primaries closely) a Presidential candidate with such negatives during a primary season either being nominated by his/her party nor being elected President. It’s time Democrats considered this and moved towards Obama in masse, and threw off the stench of the Clinton years in addition to the continued lock activists and party insiders have on the nominating process.

Obama, Romney Weak Among Conservative Rural White Voters

2008-01-30T10:09:00.000-05:00

Florida, ah Florida. My home state and the most representative microcosm of Americas population seems to have done it again. The field for President has been by Florida essentially narrowed to two serious national Presidential candidates: Hillary Clinton and John McCain who baring slip ups will coast to their party's nominations. It's not about the final tally as much as it is about the specific county returns that prove a failure to compete in rural areas for two big city Northern candidates who have either a racial or religious background which for many Americans is out of the political mainstream- Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Let me preface this discussion by saying I would prefer Obama to be the nominee of my party, the Democrats. I have as many of my writings have indicated for years now a disdain for the entire Clinton dynasty and the dis-enlightenment it has provided the Democratic Party. With my first choice, John Edwards out of the race, Obama is an inspirational and potentially transformational figure. However the continued dis-enlightenment triggered by the Clinton machine upon the Democratic Party seems to have made its impact in North Florida.

A careful examination of the most conservative rural North Florida Counties with the smallest African-American percentage indicates Barack Obama was a distant 3rd choice in most places behind Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. This trend was bucked by two large North Florida Counties with large student populations- Alachua and the University of Florida where Obama won narrowly and Leon and Florida State University where Obama won in a romp. (of the two major Florida universities, FSU tends to have the more liberal student body so the discrepancy there is not surprising.) But throughout the rest of the panhandle, where the African American population is under 30% Obama was smashed. In Holmes County for instance, where Richard Nixon got 97% of the votes against George McGovern in 1972, Obama received 10% of the vote as opposed to 49& for John Edwards and 30% for Hillary Clinton.

On the Republican side the very same Holmes County placed Mitt Romney in third at 20% behind Mike Huckabee and John McCain. Jackson County is another example of Romney finishing a distant 3rd in a North Florida County. Romney's strength in Florida tended to come from economic well to do areas: Collier and Lee Counties as well as specific upper income precincts in Metropolitan Jacksonville and Orlando. Romeny carried Seminole County outside Orlando which is perhaps the most economically conservative county in the state, and whose demographics are made up largely of refugees from high tax states like Romney's own Massachusetts, Ohio and Michigan.

So essentially what we have coming out of Florida is two niche campaigns with major financial and political backing: Obama and Romney, and two national campaigns in Clinton and McCain. Obviously both McCain and Bill Clinton have legendary tempers so while the game appears to be over the fat lady is not singing just yet. A slip up could occur under the rigors of the campaign for either front running camp and then a nominee who clearly will have to write off large portions of the electorate could emerge for either party.

Hillary Clinton is no LBJ

2008-01-18T21:50:00.001-05:00

Much was made this past week about Hillary Clinton's perceived comments about Martin Luther King's role in getting Civil Rights legislation passed. While I find Clinton implication that Barack Obama is nothing more than a erstwhile dreamer offensive, I find her trying to liken herself to the political and legislative genius that was Lyndon Johnson even more offensive.

Thursday night I appeared on the Inside Slant show on 1460 AM in Jacksonville. The host Scott Gaillard asked me point blank about the Martin Luther King episode this past week, and I stated while I felt the entire thing was overblown, the fact that Hillary Clinton with seven years legislative experience and having the failure of getting Health Care reform through a Congress which 58% of the members were from her own party showed she couldn't in good conscience wrap herself in LBJ's legacy.

In 1964 the Congress as it had for much of the the past thirty two years was controlled by reactionary southerners. An irony of the New Deal sweep was that it produced some of the most conservative chairman in House Committees we have ever had. Chairmen like Howard Smith of Virginia (House Rules), Senator James Eastland of Mississippi, Senator John McClellan of Arkansas and many many more. The Congress was run by Southerners committed to maintaining segregation at all costs, even if it involved violence. Lyndon Johnson had partially come from that background. While FDR was alive he appeared to be a committed New Dealer and had liberals in Texas, particularly in his native Hill Country thinking he was a worthy heir to Maury Maverick (Mayor of San Antonio, Congressman.) But after FDR's death, LBJ became himself a reactionary conservative allied with Texas' oil and business interests and with their help he stole the 1948 Senate Election. As Majority Leader Johnson allied himself with the Southerners until he decided to run for President at which case he began identifying himself as a "Westerner." In other words much like Bill Clinton he was a chameleon, dedicated to little more than his own political survival.

When JFK's murder catapulted LBJ to the White House he made Civil Rights a priority for his national constituency. But unlike Hillary Clinton's failed and arrogant approach to Health Care reform, Johnson worked the legislation through his allies including the great Hubert H. Humphrey in the Senate. He used every ounce of his political skill to break the Southern filibuster and control of the committees and along with the inspiration and public support created by Martin Luther King's movement, he got the most momentous legislation of a generation passed.

In contrast Hillary Clinton most significant achievement to date was pointing out a right wing conspiracy existed against her husband and voting for the Iraq War without reading the pre-war intelligence. Hillary Clinton is no LBJ.

The Clinton Dynasty: Bad for Democrats, Bad for America

2008-01-09T10:10:00.000-05:00

Yesterday Hillary Clinton took a big step, possibly a definitive step towards securing the Democratic Party's Presidential nomination. In the time I have been watching Democratic Party politics (since 1980) if a candidate won New Hampshire they won the nomination with the exception of William Jefferson Clinton whose 1992 loss to Paul Tsongas can be excepted because Lowell, the home of the late great Senator Tsongas is just across the border in Massachusetts. (The record for Iowa is not so good: Al Gore in 2000 was the first candidate to be nominated after winning Iowa in 20 years) The gender gap I had predicted last week showed up in New Hampshire and will continue in all primary states. I hate to say this because I am most certainly not a backer of any Clinton who may appear on the ballot but this race for the nomination despite media protestations and the good fight Senator Obama and his legion of followers seem destined to continue is in all likelihood over.

How can one make that assumption after one narrow primary victory? In 1992 Bill Clinton was the last candidate in that Democratic field to win a primary or caucus (in Georgia) but he found a way to manipulate the media into ordaining him as the nominee soon after. Hillary Clinton and her clever handlers who put meaningless rhetorical lines on paper in her stump speeches are as Howard Kurtz described in his book Spin Cycle, "the best media manipulators in the country." Senator Clinton's appeal to this point in the campaign had largely been based on inevitability because after all she is a Clinton. Later this week or early next I'll detail how the Democratic Party ceased to be a truly national party under the watch of President William Jefferson Clinton and why it took twelve years to even partially reverse the losses of the Clinton years in the Congress, State Legislatures and Governorships for the party.

The Clinton family is aiming to be a dynasty that puts the welfare of the "royal family" above that of the party they belong to and represent and ultimately the country itself in many cases. The American psyche has a soft spot for royalty. Not knowing the struggles of our forefathers who threw off an oppressive Monarchy in the pursuit of liberty, today's TV driven American society became quickly obsessed with Princess Diana and various TV show and movie celebrities. William Jefferson Clinton understanding this dynamic better than anyone used the media to its advantage and the psychopathy of Democratic Party loyalists, desperate for any sort hero to worship in the 1990s after almost 30 years of Republican control of the executive branch to cast himself and his family in a "leading light" sense to the public.

Hillary Clinton's sense of entitlement is galling for any objective observer of the process especially one who has been watching these primaries from near or afar for over twenty years like myself. Senator Clinton claimed last week that Senator Obama was giving false hope to Americans with his lofty and inspirational rhetoric, the sort of speech, I have never once seen Senator Clinton deliver. Were I a Clinton, I would not get into the debate on false hope. William Jefferson Clinton's 1992 Campaign lifted the hopes of liberals, progressives and moderates throughout the nation, the middle class, those looking for a break, etc. What William Jefferson Clinton's administration actually delivered were Republican majorities for the first time in forty years in both houses of Congress a record number of state Republican governors (32 after the 1996 election), and a number of moderate to conservative laws based on ensuring the political survival of the Clinton dynasty. Clinton's recklessness which led to impeachment also was directly responsible for Al Gore's failure to secure the White House in 2000: Clinton's behavior, not Al Gore's failure to campaign with him made the vote total close enough to where Florida's electoral process could be hijacked and manipulated. Interestingly enough, Gore's failure to become President allowed Hillary Clinton the opportunity to run in 2008 for the White House.

On the campaign trail Senator John Edwards and Senator Barack Obama have spoken in plain terms about their vision for American society. Hillary Clinton has spoken in Clintoneque platitudes and subtly insulted her opponents along the way. Let's get something straight when Senator Clinton refers to experience. I believe a candidate whose life and professional experience enriches their knowledge and ability to understand real problems is a qualification for the President. John Edwards as a plaintiffs attorney represented the most disadvantaged in society: those injured or manipulated by greedy large corporations. Edwards often times wouldn't see a dime for his hard work while he would spend thousands on his client in preparation for taking on the mammoth corporations who dot the American landscape. Hillary Clinton on the other hand served as a corporate attorney for the Rose Law Firm, a politically connected firm, which represents nothing but big business in typically corporate work.

As the last paragraph indicates, I intend to vote for John Edwards in the Florida Primary on January 29th. If Senator Edwards is no longer in the running I will support Barack Obama. Knowing the struggles of our party over the past several years, the rich heritage of the nation we live in and its founding principles and my desire to for our nation to move beyond the corporate/lobbyist driven political world that I recently gave up precludes me from supporting Hillary Clinton. But having been through the political wars makes me a realist. Their is very little chance she will not win the nomination. New Hampshire has spoken and as go New Hampshire's Democrats so usually go the nation's Democrats.

Winter Reading

2008-01-05T14:16:00.000-05:00

The last year or two I have really slacked off in my reading of books- political and historical biographies as well as commentaries on contemporary society. I have replaced this with reading every news magazine available. I've become an avid reader of both the Atlantic Monthly and Harpers as well as renewing my reading of the Washintgon Monthly which I gave up reading years ago.

But this year I am returning to reading books, and with the exception of David Halberstam's new masterpiece on the Korean War, they are all books I have read before. Here is my winter reading list.

Politics of Rich and Poor- Kevin Phillips
The Rise and Fall of Great Powers- Paul Kennedy
The Fall of the Roman Empire- Michael Grant
The Path to Power, Means of Ascent and Master of the Senate- Robert Caro.

The first three books on the list all have analytical and unique looks at phenom that have been heavily written about but not with the rich detail of the named authors. The last line- the trilogy masterpiece by Robert Caro is the most complete, best written societal and political biographies of our time.

Baby Boom Bye Bye?

2008-01-04T11:28:00.000-05:00

I am as guilty as anybody. In my past life as a Democratic political operative I was of the belief that so-called voters below the age of 45 didn't matter. I was oriented in the early and mid 1990s when I got into this business (my first election as a volunteer was 1992, my first as a paid operative/manager was 1996) that young voters don't count. Don't waste time and resources on them and actually more cynically don't encourage them to vote because they are the great unwashed and could easily vote the "wrong way."

The Iowa Caucus last night could be the precursor of a radical change in American politics. Young voters have never mattered and the poltical game has been marked by constant tension between the baby boomers and their parent: the greatest generation as dubbed by Tom Brokaw. But the support for Barack Obama and to a lesser extent Mike Huckabee on the other side was largely based on pre-baby boomers.

Post partisan and post 1960s defined politics in the United States has been declared before only for us as a nation to fall back into our familiar red and blue pattern based on fallout from the 1960s and 1970s: Vietnam, Watergate and the ERA era. Could we have finally moved beyond this constant civil war which has divided us into two very seperate nations: one made up of elitists (ie. snobs) along the coasts and in the Chicagoland area who tend vote blue and those in between who are working class oriented and more tinged by religion who often vote red arguably (from my perspective) directly against their economic self interest.

Could Obama and Huckabee be vehicles for an important change in American politics and political discourse. From a recovering operative, I certainly hope so.

New Hampshire and Iowa: A Gift to America

2008-01-03T23:44:00.000-05:00

This Presidential nominating process is fatally flawed. As someone who has watched the nominating process since 1984, the efforts by the media and political establishment to margainilize the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire in favor of big states dominated by media elites is dissapointing. The Iowa caucus has been for years the purest form of Democracy. Tonight's caucus once again demonstrated this.

New Hampshire, a state small enough where every voter can meet every candidate has been critical as well. I recall fondly the 1988 New Hampshire Primary. That night watching at home with my parents I saw Michael Dukakis best Dick Gephardt and Jesse Jackson and develop momentum for the nomination. We saw Bob Dole's legendary temper erupt and cost him any chance of upseting George Bush. Heck, Ed Muskie cried in New Hampshire and it finished him. In 1992 and 1996 I watched with fascination as Pat Buchanan's pitchfork army sent a message to the media and elites in Washington. In 2000 we watched John McCain and Bill Bradley both take on the partisan machinery and perform well. The sort of retail politics New Hampshire brings us is what America needs- and taking that away will hurt America in the long run.

Huckabee Could be a Uniter

2008-01-03T23:38:00.000-05:00

Call me a disloyal Democrat. But tonight I realized Mike Huckabee is again the figure he represented in Arkansas in the mid to late 1990s- a unifying figure in a deeply divided nation. Secular progressives (which include myself) tend to live along the coasts or in the Chicagoland area. But for the rest of America, Mike Huckabee can bring the same sort of healing he brought Arkansas racked by Whitewater and the indictment and conviction of Governor Jim Guy Tucker. Call Huckabee the anti-Clinton. The other man from Hope was always able to work with the Democratic dominated legislature and unlike so many Republicans elected statewide in Arkansas he was actually re-elected in what to this day remains on the state level on of the most Democratic states in the nation.

What Huckabee brings is a religious fundamentalism mixed with economic populism. This sort of thing plays well in the "Red States" and also in pockets of suburbia. Despite the best efforts of media elites and the Republican Party establishment to margainalize him, Huckabee prevailed in Iowa and has to be considered by anyone truly objective and versed in recent American political history a potential President.

The Disgraceful Legacy of William Jefferson Clinton

2008-01-01T15:51:00.000-05:00

Bill Clinton, the only President of the 20th Century to be impeached has demonstrated his unethical, selfish mentality again in the past several weeks. As someone on the left side of the political spectrum whose political activism and involvement spanned the entire Presidency of Clinton, I have come to despise the man.

Bill Clinton's Presidency was average by most standards. The economy was strong, but the reality is Clinton despite his extensive knowledge of the world failed on many international fronts. He was late reacting to the crisis in the Balkans and made several mistakes in the Middle East and Central Asia. In addition, he was impeached and whether or not you agreed with his impeachment, President Clinton's reckless and immoral behavior is what gave Tom DeLay and GOP led House the opportunity to impeach a President whose other scandals included illegal campaign fund raising, the Whitewater land deal, the firing of the staff in the White House travel office, three independent counsels appointed to investigate cabinet members among others. It was Bill Clinton's behavior and scandals that gave George W. Bush the opportunity to claim Florida's electoral votes and the Presidency in 2000 over Al Gore.

Yet today's Democrats view President Clinton with the same reverence those of the New Deal generation viewed FDR. Why? Our nation has become polarized politically in the same fashion the Federalists and Republicans fought in the 1790s and much of that owes itself to Clinton's personal and public behavior. Now Clinton's sense of entitlement and selfishness is allowing the man to engage in behavior totally unbecoming of a former President.

When President Clinton attacks Barack Obama or John Edwards for their lack of experience he ignores his own shortcomings and forgets that so many Democrats walked the plank for him- both in Congress and throughout the nation while he was engaging in illegal and immoral behavior. Now Clinton in an effort to continue his own spell over the Democratic Party is pushing his equally selfish and polarizing wife on the party's nominating process. It is after all the Clinton's whose reckless behavior created the current climate where the politics of personal destruction trumps issues and good public policy.

Shame on Former President Bill Clinton and all the Democrats whose psychopathic loyalty to him encourages his reckless and selfish behavior.

The NFL's Imperial Hubris

2007-10-23T12:32:00.000-04:00

The National Football League’s arrogance under new Commissioner Roger Goddell is galling. This week the NFL will officially trash the new Wembley Stadium, the hallowed ground of the England National Team and the Playoff Championship venue for each division of the Nationwide Football League. We’ll see American Football lines painted at Wembley and the all the tasteless commercial pomp and circumstance that comes with any event in an American Professional sports league. But the bottom line is people in the U.K. care as much about this NFL game as people here in the United States care about the final match of the Rugby World Cup.

In order to make Wembley look full it is reported tickets are being given for free to anyone who might want to attend the game. That’s good because since tickets for England’s matches and the playoff final in the Championship, League One, League Two and the Conference National are hard to come by, many lucky fans will actually get to see the new Wembley without paying. What a novel concept, and what charity by the NFL. It’s nice to know that those NFL/United Way commercials are truly representative of the generosity of the league, even if its best charity work is outside the United States.

American Football is not a game anyone outside the US takes seriously. While some foreigners may be intrigued by the game and may claim to like the Dallas Cowboys or Green Bay Packers, few if any foreigners actually follow the NFL regularly. Why should they? I grew up around American Football so I’ve been indoctrinated in the game by a local sports media with little worldliness and understanding of what people really care about outside the relatively insular and comfy confines of the American sporting landscape. However, with more and more foreigners gracing the shores of the United States, World Football (Soccer for those in the US), Cricket, Rugby and even Formula One racing are becoming more and more popular sports domestically even while the sports media tries to ignore them. Earlier this year the final of the CONCACAF Gold Cup which was won by the US National Team had four times as many viewers in the US as the final game of the Stanley Cup Playoffs in Hockey. Last year the US-Italy match in the World Cup had almost as many American viewers as Game Six of the NBA finals (The deciding game). This however was hardly noticed by the propaganda artists in Bristol, CT at ESPN World Headquarters. They are Yankee propagandists of such a high order, that they make the war bonds ads of the 1940s look tame and meek.

The NFL’s decision to hold a Regular Season game smacks of nothing less than hubris on the part of American businessmen who know little if anything about the sporting culture outside their own country. In a week when English and Scottish clubs are competiting in the UEFA Champions League, the English team reached the final of the Rugby World Cup, the Premier League races are heating up, Scotland is gearing up for the life and death clash next month versus Italy and England is searching for answers about its failing Euro 2008 qualifying campaign, does anyone outside the United States really believe the NFL matters in the U.K? Perhaps when Wembley is full on Sunday Evening we as Americans can stroke our own ego thinking we have once again conquered a foreign land with something uniquely American, while the truth is 98% of the British population could care less. The NFL seems to think because Soccer’s ratings are growing in the United States that American Football should sweep the U.K. They are wrongheaded and foolish at the same time. But why would that surprise us? So many Americans know so little about sports outside their own country it seems the three sporting planets exist: the United States, Australia and the rest of the world. Australia is rapidly assimilating with the rest of the world which leaves the American sports jock culture to do their best imitation of the isolationist Republicans of the 1920s. “The NFL and MLB brought to you by Calvin Coolidge…..now that has a ring to it!”

The Bear Becomes More Dangerous By the Day

2007-10-16T15:28:00.000-04:00

Russian President Vladimir Putin's trip to Tehran should come as no surprise to anyone watching world events closely the past few years. Russia under Putin's leadership very aggressively set themselves up as a diplomatic and economic alternative to doing business with the United States. While the Cold War pitted rival ideologies Capitalism and Democracy versus Communism and Dictatorship, today's emerging rivalry between the United States and Russia is completely different and one in which the Russians have a lot more going for them then they did in the days of the Soviet Union. Putin's Russia is quickly emerging as the focal point of Anti-American foreign policy worldwide. While the American public has been easily manipulated into fearing Islamic terrorists and non-governmental entities like the United Nations and Al Qaeda, the reality is that Russia right now posses massive economic and political threat to American political hegemony, a hegemony we as Americans, liberal or conservative should be interested in maintaining. (This hegemony I feel is a way of promoting true American idealism and values abroad. This administration clearly has dropped the ball on this front, but promoting America is not a bad thing as unfortunately some liberals seem to feel today.)

The biggest factor in Russia's favor right now is the Energy industry which has propelled massive Russian influence over Western Europe's economies and developed a large upper class of Russian businessmen capable of playing and manipulating the Western market. These Russian Oligarchs have increased the stature of Russia in the Business world and many have settled in the west. Russia's control over strategic energy supplies both via drilling for petroleum and through routing oil pipelines through its territory is in my opinion an extremely dangerous development for Western Europe long term. Also dangerous is the influence of oligarchs in London and other business centers who continue to have close ties to the Kremlin and to Vladamir Putin himself. This puts even more Russian political influence over the free markets of the West, a development which should have a great cold warrior like the late Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson rolling over in his grave.

American foreign policy blunders have also allowed Russia the opportunity to make friends with China and Iran, two nations who were strongly anti-Soviet in the later stages of the Cold War. Russian diplomacy has involved setting itself up as a bulwark against American domination of the Middle East and thus far, Putin has succeeded in reducing some of the states of Central Asia, which are heavily Muslim to a semi colonial status which in all honesty undermines the hard fought independence these nations achieved when the Soviet Union dissolved. The continued inept foreign policy of the Bush Administration is allowing Russia a free hand to act as an independent actor in the diplomatic world. Instead of allowing France under Jacques Chirac to fill this void, the White House tried to isolate and berate France while continuing to coddle Putin. This could prove to be a fatal error on the part of the Bush Administration.

Russia has also returned to its traditional Tsarist role of interfering in the Balkans as a protector of the Slavic people. Russia is solely responsible for the delay in an independent majority Muslim state of Kosovo being recognized as an independent entity. Given Russia's treatment of its own Muslim population in Chechnya and Dagestan, it simply amazing that United States has allowed its credibility to be eroded among Muslims so greatly that it cannot point out the obvious to Islamic regimes that are becoming friendly with Moscow. While the United States has upwards of six million Muslims living freely without harassment as normal citizens Vladimir Putin both before and after ascending to the Presidency has a clear track record of working against the interests of Muslims both in Russia and outside the country. Again, the Bush administrations coddling of Putin while getting tough with other nations whose foreign policy was much more in line with the US, has had dire consequences.

The erosion of American moral authority abroad has allowed an actor like Putin, whose human rights record is abysmal and whose followers have been accused of poisoning dissident in the west to emerge as the world's second most powerful head of state, and in some regards he may be the most powerful. Quite frankly, at this point it far too late for the US to stop the Russian train. Control of energy resources, the budding trust between Russia and other leading nations such as China, as well as the general distaste for anything associated with George W. Bush abroad has put American interests on the defensive for the first time in recent memory.

Delta Aims to Be the New TWA/Pan Am

2007-09-26T11:41:00.000-04:00

I have watched with some amazement the rapid buildup of international routes to non "sexy" destinations that Delta Airlines has undertaken the past few years. While other US legacy carriers have stuck to safe locations such Western Europe, East Asia and major Latin American business destinations, Delta seems committed to rebuilding at least in part the far flung route networks that the dearly departed Pan Am and TWA once flew proudly representing American aviation.

Today Delta announced service to a number of cities that have not been served by any US Carrier since Pan Am and TWA pulled out of the cities many moons ago.

Nairobi, Kenya

Last served by Pan Am in 1991. TWA pulled out of Nairobi in 1973.

Malaga, Spain

Last served by TWA in 1980. Has not been served by a US Airline since.

Lagos, Nigeria

Last served by Pan Am in 1987

Cairo, Egypt

Last served by TWA in 2001. Last served by Pan Am in 1984

Amman, Jordan

Last served by Pan Am in 1974

Cape Town, South Africa

Never served previously by a US Airline.

In the last year Delta has begun service to the following cities which have been unserved by a US flag carrier for sometime.

Accra, Ghana

Last served by Pan Am in 1982

Dakar, Senegal

Last served by Pan Am in 1987

Johannesburg, South Africa

Last served by Pan Am in 1984

Dubai, UAE

Last served by Pan Am in 1986

Kiev, Ukraine

Never served by a US Airline prior to Delta

Pisa, Italy

Never previously served by a US Airline prior to Delta.

Bucharest, Romania

Last served by Pan Am in 1991.

The obvious difference between Delta and the dearly departed TWA and Pan Am is that the defunct carriers had a brand recognition and a loyalty among fliers throughout the world which delta lacks. In addition TWA and Pan Am while using New York-JFK as a primary international gateway had flights from major European cities to other major American cities such as Boston, Washington, Chicago, San Fransisco, Miami and Los Angeles. Delta lacks this sort of sophisticated route system development and uses New York JFK and Atlanta almost exclusively as gateways. But of course Delta has an extensive code share agreement with Air France which allows Delta to "code share" on AF flights from Hosuton, Los Angeles, Miami, Chicago San Fransisco, Boston, Washington and Philadelphia to Paris so in a way they have every primary gateway covered.

The War Day Two and Three: America's Shining Moment

2007-09-25T22:23:00.001-04:00

I bristle these days when Conservatives rewrite history and adopt a revisionist view of the way things were and the American ideal. The truth is for much of the early history of our nation, as Revolution swept Europe in 1848 the US was too busy on an expansionist course to even pay as much as lip service to the cause of Liberty and Democracy. For years European revolutionaries looked to France, and even to the forgone Napoleonic era for inspiration, not to the United States. In the late Nineteenth Century as the age old Austrian, Russian and Ottoman (Turkish) Empires were experiencing nationalist upheavals much of the inspiration for these movements came again from Western Europe especially France and the U.S. played no role whatsoever in promoting, freedom, nationalism or self determination as a desirable goal.

A myth has been developed that we "saved" France in World War I. This may be true to a certain extent, but when a nation has lost 1/3rd of its adult male population in a war, something few Western nations have ever experienced, (the states in Germany that made up the Holy Roman Empire lost about half its adult male population in the Thirty Years War in the 17th Century, but otherwise I cannot think of an example.) I think disparaging their willingness to fight in armed conflict is very disingenuous. For today's patriot police to claim that the U.S. has always been the guiding light for worldwide freedom and democracy is a canard which has no backing in pre World War II history.

The reality is that World War I was as much if not more of a worldwide event than World War II, and the U.S.A. played little role except on the Western European front. Fighting was intense in Italy where the Italians fought the Austrians, on the Eastern Front where the Germans fought the Russians, in Africa where the Germans fought the British and the French, in the Middle East where the British fought the Turks and in the Pacific where the Japanese fought the Germans. It was the US' selfish isolationism after the end of this conflict that helped to leave new democracies vulnerable to collapse and ascended the inauguration of a second worldwide conflict in less than 30 years. The selfishness of the United States was best exhibited by the lifestyle of many of its citizens during the "Roaring 20s" when Americans cared little if anything about the rest of the planet.

The first time the US truly fought in major combat in all theaters in a fight to save American ideals of liberty and freedom was in World War II. Unlike future conflicts in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq where the US was fighting on the side of freedom against despotic figures the United States public was actively engaged in the conflict and working hard on the home front to support the troops. The meaning and value of freedom was cherished by the American public for truly the first time and without a doubt the United States as Franklin Roosevelt had put it was the "Arsenal of Democracy."

World War II changed the United States for the better and turned us into the nation we are today, protecting the ideals of liberty and freedom and shining a guiding light for the rest of world and those who strive to be free.

The War: Day One- The Concept of Self Sacrifice

2007-09-24T10:04:00.000-04:00

Ken Burns master stroke when making historical documentaries continues with this series. By choosing several individuals and following them through the war period you get a sense of the sacrifice involved both on the home front and by those who actually served abroad during the war. This should be a valuable lesson to the generation of Americans today who feel no sacrifice, economically, professionally or socially is necessary to keep our nation great and our ideals from attack by those Islamic based terrorist groups that seek to undermine our standing abroad. President George W. Bush helped to create this apathy with his decision based largely around political considerations after September 11th to tell Americans to proceed as normal with their daily lives. The "Greatest Generation" as dubbed by Tom Brokaw didn't react this way after Pearl Harbor nor do the citizens of other Western Democracies who get drawn into unpleasant wars. When France, Germany and Italy were in the 1980s the subject of consistent terrorist bombings by the same types of groups who attacked the United States on 9/11/01 their citizenry rallied behind their flag and made real sacrifices to the way everyday life proceeded to fight off the terrorist threat.

"The War" comes out at a critical time in our history. With our Army demoralized and undermanned, our nation's security in peril and our enemies such as Iran and North Korea unchecked except by words by a weakened United States, you can walk the streets and find a generation in power both in Government and in Corporate America that is busy pursuing self realizing pursuits and a younger generation that knows nothing of its own nation's history and ideals and doesn't feel the need to protect these ideals against those who mean to it and ultimately us harm. Personally, I have made an effort to better understand the Middle East by reading several books on the Ottoman Empire and its collapse after World War I which led to the partition of many areas including the modern day Balkans, Iraq, Jordan, Israel and Syria. I also have recently signed up for Americorps and will use whatever opportunity comes my way to work to better my community whether through the Americorps program or through Community service through other outfits.

Americans of all stripes should be watching Ken Burns film and should be asking themselves "What can I do for my Country," as John F. Kennedy so eloquently put it in his Inaugural speech in 1960. America is great because America is good," has been throughout our history. America has always been great because unlike the imperialist European nations who exploited local populations our nation promoted self determination as a concept in our foreign policy and worked through international institutions and diplomacy to achieve means that met our ideals. Today this is lost on our nation as our President pursues a reckless foreign policy backed not simply because he has a group of "neo-conservative" Wilsonian backers and the Republican Party behind him but because of the continued apathy bordering on selfishness of the rest of the American population. This selfishness is even exhibited by many of those on the left who seek an disengagement of American interests from the Middle East and abroad without understanding the consequences of such actions and how that would undermine the American ideals and psyche going forward.

We live in a time where Americans of all stripes are disconnected from the concept of truly being an American. Ken Burns' film which has six more parts showing through next Tuesday on PBS is a necessary vehicle for brining some perspective to a lost generation.

Return to Blogging: The War; A Film By Ken Burns

2007-09-23T22:09:00.000-04:00

I haven't blogged in months and have been going through a very difficult personal period. I however am returning to blogging this week with a morning review of the previous night's showing of "The War" on PBS. This is one of the most significant documentaries ever made and am anticipating a great film by the master documentary maker, Ken Burns.

A Mixed Legacy

2007-06-02T17:06:00.001-04:00

Tony Blair is a contradiction. Beloved across the Atlantic here in the US, he became loathed at home by many of the same people who saw so much hope in him a decade ago. However, both extreme views of the British Prime Minister are skewed and colored. Blair’s legacy lies somewhere in between the perceptions on both sides of the “pond.”

When Tony Blair took over the leadership of the Labor Party in 1994, the party itself was a dying relic of industrial Britain. Labor, rightly or wrongly had become identified with socialism at home and weakness abroad and had a similar perception to the post Vietnam Democratic Party which Bill Clinton inherited in 1992.

Blair did a remarkable job of recreating the view most Britons had of the Labour Party. However Blair’s ideological bent didn’t seem to have a purpose. It seemed more designed to elect a majority of Labour MPs especially at a time where Tory fatigue had set in with the British public. Thus a feel good, non-ideological campaign was able to topple an impotent government under John Major who had excessively privatized in the 1980s (when Margaret Thatcher was the Prime Minister) and had little impact on British life for the positive in the 1990s.

Blair ascension to power in 1997 was very much a feel good moment for the Labour Party and the American left. When Blair handled himself with a rare dignity at Princes Diana’s funeral the world fell in love with him. But strangely huge majorities for Labour in the House Commons yielded little revolutionary change. Privatization continued in public services and while Health Care and Education improved, the change was not nearly as dramatic as Blair had promised. But Blair did deliver in giving a measure of sovereignty and pride to both Scotland and Wales who were given their own regional parliaments for the first time in over a hundred years. More importantly Blair signed the Good Friday agreement with the Irish Government which brought a peaceful resolution for now to the conflict in Northern Ireland.

Blair is a strong advocate for Environmental Protection and cutting carbon emissions. However, his Labour party has been more reluctant than they should be embrace environmentalism. This has opened the door for the Liberal Democratic Party to erode some of Labour base on the left and also give new Tory leader David Cameron an opening to woo green voters. Blair repositioned the Labour Party towards the middle, which basically meant that his party began to be more representative of the view of a baby boomer middle class party then of the working class. Strangely, this move blurred the lines between Labour and the Liberal Democratic Party (LibDems), who in the early 1990s created a niche as a party seeking social justice with some trust in the free market. This is basically the same platform and ideology the Blairite Labour party now occupies. Since the LibDems have taken the lead on Environmental issues, Labor has risked losing much of its new found support in the urban areas and was drubbed in this past local election in south England.

Blair’s relationship with the United States should not be surprising. Since the Suez crisis of 1956 when Anthony Eden’s Government fell amidst the lack of support from the US (Dwight Eisenhower despite his conservatism in many respects was an admirable American internationalist who had little use for European colonialism. He had no interest in watching the UK and France meddle in Middle Eastern affairs.) the United Kingdom has failed to have an independent foreign policy. Unlike France, who under Charles DeGaulle moved away from a Pan-American world view, the British have seized to have a real say in foreign affairs.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. By subcontracting its defense to the United States, the U.K. has rebounded as a world economic power and London is once again one of the world’s leading cities. The British psyche has been more damaged by the failures of the Three Lions, its underachieving national football (soccer in American English) side than by watching the US fight its wars.

Blair’s willingness to support American policy helped to legitimize the American mission in the Balkans. This came after all when the British and EU had engaged in a battle diplomatically with Slobodan Milosevic’s genocidal Serbian state before Bill Clinton engaged on the matter. The troop deployments in Bosnia and Kosovo were done outside of the United Nations who had bungled operations in Somalia and Rwanda the same decade. (Something the American left should keep in mind the next time they call for the US to get UN approval to conduct our own foreign policy.)

Ultimately Blair’s downfall as a popular figure was related to his support for the US in Iraq. While Blair deserves much of the blame for pushing a conflict that was not in the best interests of his nation, he deserves a great deal of credit for moving the UK away from its splendid isolationism towards the European continent. By unsuccessfully pushing the euro-zone for currency and further integration in the EU, Blair began the process of moving the UK away from dependence on the US in foreign policy. This has not been recognized at home as he is tarred by the Iraq War debacle.

Blair’s legacy is mixed, but his impact on UK politics will remain for many years to come

Wolfowitz Deserved Better

2007-05-19T16:28:00.000-04:00

The saga surrounding the ouster of Paul Wolfowitz as President of the World Bank was nothing more than blow back against the US' Iraq War Policy and the assertion of the bureaucratic elites desire not to be reformed. Thus the career of an idealistic Wilsonian liberal dies in the fog of war and allegations of influence peddling for a mistress. Wolfowitz was the right man for the World Bank but his own arrogance eventually did him in. But someone of his ideals and vision deserved better if not for him, but for the sake of the World Bank and the mission it supposedly serves.

My perspective as a Foreign Policy realist is that Wolfowitz's liberalism (cloaked by the American media as "neo-conservatism") was both dangerous for the United States and destructive to the relationships between nations worldwide. Nonetheless, Wolfowitz must be commended for his leadership against Slobadon Milosevic's genocide in Bosnia and Kosovo as well as his advocacy for Democracy in the Middle East, and his general understanding of the Muslim world in a nation that has little understanding of Islam. As a son of Eastern European Jewish immigrants, Wolfowitz has kept memories of the Holocaust as a guiding factor in much of his foreign policy thinking. This is precisely why he was so eager to confront Milosevic militarily as the despot's attempts to exterminate his Muslim population began in 1991. When George H.W. Bush was defeated in the 1992 election, Wolfowitz continued his crusade against Milosevic rallying support for the Bosnian Muslims in the US and urging congress to arm the Muslim forces in Bosnia and Kosovo. (Ironically since the US refused to arm the Bosnian and Kosovar Muslims, Iran filled the void and gained influence in Europe which is obviously contrary to American interests.)

For years the World Bank has failed in its mission to provide leadership in combating worldwide poverty. Much like the United Nations, the bank has been beset by corruption and bureaucratic turf wars. While the World Bank does much good work, it doesn't do nearly enough good work for the amount of resources and talented staff invested in it. Wolfowitz's own arrogance and sledgehammer got him in trouble. By trying to reform an institution that didn't want to be reformed and was filled with Bush haters he opened the door to his own demise. His arrogance of conducting an open relationship with Shaha Riza gave his opponents all they needed to dispose of him. However, the World Bank and the nation's that depend on its aid are ultimately the losers, because Wolfowitz unlike so many of his American predecessors who became President of the Bank actually cared about getting aid to the third world. For Wolfowitz, the World Bank wasn't just cushy reward for political loyalty but a real mission and a place where his liberal world view could be implemented. It's a pity he didn't act with more humility for the greater good, because he may have been the last best hope for a broken institution.

Keep Gas Prices High

2007-05-17T21:13:00.000-04:00

Today, I returned from a short business related trip to Los Angeles, the capital of the American commuter culture. Yesterday morning in my hotel room as I watched the local morning news I became incensed by the attitude of a woman interviewed. She is from Ventura County and has to fill up her automobiles’ gas tank every other day during the work week. She drives a Ford Expedition and it costs over $100 to fill a 17 gallon tank. She was whining about the cost of gas, even though Americans pay on average a lot less per gallon for gasoline than Europeans do. But Europeans do not mind because they work closer to their homes and utilize mass transit regularly.

I have always been under the impression that Los Angeles had one of the poorer public transportation networks in the nation. Given this perception that has been ingrained in my head by the media and Hollywood movies which feeds the American commuter culture, I figured when my meeting was over at 3 pm local time I would be stuck grabbing a shuttle bus from my hotel/meeting location back to the airport for my red eye flight which was leaving at midnight. After all given that I was in L.A. the only options were to rent a car or take a cab both of which are colossal wastes of money, particularly when this was a “free” trip for me. I figured I would spend my hours viewing the world walk by at the LAX Tom Bradley Terminal (the busiest international airline terminal outside of Europe) and then head to my terminal for my flight on Spirit Airlines which flies out of LAX Terminal 3.

Much to my surprise the door man at my hotel told me that the relatively new Los Angeles Metro went everywhere and that I could catch it at LAX. So, I caught the Metro at the LAX station and paid $3 for an all day pass. It took me approximately 25 minutes to reach Union Station in Downtown LA which is probably less time than it takes from LAX by automobile. In August 2005, I drove from LAX to Olivera Street on a Saturday afternoon and it took me a half hour. Olivera Street is around the corner from Union Station. (for my return to LAX I pressed for time so I caught the LA World Airports bus back to LAX from Union Station again for $3. The bus ride took longer than my train ride to the city had.)

Sadly, I found the trains nearly empty and those who did ride the trains were clearly taking a “ride” so to speak for no good reason. Even during rush hour few professionals rode the train even though I was on the line which connected downtown with Century City and West Hollywood, both of which serve as bedroom communities for L.A. Unlike Chicago, Washington and New York where riding the trains has become a way of life for working professionals, southern California car culture precludes people from saving time, money and most importantly energy by taking the train to work. The metro system connects such far flung areas as Van Nuys, Pasadena, Redondo Beach and Long Beach to Los Angeles.(with an extension down Wilshire Blvd. towards Santa Monica planned for the near future.) The Los Angeles metro is an outstanding urban railway and it has defied the critics who said that a urban mass transit project of its magnitude could never be accomplished in car crazy southern California.

However as conservation conscious as California politicians have been, the building of the Metro seems to have accomplished little more than to give kids from lower income areas around Downtown Los Angeles a cheap and easy way to go to Hollywood or Pasadena. This represents the greatest fear of subways and light rail that the residents of Georgetown, Cobb County, GA and Lake County, ILL demonstrated when rejecting the metros in their areas from coming into their neighborhoods. The white flight to the suburbs which has typified American life over the past 25 years is actually worse in southern California than elsewhere and it became evident to me that suburbanites just don’t want to ride the train, and don’t want the type of people who do ride the train in their neighborhoods.

Personally, I believe the higher the price of fuel the better for America’s long term health. Changing the culture of those suburbanites wedded to their automobiles is critical for this nation to get a handle on its runaway addiction to foreign oil, and automobiles. Cleaner and more efficient energy alternatives seem to be universally rejected by the very same people who complain about the high cost of gas and the long commutes they have to work every morning.

It is high time now for America to change its corrosive culture. Religious fundamentalists warn that our nation cannot survive any number of moral concerns they have. The truth is the destruction of the USA as a superpower will not be because of gay marriage, or the speaking of Spanish in people’s homes, but because of our continued addiction to big SUVs, long commutes and recreational driving. California has led our nation on so many progressive crusades over the past generation and it would be helpful for the continued greatness of our nation if southern California would lead by example on this very critical issue.

Conservative Winds Blowing over Europe

2007-05-09T16:21:00.000-04:00

Nicholas Sarkozy's victory as President of France further indicates a backlash against liberalism is underway on the European continent. For years European liberals not only pushed a socialist economic agenda, but forced multiculturalism down the throats of a people whose racial history is dubious to say the least. Joining Angela Merkel and most likely David Cameron as Conservative leaders of the three major European Union members, Sarkozy has the ability to create a new constructive partner for the United States. Sarkozy differs from his conservative party predecessor Jacque Chirac in three major areas: Unlike Chirac, an old Gaullist, Sarkozy seeks a genuine friendship with the United States. Sarkozy does not hold any illusions that France can be a world leader without American cooperation. Secondly Sarkozy is as opposed to Turkish admission to the EU as Chirac was supportive of it. Thirdly, Sarkozy is a hard liner on immigration and his strong stands in this direction undercut right winger Jean Le Pen who had his worst election showing since 1974. Today six of the eight major western democracies are governed by Conservatives, with the only exceptions, Italy and the U.K. having weak, possibly soon to fall governments of the left.

The forced secularism and multiculturalism on the European public by its leaders seems about to peter out. Interestingly this is happening at the very same time in the United States in a different direction. The overreaching by conservative in the USA on social issues, the Iraq War and religion has created a mini electoral backlash.

American liberals mindlessly cite Europe as a center of culture, tolerance and secularism and run down the United States as the opposite when history has demonstrated if anything the opposite. While a young United States opened its arms to people of all religious persuasions, European nations were marching around the globe fulfilling what they considered a "White Man's Burden" in conquering Asian and African nations. While Jews faced persecution and death throughout Europe, they were able to come to the United States and practice their religion freely.

While European Governments have imposed a multicultural model towards Muslims, Africans and South Asians coming in, the United States has attempted to cleanly integrate these people. The presence of Muslims into Western European society has created all sorts of social strife which leaders like Jacques Chirac and Tony Blair seemed to be geniunly surprised by. However, conservative victories in Europe owe themselves as much to willingness of the right to embrace Environmental issues and Global Warming than to the elements I have discussed above. This is a very important factor for the Republican Party to acknowledge and understand.

The United States actually has more Muslims than any Western European nation. However, these Muslims are mostly integrated and useful members of American society. The excessive rhetoric towards Muslims from the American right not withstanding, these Muslims have become as American as Apple Pie, while Muslims in Germany, Holland, France and the United Kingdom have failed to integrate in their new nations. What the American right fails to understand is that Muslims are in many ways the perfect Republican voters if they aren't race baited, but that is a topic for another day.

The expansion of the European Union, immigration of Muslims and open hostility towards religion by European elites all seem to have run their course with the citizens of Europe's proudest and most important nations. Now as Europe embarks on a Conservative era, let's hope that a genuine cooperation can be struck with President George W. Bush, who in some ways must feel vindicated that his two greatest critics in Europe, Gerhard Schroeder and Jacques Chirac are out of power.

An Indian Misadventure in Iraq

2007-05-06T10:47:00.000-04:00

The Great War (World War I) is often a forgotten war in the consciousness of Americans and Western Europeans. It's events were overshadowed by the much deadlier and more spectacular World War II. However, in my humble opinion World War I was the most significant war in human history.

Even more forgotten than the war itself if the heroic battles on the Middle Eastern front. The British were fighting the Turkish Ottoman Empire, one of the two last surviving medieval Eurasian states (Tsarist Russia was the other-both states collapsed in the subsequent years.) The Ottoman Sultan had hoped to stay neutral in the war, as the empire had a long history of economic and political ties to the United Kingdom. However the Sultan was powerless to stop the Young Turks who had essentially seized power in 1908 from making an alliance with Germany, who for years had worked to modernize the Ottoman Army. Also critical was the investment that Germany had made in the Berlin to Baghdad railway which ran mostly through Ottoman territory.

Against this backdrop, British forces made up largely of Indians reached the undefended Ottoman city of Kut (now part of Iraq) on December 3, 1915. The city's geographic position on the Tigres River made it a critical backdrop. From Kut the British forces could make a full siege on the well defended Ottoman city of Basra. However the British forces miscalculated the value of Kut and within days a Turkish force led by the German Commander Baron Von Der Goltz laid siege to the city.

This siege was highly effective. The Turks cut the British forces off from reinforcements until relief came about a month later. Even when reinforcements arrives, again made up largely of Indian troops, the siege continues and eventually the British capitulated. From Wikipedia comes the following entry: "British leaders attempted to buy their troops out. T. E. Lawrence was sent to negotiate a secret deal with the Turks. The British offered £2 million and promised they would not fight the Turks again, in exchange for Townshend's troops. Enver Pasha ordered that this offer be rejected. [1]
The British also asked for help from the Russians. General Baratov, with his largely Cossack force of 20,000 was in Persia at the time. Following the request he advanced towards Baghdad in April 1916 but turned back when news reached him of the surrender.[2]
General Townshend arranged a ceasefire on the 26th and, after failed negotiations, he simply surrendered on April 29, 1916 after a siege of 147 days. Around 13,000 Allied soldiers survived to be made prisoners. 70% of the British and 50% of the Indian troops died during captivity of disease or at the hands of the Turkish guards. Townshend himself was taken the island of Malki on the Sea of Marmara, to sit out the war in luxury."

This was just one of many bloody battles fought on the Middle Eastern front during the war that included either Indian or ANZAC (Australian and New Zealander) troops fighting under the Union Jack. The use of colonial forces by the British Government against the Turks (but under British commanders) allowed the British based forces to focus on the Western Front. But it also contributed to giving the Turks some great victories most notably at Gallipoli. When World War II rolled around, Indian opposition to British Colonial rule was highly developed and no such bloody repeats of Kut were to occur with Indian troops.

The Real Roots of Al Qaeda's Recruitment

2007-04-30T21:00:00.000-04:00

Today’s largest threat from Al Qaeda is not necessarily in Iraq where recruits for a Jihad against the United States are drying up while Iran drifts towards an outright sectarian civil war. Al Qaeda in Iraq has largely been defeated by the American military and many of the foreign Al Qaeda recruits have left Iraq as quickly as they entered it. This is not to say the Americans are winning in Iraq. We are not: The war is probably already lost, but not to Al Qaeda but to Shiite militants and renewed Baathism that benefited from incompetence of American war planning and the Bremer/Chalibi Administration of Iraq. Today the largest Al Qaeda threat is in the mountains north and west of the Pakistani city of Peshawar and in the province of Balochistan.

The foreign fighters that make up the Al Qaeda forces in this region have largely come from four regions: Chechnya and Dagestan in Russia, Uzbekistan, Indian Administered Kashmir and the Chinese autonomous region of Xinjiang. Russia's authoritarian Government under Vladimir Putin has until recently persecuted and oppressed its large Muslim minority. Russia's client state Uzbekistan under the despotic leadership of Islam Karimov has stifled dissent within its borders, and much of the opposition has made its way to Pakistan to join in a Jihad. India's mishandling of Kashmir cannot be downplayed. Since 1989 when Afghani mujahideen financed by the United States, China and Pakistan "invaded" the area in order to ferment rebellion, India's Government has made numerous mistakes that have furthered the cause of Jihad. Besides imposing martial law and suspending both Democracy and due process, India has committed numerous human rights violations during the conflict. This has only furthered the cause of jihad. In the Chinese region of Xinjiang the native Uyghurs and Kazakhs have been subject to numerous human rights violations at the hands of increasing Han Chinese population.

The conduct of these three powerful governments (India, China and Russia) and their subordinates towards local Islamic populations is a major root cause of Al Qaeda’s recruiting success. The anger these people have when they join Al Qaeda is not necessarily directed towards the United States or even towards the West. However, when these jihadist recruits are “re-educated” in Saudi funded religious schools or by the local populations their anger and rage turns towards the United States. Itis imperative that Condelezza Rice and the State Department mount a diplomatic effort to engage Russia, India and China about the status of their Muslim minorities, and encourage political reforms. Winning the global war on terror is as much about diplomacy and winning the hearts and minds of local populations as it is about invading and conquering nation states.

Roger Ailes & Co. needs to know the truth about Iran

2007-03-30T10:26:00.000-04:00

Before 9/11 Fox News was no doubt a conservative leaning network. That was after all Roger Ailes intent when the network began in 1996, and hired a largely conservative pool of hosts and commentators. But prior to 9/11 Fox News was a subtle conservative network, leaning its news reports to the right but without the shouting and screaming of some other networks, most notably MSNBC which prior to the re-hiring of Keith Olbermann in 2003 seemed intent on gagging any progressive opinion. Fox News was in fact refreshing in many ways because they had intellegent reasoned opinion on some shows, most notably Brit Hume and Tony Snow's show. No doubt the hosts leaned right, but both had good panels and asked fair questions. But that all changed after 9/11.

Since 9/11 and especially since the start of the Iraq War, FOX News has been a blatant propaganda machine for the administration and for the Republican Party. I would argue that calling them conservative is a total mis-label because they are in fact merely partisan hacks. Conservative opinion leaders like Pat Buchanan, Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough all of whom are on MSNBC don't sound anything like the hacks on FOX in their rhetoric. In fact Tom DeLay once called Tucker Carlson a phony conservative because Carlson was advocating conservative spending bills in congress. God forbid!

Last night after watching Hannity and Colmes for the first time in I don't know how long. The show was ridled with errors with little opposition from the so-called liberal, Alan Colmes.

Oliver North was the first guest. He proceeded to blame the current Iran hostage crisis on the appeasement of Democrats in Congress towards Iran and on Jimmy Carter. Never mind the appeasement the United Kingdom has engaged in themselves towards Iran since 1979. Never mind then Foreign Secretary Jack Straw's comment in 2003 that "Iran is a budding democracy that is a model for the region," just before the Anglo/American led forces invaded Iraq to impose what we must assume in the British eyes was an Iranian style "Democracy."

North then proceeded to chastise the Clinton administration for its handling of Iran. This is an outrageous claim when you consider the record of Clinton versus the three GOP administrations on the issue of Iran. Bill Clinton has been since 1979 the only American President whose public rhetoric towards Iran matched his administrations actions.

Newt Gingrich was the next guest. Gingrich too blamed the Democrats for appeasement and claimed Jimmy Carter was responsible for all the problems the US faces in the Middle East. (This is particularly odd considering Carter probably has the most credibility of any American citizen in that part of the world. Certainly he has more credibility than any Republican President or Republican Administration official.) Gingrich also stated that the Democrats are eager for an American defeat in Iraq, even though Gingrich didn't define what an American victory in Iraq would look like. Gingrich also implied Iran was killing the majority of American soldiers in Iraq, even though an estimated 92% of American casualties have been caused by Sunni insurgents backed by American allies, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt. Their are plenty of reasons to confront Iran but as usual this administration muddies its message. Much like using the WMD and 9/11 arguments against Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion when a simple "it's in our interests and we need to take out this dangerous regime" would have done. If toppling a regime is in our national security interests, much as we did during the cold war, we don't need another explanation. The truth is toppling Saddam Hussien, already crippled by international sanctions was not in our interests whatsoever, but that is a discussion for another day.

Here are some facts regarding Iran and the GOP:

In 1983, Iranian backed terrorists killed over 250 US Marines in Beirut. The response of the Reagan Administration was to "cut and run" from Beirut and then negotiate with the Iranians covertly. Oliver North was the leader of these negotiations which helped arm Iran at a very moment when Iraq appeared ready to consolidate control over disputed territory between the two nations.
Reagan in a Jack Straw moment claimed his administration's outreach to Iran was to make contact with so-called "moderate elements."
During the Bush I administration the enforcement of American sanctions on Iran was selective at best. US companies, particularly oil companies were allowed to do business in Iran via their subsidiaries in other countries. In fact one estimate claimed that by the mid 1990s, 20% of all oil on the American market was coming from Iran, against the intent and wishes of the Congress and quite frankly the American people.
When President Clinton in 1995 announced he was forcefully enforcing the sanctions against Iran, oil company executives went crazy, but Clinton did not back down.
In 2001, in our desire to eliminate the Taliban quickly from Afghanistan we worked with the Northern Alliance, armed and funded by the mullahs in Tehran. This was done under the watch of Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and George W. Bush. Yet instead of thanking the Iranians, Bush grouped them in the Axis of Evil, ushering a new round of terrorism and saber rattling on both sides.
In 2003, Ahmed Chalibi, suburban Detroit resident and agent of the Iranian Government was praised by the President in his State of the Union as the potential leader of a free Iraq. Chalabi as is well known was a fixture in meetings with the administration about postwar planning.
The surge that conservative pundits claim is working has reduced the estimated number of daily deaths in Baghdad from 20 to 16. Given this reduction in deaths in the Capital, which has not been reflected across the rest of Iraq, does this mean we need a similar surge using ill equipped and ill trained national guardsmen in the other trouble spots in the nation? Also, does this mean we need to make a permanent commitment to station troops in Baghdad? The only way the surge can truly work is if the Iraqi forces can themselves police Baghdad and to this point they have proven they cannot. Actually they have proven they do not want to.

Now this administration wants to make war against Iran. I personally am fine with that, if we were capable. Unlike a weak and pathetic Iraq, Iran should have been in the cross hairs of the US military 20 years ago. Over the last two decades Iran has taken advantage of the weakness coming from the USSR and then Russia, the inconsistency of the US, and the coddling of the UK, France and Germany to become a regional superpower without equal in post World War I Middle Eastern history. Iran must be contained, but it seems less and less likely that the US is capable of doing anything right in the Middle East.

At this point our military is stretched to the brink and any attempt at handling Iran via armed conflict is doomed to fail without the use of nuclear weapons. Disarming Iran may require the use of bunker busting nuclear arms anyhow. Do we really want to launch a Nuclear War against Iran? No doubt the Iranian regime deserves to be toppled and humiliated in front of the world. But launching a nuclear attack will destroy whatever remaining soft power and diplomatic credibility the US still maintains and thus must be avoided at all reasonable costs.

But right now thanks to the continued military and diplomatic failures of this administration, the United States is completely helpless to affect actions in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia and other Sunni nations that are frightened of the Iranian threat are turning to each other rather than to the United States in an attempt to contain Iranian aggression. At the same time the US is backing what is essentially a pro Iranian Government in Iraq. This Government is backed by official American policy, conservative pundits and yes Roger Ailes and Fox News. It seems the American "right" despite some lofty rhetoric is doing more to help Iran than to really hurt them.

The Glory Days of Worldwide US Airlines Are Long Gone

2007-03-14T10:05:00.000-04:00

I read with some amusement yesterday as airline pundits hailed Continental's new nonstop service from Newark to Mumbai (Bombay) as proof that Continental along with Delta, American and United have filled the void left by the dearly departed Pan Am, Braniff and TWA to provide American airlines services to far flung destinations throughout the world. I even read a blurb on the internet that Delta was the new Pan Am and Continental the new TWA. Nothing could be further from the truth, and quite frankly the attempt at association is insulting.

While today's US Airlines are beginning to approach the number of destinations served abroad by the aforementioned airlines, their route structures and level of service don't come anywhere near that of their predecessors. Today's US Airlines are hub and spoke carriers that serve international destinations almost exclusively from their hub cities. Delta, the largest US based carrier in Europe, Africa, South Asia and the Middle East (the areas that used to be dominated by Pan Am and TWA) does not offer a single nonstop flight across the Atlantic from a city that is not considered a Delta hub. The same can be said for Continental and US Airways transatlantic services as well as United who a few months ago dropped its last non hub route from New York-JFK to London-Heathrow, a route that has long been considered to be the world's most lucrative.

American Airlines alone among US carriers links major American cities that are not hubs for the airline such as Los Angeles, Boston and New York-JFK with top international destinations such as London, Sao Paulo and Tokyo. But even American has emphasis on its hubs with most international flights.

This is directly the opposite approach than what was taken by Pan Am, TWA and Braniff in their heydays. These carriers linked cities throughout the nation whether they were large operational centers for the airline or not with international destinations nonstop.

For example in 1978, TWA flew to London nonstop from Boston, Philadelphia, New York, Newark, Washington, Chicago and Los Angeles. Braniff flew to Panama City nonstop from Miami, Dallas/Ft Worth, Los Angeles, Washington, and New York. Pan Am flew nonstop to London in 1987 from New York, Washington, Miami, Detroit, Seattle, San Fransisco and Los Angeles.

While Pan Am's operations were always centered around New York and to a lesser extent Miami, non hub cities such as Los Angeles, San Fransisco, Chicago, Baltimore and Boston reaped the benefits of nonstop international air travel to such destinations as Frankfurt, Tokyo, Hong Kong and Caracas. TWA was similar in its approach but unlike Pan Am, TWA was never a truly worldwide carrier, never serving South America or Japan. For most of TWA's history its route map did not extend east of Bombay, until 1969 when it won the Transpacific route case versus Pan Am and Northwest and was able to extend its reach into the Far East and fly a round the world route. (My father actually flew TWA around the world starting in Chicago and stopping in Paris, Rome, Bombay and Hong Kong before returning to Chicago. For his efforts he got a nice framed certificate from TWA as a member of the "Round the World Club.") In 1975 however TWA traded this authority as well as flights to the Middle East and Germany with Pan Am for additional European flights. The agreement left Pan Am the dominant US carrier to the Germany, Middle East, Africa and Asia (in addition to being strong in Latin America which was not served by TWA) while TWA dominated the non US to Germany transatlantic market, and was left as the only US airline serving Paris, until National Airlines (who was bought by Pan Am following deregulation) won Miami-Paris authority in 1977. While Pan Am seemed to give up far more lucrative routes the reason was simple: Prior to the Deregulation Act of 1978 Pan Am was not permitted to fly passengers domestic US flights of any kind (even to feed international flights from JFK, Miami, Boston and San Fransisco) while Pan Am ironically was authorized under the German Civil Aviation Act of 1953 to operate Internal German Services (IGS). So ironically enough prior to deregulation, Frankfurt was the one traditional hub Pan Am actually operated!

In addition, Pan Am, TWA and Braniff flew to the types of cities that US Airlines have not served since. For example Pan Am flew to Ankara for most of its post World War II existence. No US Airline has flown there since. TWA flew at various times in the 1970s, 80s and 90s to Sanata Maria, Dhahran, Bahrain, Riyadh, Cairo, Casablanca, Tunis and Tripoli. TWA today is still among the most recognizable American brands in the Middle East, even though the airline has been reduced to internet tribute sites on the web.

In addition to Ankara, Pan Am flew at various times to cities such as Tehran, Damascus, Krakow, Beriut, Hanover, Jakarta, Dubrovnik, Brasilia, Keflavik, Abu Dhabi, Bergen, Basel, Bremen and Belem. None of these cities have been served by a US airline since the demise of Pan Am.

TWA was long considered the industry's standard for customer service and comfortable air travel. Pan Am wasn't far behind, and Braniff was in some ways the forerunner of its Dallas neighbor Southwest with innovative and colorful advertising. These three airlines set a high standard for international travel that has not been matched by today's industry giants.

Administration Cherry Picking Facts Again

2007-02-26T21:21:00.000-05:00

Nobody has to convince me of the danger that is posed by Iran. For years before the current Administration committed the strategic blunder of the last thirty years by invading Iraq, I stated Saddam Hussein could be useful to the United States because Iran posed the greatest threat to Western security and civilization of any nation on the planet. A strong Sunni dominated Iraq could have been an effective buffer against the hard line Shiite clerics in Tehran. Iran's Shiite regime which is run by the religious clerics has exported radical Islam to six former Soviet Republics, parts of Europe, much of Africa and throughout the Far East. Iran has for years been the chief exporter of international terrorism. Yet in both Afghanistan and Iraq our military has been used to prop up what appear to be pro Iranian leaning regimes where hard core enemies of Tehran existed before our intervention.

Iran is the biggest potential threat to the existence of Israel and has formed an alliance of convenience with China and Russia, two other very dangerous nations even though Iran is funding insurgents within both nations, and is involved in trying to topple several pro-Russian regimes in Central Asia. The case to attack Iran is simple: Iran is the world's pariah and they cannot be allowed to develop weapons of mass destruction. It's a simple argument and I for one would support any well thought out military action against Iran if it will result in an ultimate weakining of Tehran's growing domination of Central Asia and the Middle East.

However the Bush Administration has continued its inept handling of Middle Eastern policy by making a case that Iran is responsible for the quagmire we face in Iraq. This is not even close to reality. Iran if anything has kept it's Shiite allies more in check than the Sunni insurgents funded and armed by two American allies, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Recently, the Times of London estimated that 92% of allied casualties in Iraq were attributable to Sunni insurgents while only 6% could be blamed on the Shiites. (2% were blamed on friendly fire or other factors.) Moreover Iran has far more Democratic like institutions than Saudi Arabia, Jordan or Egypt, so the implications made by some neo-conservatives on television that Iran is impeding the implementation of Democracy in the Middle East is simply laughable.

So while Iran continues to bully the world while creating a network of alliances with rogue nations that themselves represent a grave threat to American military and economic supremacy (Russia and China) this administration has decided to attack Iran for something it is actually doing better than our own allies. Once again George W. Bush and his Foreign Policy team have proven they have no clue what is really going on in the Middle East.

Main Street Florida's Fifty Nifty Years

2007-01-27T10:35:00.000-05:00

Since south Florida is made largely of transplants many locals don't know nor care about the complicated history of road building in the region. While the federal government dolled out money for roads in their native New York and Chicago, road building down here in what was the backwater of America (a tourist haven, but a place very few people seriously thought of living after the Great Depression) was largely a state and local matter.

The Interstate Highway system didn't come to Florida until the early 1960s. Even then the stretches of urban roads built in Miami, Tampa and Jacksonville didn't connect to anything until the large stretches of rural interstate were completed in the 1970s and 1980s. Jacksonville and Miami had to take matters into their own hands to build urban freeways and both did a remarkable job of designing and ultimately building roads financed with local and state money. For example, the Palmetto Expressway was built by Dade County with some state help in the late 1950s. At the time I-95 didn't exist, and the Palmetto cut through dairy farms until hitting some urbanized areas near its termination in Kendall. Today, the Palmetto carries more cars than any Interstate in Florida outside of south Florida metroplex.

Governor Fuller Warren from Jacksonville was a populist visionary. He was probably Florida's most colorful governor and modeled himself in many ways after Huey Long. Warren, who was almost impeached by the Legislature numerous times had a vision. The vision was a limited access parkway from Miami to Jacksonville, then the two principal cities in the state. Conservative spendthrifts from North Florida known as the pork chop gang, led by Senate President Charley Johns from Starke thought the idea foolish. In the days of malapportionment, rural representation dominated the legislature, even though in 1955 close to a third of the state's population lived in Dade County.

Warren was long gone when the first stretch of Turnpike opened on January 25, 1957 thanks in large part to the efforts of Florida's first new south governor Leroy Collins and U.S. Senator George Smathers, who was from Miami and owned a home in Jacksonville. The Turnpike was the first large scale limited access road built in the South outside of urban core areas.

The initial stretch of Turnpike began at what is now the Golden Glades Interchange 10 miles north of Miami and ended at S.R. 70 in Fort Pierce. The original exists and service plazas on the road were as follows:

US 441/SR 826 North Miami Beach
SR 820 Hollywood
SR 84 Fort Lauderdale
SR 838 Fort Lauderdale (Sunrise Blvd.)
Service Plaza-Pompano Beach (Hammondville Road)
SR 814 Pompano Beach
SR 806 Delray Beach (Delray West Blvd.)
Service Plaza- West Palm Beach
SR 704 West Palm Beach (Okeechobee Blvd.)
SR 706 Jupiter (Indiantown Road)
SR 714 Stuart
Service Plaza- Fort Pierce
SR 70 Fort Pierce

The Turnpike was an entirely rural road at its opening. The only real development near the highway was at the Hollywood exit and even that was sporadic. The road had been built as far west as possible to avoid cities and not to break up vital dairy land. The design for the road as similar to the Pennsylvania Turnpike and the New York State Thruway.

Between 1957 and 1964, the aforementioned Palmetto Expressway was completed as was Miami's North-South Expressway, I-95 in Miami, and I-195. Planning or building began on the East-West Expressway (now the Dolphins Expressway), the Airport Expressway and I-395. Around this time an interesting concept that was closer to becoming reality than many today realize was being discussed- the creation of Interama a year round world's fair and international business center would have been located near the Golden Glades Interchange.

Interama as we all know never was built but out of it came a concept for full scale road building in South Florida from the commission charged with building the facility., The proposed roads were in both Dade and Broward Counties and included.

Le June Expressway (Was to run from Miramar to the University of Miami)
Hialeah Expressway (Was to run from Collins Avenue to the West Dade Expwy along 79th st)
Interama Expressway (Was to run from 167th St to Downtown along Miami Ave.)
Opa-Locka Expressay (Became Gratigny Pkway and is less than 1/2 the proposed length)
South Dade Expressway (Now the Don Shula Expwy)
West Dade Expressway (Now the HEFT, though it was originally proposed to come a little deeper into Miramar along the current Miramar Parkway)
Snapper Creek Expressway (Built as planned)
Snake Creek Expressway (Was to run along Hallandale Beach Blvd. from University Expwy to AIA)
Cypress Creek Expressway (Was to run from AIA to University Expwy)
University Expressway (Was to run from Parkland to Miramar along current Nob Hill Rd.....moved west, shortened and narrowed to become Sawgrass Expressway)
Deerfield Expressway (Was to run from University Expressay to US 1)
Rock Island Expressway (Was to run from Port Everglades Expressway to Deerfield Expressway along current Rock Island Road)
Sheridan Street Expressway (Was to replace Sheridan Street from University Expwy to AIA)
Port Everglades Expressway (Now I-595 and I-75 )

The proposed roads bolded were eventually built, those in italics were built in a smaller form and those in block letter were never built. The most useful of these highways that were never built, as it turns out would have been the LeJune Expressway, the Cypress Creek Expressway and the Interama Expressway. The LeJune Expressway was intended to run from the terminus of the University Expressway (which was modified substantially to become the Sawgrass Expressway- it was originally to follow the current route of Nob Hill Road and run from Parkland to Miramar, and it was to include service plazas and be built at 8 lanes, 4 in each direction) at the interchange with the county line Snake Creek Expressway (which was to run all the way east to AIA and west to the West Dade Expressway), and terminate near the University of Miami. The other extremely useful missing road would have been the Cypress Creek Expressway which as its name indicates would have run along Cypress Creek Road from AIA to the University Expressway. The Interama Expressway was to run from 167th Street in North Miami to Downtown Miami. This would have been useful reliver road for I-95 but at the same time would have further destoryed the historic African-American neigborhoods already upset by the building of the North-South Expressway (which was designated I-95 in 1964). The road building was partly killed due to a lack of cooperation between municipal and county governments, a lack of political will and due to a lack of funds. In 1972, all highways that were not already under construction in Dade County were deauthorized in favor of Metrorail and the roads not built in Broward would have then to built with county money alone and without companion roads in Dade County. In 1975, the Federal Government decided to re-route I-75 via Broward County rather than via the Tamiami Trail (largely because of Dade County's decision to halt Expressway building) and that is the only reason I-595 and the Sawgrass Expressway were eventually built 20 years after similar roads with more proposed capacity were first discussed.

Meanwhile, Ferris Bryant the conservative former Mayor of Ocala had become Governor and had decided to re-route the Turnpike towards his home town and away from Jacksonville, a city which produced many ambitious politicians who were rivals of Bryant. The Turnpike opened in 1964 from Fort Pierce to Wildwood, a rural outpost 25 miles south of Ocala. This stretch was heavily rural and until the early 1990s when Orlando's explosive growth engulfed the road, remained virtually unchanged. In 1988 the Legislature voted to extend the Highway to Lebanon Station on US 19 thus giving easy access to Tallahassee, the state capitol but that stretch was never funded and appears dead. The decision to steer the road away from Jacksonville and towards Orlando was callous decision at the time, but it turns out the Bronson family which owned much of the land the highway now traversed were set to make a killing off the road and the interest of Walt Disney. The family remains one of the most influential in Florida today boasting the current Agriculture Commissioner Charlie Bronson. Not until I-95 was finally complete in 1988 did Jacksonville have an expressway link to Miami.

The Turnpike in south Florida had several notable events after its opening. Here are some highlights.

1964- New Interchange at SR 808 in Boca Raton.
1967- New Interchange at Commerical Blvd in Fort Lauderdale
1972- New Interchange at the West Dade Expressway which became the Homstead Extension (HEFT)the following year. Despite the name of the road, this interchange was actually in Broward County as the West Dade Expressway was part of the original two county road plan detailed above. Governor Reuben Askew, Florida's greatest leader deserves credit for this highway being built.
1975- New Interchange at PGA Blvd, Palm Beach Gardens
1978- New Interchange at Port St Lucie Road
1979- New Interchange at Lake Worth Road
1979- New partial Interchange at County Line Road (Dade/Broward Line)
1982- New Interchange at Sample Road, Pompano Beach
1986- New Interchange at Sawgrass Expressway
1986/88- Turnpike expanded to 6 lanes from Golden Glades to SR 808 in Boca Raton
1989- New Interchange at I-595, Fort Lauderdale
1990- New Interghange at Griffin Road, Davie
1992- Ticket system replaced by coin system
1994- New partial Interchange at Atlantic Blvd, Pompano Beach
1994- New Interchange at Boynton Beach Blvd
1999- Road expanded to 6 lanes between Boca Raton and Delray Beach
2002- New Interchange at Southern Blvd, West Palm Beach
2006- Work begins to expand road to 8 lanes between Golden Glades and Commercial Blvd.
2007- New Interchange at Beeline Highway, Palm Beach Gardens

After the Broward County Expressway Authority went belly up in 1990 due to corruption and severe debt (the building of the Sawgrass Expressway was a first class boondoggle with highway plans having to be scaled back substantially because of Century Village Deerfield as well as contractor, politician and consultant corruption. Next time you are in a traffic tie up on the Sawgrass or NW 10th Street recall the construction plan for the road in 1982, was for an 8 lane highway with more frequent exits and a direct connection to I-95), the state took over the Sawgrass Expressway, lowered the outlandish tolls and is currently upgrading the highway which was built far below 1980s tollway standards. The Turnpike Authority is doing similar work in Hillsborough County with the Lee Roy Selmon Expressway which was also poorly built by the county.

The Turnpike is one of the few roads in America that has been easily converted from rural parkway, to urban expressway. It's legacy owes itself largely to the vision Florida's leaders had in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s when Florida was a progressive example of activism in the sunbelt. The road stands today as a monument to those who anticipated Florida's rapid growth and understood that conservative penny pinching economics doesn't stimulate economic development contrary to the doctrinaire conservative philosophy.

DeJa Vu All Over Again

2007-01-25T16:08:00.000-05:00

Watching President Bush's deer in the headlights look the other night at the State of the Union, I thought I was watching Bill Clinton's 1995 speech all over again. Clinton had just led the Democrats into a train wreck 1994 election due to several circumstances, not the least of which was the perceived elitism and liberalism of Clinton's administration. Members of Congress who had survived for years in swing districts could no longer hide from conservative critics because they were all labeled "Clinton Democrats" and went down to defeat.

Much like Clinton did in 1995, Bush decided that he didn't need Congressional allies in his own party any longer and has moved towards the majority Democrats on any number of domestic issues. In 1995 Clinton declared "the era of big government is over," and alienated Congressional Democrats with any number of conservative sounding initiatives during the speech.

Clinton's 1995 speech did nothing for his approval rating. Newt Gingrich's House majority continued to dominate the domestic agenda until Clinton began acting like a Democrat in the fall of 1995 confronting Gingrich and the Congress over spending cuts. Bush cannot undo six years of neglect of the domestic agenda and his loss of credibility from numerous half truths in previous state of union speeches. Like Clinton, Bush will need an over reach from the majority in Congress to regain his political footing.

Book Review: Thomas Jefferson, Author of America

2007-01-16T13:11:00.000-05:00

Thomas Jefferson: Author of America by Christopher Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens seems like a smug talking head when it comes to discussing American politics. It isn't per se his English accent that makes him appear smug but his self riotous behavior and his condemnation of anything or anybody that does not agree with him. However his work on Thomas Jefferson surprised me. Clearly he is a fan of Jefferson however he is able to take off the rose colored glasses that many writers about American History's most popular subjects use and honestly put Jefferson's life and his actions in a proper light.

Hitchens properly describes Jefferson's brilliance in drafting the Declaration of Independence and his humble nature in his return to his Virginia farm. When called to be Minister of France, Jefferson was able to embrace the Monarchy in France without compromising his Revolutionary principles. Jefferson's performance as President was in Hitchens estimation uneven and his embrace of isolationism during the Napoleonic Wars put the United States in an economic crisis which made exploitation by the great powers of the day (Great Britain and France) all the more easy. While Jefferson expanded the American "empire" with the Louisiana Purchase his trade policy as well as the general distaste he had for all things British made it impossible to grow the new territories and stabilize the frontier against Indian attacks. (The Indians were being egged on by the British.).

Slavery is the issue which most illustrates Jefferson's inconsistencies. Not only did Jefferson own slaves and allegedly have an affair with Sally Hemmings, but he believed slavery was to be an intergal part of the future of America's economy. Jefferson rejected Alexander Hamilton's embrace of industry and overseas financial markets in favor of an agrarian, rural based economy. While Jefferson believed the slave trade was immoral and deep down had qualms with slavery itself, he made every plausible effort to defend the peculiar institution. Hitchens seems most troubled by an episode that few historians discuss with regards to Jefferson. Despite being the ultimate revolutionary and someone who spoke regularly about Egalitarian principles, Jefferson was the American most concerned about the revolution against France fermenting in Haiti. Jefferson condemned the Haitian revolutionaries in a very public matter and used his position as Secretary of State in George Washington's administration to try and aide France's effort to put down the rebellion. Jefferson's greatest rival Alexander Hamilton, on the other hand sympathized with the rebellion and was able to help thwart any possible American support for the French.

Hitchens does a masterful job of giving an objective view of Jefferson's brilliance and his flaws. I strongly recommend this book as an insightful and quick read.

George W. Bush: Wilsonian Liberal, Dangerous Idealist

2007-01-12T12:47:00.000-05:00

I watched the speech of President Bush the other night in total amazement. Here is a man who has moved the nation dangerously to the right on social and domestic issues pursuing the most liberal and extreme foreign policy since the time of Woodrow Wilson. Like Wilson, Bush has shown complete disregard to the will of the American people, but unlike Wilson, Bush has no intellectual reasoning behind his policies, just a hole that he keeps digging deeper and deeper into. Bush has consistently put idealistic goals ahead of American security interests. For this history which is often times written by academics on the left may judge him kindly (as it judged Wilson, who was perhaps the most racist American President post Reconstruction but that is often forgotten by the people who have helped to reshape history), but the American people will not.

When he ran for President in 2000, candidate Bush stated that unlike President Clinton he would not put Americans in harms way for nation building, that he would never submit American troops to foreign command, and that he would assert American interests will without resorting to multilateralism or international institutions like the United Nations. Maybe Bush was just naive about foreign policy, or more likely candidate Bush threw off the realpolitik advisors that guided his father as well as Richard Nixon's dynamic foreign policy in favor of a group of idealistic thinkers whose own experiences in policy making were thin at best.

True conservatives like Chuck Hagel who know the horror of war have become more and more frustrated by the foreign policy of this administration which contrary to the knee jerk reaction of Democrats is actually pursuing left wing idealistic goals that are contrary to America's interests. Hagel is one of the few statesmen left in the Congress and his angry uncharacteristic berating of Secretary of State Condelezza Rice yesterday spoke volumes about his disgust with this policy.
The idea of embedding groups of American soldiers in Iraqi commanded units in a civil war is far more dangerous than sticking US troops under UN command. Bush's rejection of Jim Baker's suggestion of diplomacy towards Syria and Iran smacks of the sort of human rights driven foreign policy that conservatives attacked Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton for. Carter often times would not deal straight with nations that commit human rights violations and America became weaker for it. Bush will not deal with nations that support what he terms as Islamicfacism, even though both Syria and Iran have gown stronger because of Bush's actions and both could make Iraq that much more dangerous for American troops if backed into a further corner.

I expected Bush to discuss a rescinding of his disastrous debaathification policy towards the Iraqi government on Wednesday night. Instead he gave it one line, even though with Saddam Hussien dead and the Baath party strongly anti- Iran, the baath party and Saddamists could prove to be valuable allies in the coming confrontation with Iran. In then looming crisis with Iran, Bush has been forced to rely on the United Nations and Europe to get America's message across. He stated in Campaign 2000 that he would never do such a thing, but his disastrous war of idealistic choice to create a "Chicago on the Tigres" has forced us into a corner. Siding with the Shiites in a civil war only strengthens Iran and makes a confrontation with the Iranians be it over nuclear weapons or over the ever expanding hegemony Iran has in Central Asia (a dominance being promoted by American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq who are essentially backing pro Iranian forces in civil wars).

Equally disturbing is Bush's weak policy towards the rogue North Korean state. In 1994, President Clinton, that wild eyed liberal Republicans love to attack struck a deal directly with the late Kim Il Sung that bypassed interference from the UN and other regional powers. However Bush rejects such a direct approach which maximizes our leverage and strength in favor of a multilateral approach where the US can hide behind China and Russia allowing two dangerous nations whose interest differ sharply from America's to strike a deal with North Korea which will likely not serve our interests in the long term.

Promoting Democracy is a nice ideal, just like promoting nationalism was for Wilson in 1919. However much like the Wilsonian policy which led the creation of pressure points throughout the globe, Bush's policy has created some dire consequences for our security interests. Unlike 1919 sadly we cannot retreat to our own shores because we are the world's only superpower for better or for worse. Much like Wilson's failed ideals helped bring on World War II, Bush's irresponsible polices could hasten another global confrontation unless a savvy leader like Chuck Hagel, John Edwards, or yes Al Gore (had Gore been the President, America today would be in a much stronger global position) can take over this nation and undo the multiple blunders of the Bush years.

What To Listen For Tonight

2007-01-10T15:50:00.000-05:00

Tonight President Bush will give one of the most important speeches in the recent history of our nation. According to media reports he will be sending up to 21,000 more troops to Iraq to stabilize Baghdad and help train Iraqi defense forces for what eventually will be a transition in who secures the Iraqi nation. (If such a thing as the Iraqi nation, which is a nation state hodgepodge of 3 distinct peoples exists in a few years time)

I will be listening for some key points tonight:

What is the plan for the additional troops? Will they be embedded in Iraqi forces or under a sole American command structure?
Will they be national guard and reserves serving a 2nd or even third tour of duty in Iraq?
Will the President commit to improving the body armor and equipment our military has at its disposal in Iraq?
Will additional troops be sent to regions outside of Baghdad?
Will the President as has been reported scale back the disastrous policy of Debaathification which left any Iraqi individuals experienced in government out of the reconstruction of Iraq? Now that Saddam Hussien has been killed, can we finally close the book on the purge of members of the Baath party and use their individual talents and expertise to help rebuild Iraq?

Lesson from the Gingrich Revolution: Don't Ignore Foreign Policy

2007-01-06T00:57:00.000-05:00

Thursday had a nostalgic feel to it in so many ways. While the inauguration of Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker was historic to say the least, opening day had the same feeling as the first day of the Congress in 1994 when a clearly dejected Dick Gephardt handed the gavel and the keys to the House to Newt Gingrich.

It's amazing to hear commentators on the many talking head shows (which did not exist in 1995 when Gingrich rose to power) discuss Nancy Pelosi's capability for the job. I first remember Pelosi as the consciences representative from San Francisco that rose every year to oppose Most Favored Nation status for China and in those fights I observed a tough leader, the sort of leader the Democrats in the House at the time lacked. (She was tough, but also pleasant unlike so many leaders of the left) That's why I was not surprised when several years later Pelosi shocked everybody by defeating establishment insider Steny Hoyer for Minority Whip and then eventually becoming the Speaker of the House.

Pelosi needs to recall her early days as a House member when she worked against MFN and was a leading House voice on Human Rights. When Newt Gingrich's revolutionary troops stormed the Capitol in January 1995, they brought a full agenda of Domestic change, but found themselves flat footed when dealing with the Mexican Peso bailout, the escalating conflict in the Balkans and the expansion of NATO. Reasonable and experienced foreign policy voices in the GOP caucus like Jim Leach and Doug Berueter were often ignored because the only foreign affairs that mattered to the GOP majority was that which fit the new majority's domestic agenda. Items like restrictions on family planning funds and the removal of US troops from UN forces were the only international matters of interest to the GOP.

Clinton was able to prove his relevance and reinvent his Presidency not only because of Dick Morris' famous "triangulation," but because at a time when it appeared Gingrich was the most powerful man in American, Clinton once again looked like a leader when it came to Foreign Affairs. If Pelosi, Hoyer and the Democratic Leadership cede Iraq, North Korea, Iran and other International issues to the White House as they appear somewhat destined to do, they will suffer the same fate as the Gingrich crowd, and make it much easier for a qualified foreign policy oriented Republican, like John McCain or Chuck Hagel to become President.

Check Out The Napoleon Show!

2007-01-04T22:43:00.000-05:00

Napoleon Bonaparte despite his somewhat unearned reputation is one of my favorite historical figures. Recently I have discovered a great podcast aka internet radio show regarding Napoleon's life and historical legacy. Since history is often times written by the victors, in many ways Napoleon has gotten a bad rap, but he was in fact a figure who shaped the modern liberal world. Napoleon was probably the most important figure in turning Europe from a feudal backwater ruled by aristocrats to a society that valued liberal ideals and some degree of equal protection under the law. While Napoleon was a conqueror, he was also a revolutionary. Cameron Riley and David Markham disect every portion of Napoleon's life including his thinking and military strategy in the Napoleon Show on the Podcast Network. Check it out!

New for 2007

2007-01-02T02:08:00.000-05:00

We will have a book review on this site once a month

More news and views on foreign affairs

New links to top opinions from across the internet.

Debunking the Myth of the DLC

2006-12-02T12:38:00.000-05:00

For years those involved with the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) told us that the only way for the Democrats to regain power was to imitate Republicans to a certain extent on economic issues while running all the way to the left on social issues like abortion and gun control. Free Trade was sold as a doctrinaire position of being a "New Democrat" and cozying up to corporations and the political insiders was the way back to power, or so we were told. As a recovering "New Democrat" the 2006 elections once again demonstrated that the DLC was wrong and the adherence of many centrist Democrats to the policy positions of the DLC was a major reason why the Democrats spent 12 years out of power in Congress.

In 2006 The Democrats regained Congress because of a populist revolt. A revolt against free trade, and sending of jobs overseas. A revolt against the neo-conservative (or I would argue arch liberal) policies of nation building in the Middle East advocated by DLCers Hillary Rodham Clinton and Joe Lieberman along with the Bush administration. A revolt against corporate and lobbyist control of our Congress. On all three counts the DLC agenda was rejected by the masses of voters especially in the upper midwest who switched their allegiance back to their party of the past and put Democrats back in office.

When you consider the profile of so many Democrats that won on November 7th was liberal on economics and more conservative on cultural issues, you realize how far adrift the Democrats had gotten from the reality of the American electorate. Thanks in large measure to the DLC advocacy of a "third way" the Democrats lost their soul on pocket book issues and foreign policy while adhering to a strict elitist coastal view on cultural issues. Prior to the Reagan Revolution of 1980 then Democrats held huge majorities in both houses of Congress largely because they could win seats in interior states of the West and Lower Midwest with people like Warren Magnuson, Mo Udall and Frank Church. Liberals who stood strong on economic issues and valued constituent service over adherence to a lobbyist agenda in Washington D.C.

The Democrats may have lucked into an election victory in 2006. But to sustain the gains, Democrats must throw off the unsolicited advice of pundits like Dick Morris who wrongly give the DLC credit for the victory and govern as populists who avoid social issues and legislate strongly on a reform/populist platform. If they do govern the right way we could be seeing the shift to a new third way, that of the populists and a revival of the New Deal Democratic party.

The Building Blocks of a New Southern Strategy?

2006-11-10T10:32:00.000-05:00

Jim Marshall, Heath Shuler and Jim Webb are models for a new two party South

Being a Democrat in the South has been downright dangerous since the landslide election of 1994. In that election, while a Southern Democrat occupied the White House, several Democratic incumbent House members in the South were turned out from office and their seats were never to return to the Democratic fold.

Democratic House members from the South prior to 1992 had a tricky balancing act. They had to vote with their party a decent amount of time to curry favor for choice committee assignments and to satisfy African-American constituents at the same time as voting far enough to the right to satisfy white conservatives back home. Many of these moderate Democrats survived election and after election when the national Democratic party was being routed on a presidential level in their districts.

When Bill Clinton became President in 1992, he carried with him the hopes of moderate Democrats throughout the South. However, his election proved to be the ending of an era. The combination of redistricting to maximize minority access districts and the lack of popularity Clinton enjoyed in 1994 (and the loyalty many southern Democrats in Congress had to show him) ushered in a new Republican majority.

While the Democrats have had some success in South since 1994, most notably in 1998 when several Democratic governors were elected (all were defeated for re-election four years later) the region has for the most part become the backbone of the GOP's majority status in Congressional and Presidential politics. Little by little, the Congressional seats that survived 1994 in Democratic hands flipped, to where entering the 2006 elections Democrats held less than 20% of the regions white majority districts.

Tuesday did not bring major gains for the Democrats in the region, but did have some very notable victories which give us a playbook as to how Democrats can survive in the South for years to come.

Jim Marshall, a Georgia Congressman was targeted for defeat by the RNC when they worked with the Georgia Legislature to redraw his district and wooed former arch-conservative Congressman Mac Collins who represented the area from 1992-2002 to run for the seat. Marshall combined strong local roots with an activist approach to defense and military issues to stave off defeat by a 51-49 margin in a very unfavorable district. Military issues are the bread and butter of the South. Thanks in large measure to Southern control of Congressional committees from the 1940 thru the present, the South has a disproportionate amount of military bases and servicemen.

Heath Shuler is best known as a Heisman Trophy runner up when he quarterbacked the Tennessee Volunteers in the early 1990s. Now Shuler is heading to Congress at the ripe young age of 34 as a Democrat espousing what he calls "mountain values." Shuler is a conservative, no doubt on social issues but that didn't prevent him from running for Congress as a Democrat in his home state of North Carolina. That's because Shuler combines social conservatism with principled opposition to the Iraq War and Economic populism, something Democrats used to stand for in the South.

Shuler knocked off eight term Republican incumbent Charles Taylor. Taylor had been targeted before by national Democrats, but in the past he was always able to link his opponents to the unpopular national leadership of the party. This time however, Shuler ran an aggressive campaign that hit on local themes and pre-empted any attempt to link him with the liberal Democratic leadership in Washington. Shuler won by eight points Election Day.

Jim Webb left the Democratic Party in the 1970s over his feeling that the party had been overrun by those who opposed the Vietnam War and were anti-military. Webb, a decorated Vietnam Veteran became Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan. In late 2002, Webb wrote an op-ed piece in the Washington Post describing the potential military invasion of Iraq as "a blunder that history will not look upon kindly," and urged the President and his party to seek another solution to the crisis. Webb, who had endorsed and campaigned for for Republican Senator George Allen in 2000 when he defeated Democrat Chuck Robb (who like Webb and unlike Allen, or Bush had fought in Vietnam) traveled to Capitol Hill to meet Allen and other Congressional leaders. At the meetings the Republican leadership spoke in unison about the need to support the President and party. Webb felt that despite his conservatism on domestic and military issues, he could not remain in a party that went to war for the sake of going to war. Moreover, Webb like Shuler is an economic populist whose views on the proper role of government fit more with the Democratic party's philosphy then that of the anti government Republicans.

Webb, again became in Democrat and in early 2006 decided to challenge Allen for re-election. The Democratic party of Virginia had a party regular in the race named Harris Miller. Miller was running a typical Democratic campaign while Webb corralled grassroots opposition to the war and stunned the party establishment with a primary victory. Webb then ran an aggressive campaign, largely on the Iraq War versus Allen whose numerous and now infamous gaffes certainly helped Webb. But Webb did not win simply because Allen called an Indian Webb worker "maccaca" or because he showed utter contempt for his Jewish heritage or because he used the N-word years back. Webb won because he showed how a principled military man, in a state dominated by the military can oppose the war in Iraq while embracing our troops, our commanders and our ideals as a nation. Jim Webb proved you can oppose the war and yet be tough on terror.

The last decade has proven that national Democrats have little chance of winning Southern Congressional seats. During the same time, we've learned it is difficult to attain a majority in either the electoral college for President or in either chamber of Congress without some victories in the South. Jim Marshall, Heath Shuler, and Jim Webb all have contributed to the playbook on how Democrats can win in the South and thus control national politics.

Full Post Election Anaylsis Coming

2006-11-06T17:46:00.000-05:00

I know have been delinquent in updating this blog for months now. The combination of election season, College Football season and working long hours has sapped me of energy to post. However, following the election I will have lots of time on my hands to break down exactly what happened.

This week on my other blog sites

2006-08-27T22:31:00.000-04:00

Florida Buzz

More on the Governor's race and why Florida needs to be smarter with its road building.

USA Soccer Spot

A review of the weekend English Premier League action and the impact of American players on the matches.

Florida College Sports

The Gators opening game with Southern Miss is only six days away. Is this the season UF finally breaks out of the mididle of the SEC pack?

Why I believe Florida State is a national title threat this season.

Why USF and Miami are headed for rocky roads this season.

Once in a Lifetime is Priceless

2006-08-22T10:48:00.001-04:00

BY KARTIK KRISHNAIYER/AUGUST 15TH 2006

I am avid watcher of documentary films. Whether it be PBS' American Experience series, Errol Morris' Fog of War, or anything done by Ken Burns, I enjoy a well done documentary probably more than I enjoy a fictional movie.Through the years however, sports documentaries have tended to be subpar works. Either they are too narrative or too analytical, but never the right dose of both. That is until Miramax Films in conjunction ESPN Original Entertainment, released Once in a Lifetime, which debuted here in South Florida last week.

Once in a Lifetime is the story of the New York Cosmos, the giant club of the now defunct North American Soccer League (NASL). Growing up in Broward County, I was a Fort Lauderdale Striker liker, and actually served as a Striker ball boy for a match versus the Cosmos in 1983. Beginning in the 1980 my parents took my every Striker-Cosmos game we hosted at Lockhart Stadium, so I must admit I was eagerly looking forward to this film.The film begins somewhat slowly with a narrative history of the pathetic state of soccer in the US and the origins of the NASL, which was for all intents and purposes a sub professional league. But the story and film pick up when Steve Ross, head of Warner Communications and the biggest international media mogul of the 1970s bought the Cosmos in 1973. From this point in the film forward the character development is outstanding, and the filmmakers make a deliberate attempt to arouse controversy by asking provocative questions and pointing out differences in the recollections of the major players involved.

When Pele' shocked the world in 1975 and signed with the Cosmos, after turning down Real Madrid and Juventus, the NASL went from being essentially a semi-pro league to a big time international first division. The courting and signing of Pele' by Ross and the Warner Communications team is portrayed in riveting fashion by the filmmakers. After the signing of Georgia Chinaglia in 1976 the film much like the Cosmos took a turn into the risque and shady side. Chinaglia and Pele showed up for a playoff match against Tampa Bay famously hung over and the Cosmos were eliminated from the playoffs by a 3 to 1 score. By this time the Cosmos were regulars at Studio 54 and were drawing huge crowds both at home and on the road.

In 1977, the Cosmos bought several top foreign stars and became the predecessor of today's Manchester United, Chelsea, Real Madrid and Barcelona teams. In those days even the top European clubs were largely national clubs with very few foreign players.The NASL then went through a proliferation of purchasing foreign stars, most of whom commanded high salaries despite being well past their prime. This helped to eventually seal the fate of the league, but not before a lifetime of memories were formed. Georgia Chinaglia becomes the focus of the film at this point since his meddling in the Cosmos front office and his unwillingness to work with others contributed to the downfall of the entire league. Nonetheless the seeds had been sown to hook a generation of youngsters on the game, a generation whose parents did not even know what soccer was.

Ultimately the NASL did not fail but in fact succeeded. Even now, thirty years later when I travel abroad people are more likely to know the names "The Cosmos, or the Rowdies" than any current club in MLS or USL the top flight leagues in the US that replaced the NASL. (I will concede the best known names today of American clubs are two USL clubs who have kept the names of the NASL clubs in their cities: the Seattle Sounders and the Portland Timbers) Youth Soccer was niche ethnic sport in the United States before the Cosmos craze of the 1970s and early 1980s and by the time the NASL died, it was the biggest participatory sport in the nation for kids under the age of 12.

The NASL planted the seeds for the US National Team success of the 1990s and a successful World Cup being staged on American soil in 1994. The negative legacy of the NASL is simple and not debatable. The quality of soccer was so superior to today's MLS or USL it spoiled many American fans about the game. Many of these fans today opt to watch European football which readily available on US TV instead of American soccer.

MLS and USL are indigenous products that are the logical successor of the NASL's work. The American player largely irrelevent during the height of the Cosmos frenzy is now of a world class standard. Our leagues today have more American players at their disposal to sign and to develop and with the opening up of European club football to the world, an NASL like product on US soil with countless stars of world football may be impossible to replicate.

The debate about American soccer aside, this film is riveting and a must see for sports fans off all stripes.

The author, a lifelong fan of the beautiful game is an associate with the international polling firm Bendixen and Associates in Coral Gables. He resides in Coral Springs with his wife, dog and two cats.

USA Soccer joins the rest of the world in a way

2006-08-04T00:37:00.000-04:00

For the first time since the USA arrived on the international soccer scene our top senior players are following the example of other nation's top players and retiring after the World Cup. Eddie Pope has become the latest player to call it quits on a national team career, joining Brian McBride and Claudio Reyna. In my opinion, the fact that our more senior players tried to hang on to national team glory well past their prime inhibited the development of younger players and in the late Steve Sampson era caused open rebellion within the squad. While we have had some fantastic players in their 30s, many of those same players have tried to reclaim past glory well past the proper time to call it quits. A few like Jeff Agoos just wanted a chance to play in a World Cup. Others like Roy Wegerle and Thomas Dooley just flat out played beyond the point when they could be helpful to the national team.

Claudio Reyna, Brian McBride and Eddie Pope have not only been great warriors for the national team but they now have added to their legacy with this important precedent they have set. The tradition of timely international retirements has worked for the top national teams in the world and let's hope that this fine example is followed in the future and bears similar fruits for our national team.

Measuring Greatness

2006-07-23T13:44:00.000-04:00

How do you measure greatness in athletics? Is it the number of championships you win, the grace by which you win with or the characteristics of how you win? Some greats like Michael Jordan, Lance Armstrong, Joe Montana and Pele won with a particular style that typified their talent and performance.

Tiger Woods in my opinion exceeded the greatness of those past sports heroes with his performance this week in winning the British Open. Each of the above named athletes were great in their own right and especially in the case of Lance Armstrong they overcame the longest possible odds to dominate their respective sports.

What made Tiger Woods performance different this week was his willingness to completely overhaul his game in order to continue his mastery of the opposition. Through the years critics whether in the media or just armchair experts such as myself have dissected Tiger Woods' swing changes and have criticized him for just being able to win on "bombers" courses with wide fairways and little penalty for missing a tee shot. It seemed Tiger could win whenever he wanted at Augusta where little penalty exists for wayward drives but couldn't handle the thick rough on the typical US Open course which also features the tightest fairways around. Only twice since Tiger turned pro have the British Open (St Andrews twice) or the US Open (Pebble Beach and Bethpage Black) been played on so called "bombers" courses. Each time Tiger won, but on tougher, tighter venues such as Pinehurst, Royal Lytham and St Anne's, Winged Foot, Murfield and Carnoustie, Woods has falllen short. That was until this week's masterful performance.

This week at short Royal Liverpool, Tiger Woods took the driver which is considered his biggest weapon out of his hand and did something few do these days in Golf: Hit iron off almost every tee to lay up short of trouble on just about every hole. This helped to insure that he kept the ball in the fairway and gave himself the opportunity to put spin on his approach shots leaving make-able birdie puts on otherwise daunting multi tiered greens. Tiger who normally leads every major in driving distance was near the bottom of the statistic this week, but instead topped fairways hit, a stat he didn't always fare so well in.

It takes true genius and confidence to change your game when you are at the top in order to stay on top. Much like the titans of business, society and politics, Tiger Woods swing changes and radical game plan won him another major championship, and answered his critics, including myself who felt he couldn't win on a shorter length course with tight fairways. Tiger is the king of the sports world for good reason.

Is it Finally Sergio's turn?, and the new and improved Tiger Woods

2006-07-23T01:52:00.000-04:00

In a little over seven hours Sergio Garcia, the lovable youngster who is a chronic underachiever has the opportunity of a lifetime. Not only can he win his first major championship later today at Royal Liverpool, but he can do so in classic fashion by coming from behind to defeat the great Tiger Woods and thus exercising the demons of a whole generation of golfers who have faltered or flinched when the name Woods sits on top of a leaderboard going into the final round of a major championship.

Will Woods lose? He certainly looked very human on the putting surface today but personally this week I have probably been more impressed with Tiger Woods maturity and decision making than at any previous time in his career including his banner 2001 and 2001 seasons. Unlike his chief rivals Phil Mickelson and Vijay Singh who have a bad habit of hitting loose drivers off the tee in search of distance, (and thus Singh and Mickelson have won the two majors where accuracy counts less and have not won the two opens where accuracy trumps length) Woods has a new strategy he is employing this week at the British Open. Keep the ball in play, even if that means taking an iron and leaving yourself with a long approach shot into the green. This is a style of play that shows great maturity on Woods part because through the years Tiger has depended on power and length, sometimes to the detriment of his masterful short game. Tiger's new approach probably has several roots, including his father's death, his failure at this year's US Open where his loose drives towards tight fairways resulted in a missed cut, and of course, his rival Phil Mickelson's idiotic decision to hit driver with a 2 shot lead on the 72nd hole of last month's US Open.

Tiger Woods has done this week only what a champion can. He has taken his biggest advantage in the mind of critics, his length and ceded it in order to craft a game that fits the course and championship he is playing to perfection. (Woods believe it or not is near the bottom in driving distance this week among the players on the leaderboard) Regardless of what happens later today, Tiger could be better than ever if he keeps his discipline and his new way of thinking.

Tiger Woods still hasn't grown up

2006-07-18T13:34:00.000-04:00

For the last several months we've been told that we must feel sorry for Tiger Woods because his father passed away. Well I officially stopped feeling sorry for Tiger Woods last night when I read that after a year he is still angry at comments Nick Faldo (who is a commentator for ABC) made about Woods swing at last year's Buick open. Woods and Faldo have been paired together for the first two rounds of this year's British Open in Liverpool. Either this is a cruel joke by the R&A, or a mere coincidence.

Woods stated that he will not speak to Faldo during the round and indicated his continued anger at Faldo's comments. After all it's such a pity when a paid commentator actually adds commentary to a broadcast! Tiger Woods is one the least likeable professional athletes around specifically for behavior like this. Woods continues to turn a cold shoulder to anyone anywhere who dare criticize him, even those who are paid by TV networks to do so. Last year tour PGA Tour pro Tom Pernice Jr. stated that the vast majority of golfers pulled for Vijay Singh when he was matched head to head with Tiger Woods ( at the time Singh and Woods were in an epic battle for the world #1 ranking......since Woods has recaptured #1 and Singh has falled to #3), simply because Singh was a heck of a lot more likeable. If Tiger's peers cannot stand him, why should we?

Woods has won two British Open, but both were in Scotland and on Thursday and Friday he'll be golfing in Nick Faldo's home territory. He better watch out, otherwise his missed cut streak in majors will reach two in a row.

India responsible for its own mess

2006-07-14T22:11:00.000-04:00

This week the world was horrified by the scenes of terrorism striking the Bombay rail system. A link was quickly made with Islamic extremists backed by Osama Bin Laden. India has dealt with Bin Laden backed terrorism for much longer than the United States or even Israel has, but India has proven through the years completely incapable of properly handling the situation.

While India is emerging as an economic superpower based on service oriented industries, the nation remains backward in policing itself and in containing communal violence. India's reaction to Islamic backed terror has been embrace Hindu fundamentalism and US President George W. Bush's USA with a nuclear deal that hurt both states, rather than working to eliminate the root causes of terror. Mumbai where the bombings took place this week was not long ago one of the most secular and enlightened places on earth. To be a Bombay resident who worked downtown somehow meant you were cosmopolitan and urbane. Now in 2005 Mumbai has become a constant terrorist magnet with suspicions between religions and ethnic groups and paranoia spreading throughout the city on a daily basis.

No question exists that the behavior of Pakistan and Osama Bin Laden's minions running around India has been despicable. But unfortunately India has done more to encourage their behavior than to stop them in recent years. Terrorism will continue to be a reality of life in Mumbai and Delhi, India's two major cities until official policy and the public attitudes change.

Soccer Times printed my letter to the editor

2006-07-07T00:07:00.000-04:00

Soccer Times which is probably the only site on the web which offers really educated and unbiased opinions about US Soccer printed my letter to the editor.

U.S. Cup effort was disastrous

I want to personally thank Bruce Arena for the great run he has given our national team and the unforgettable trip to the quarterfinals of the World Cup in 2002 (which could have been the semifinals had it not been for [referee] Hugh Dallas).

That having been said, this World Cup performance was a disaster for Team USA. I am shocked that we played with such little energy and that our stars exhibited such little leadership. I never realized we'd miss the energy coming from the bench thanks to Cobi Jones and the offensive sparks coming from the back via Tony Sanneh so greatly in this World Cup. We just didn't have suitable replacements for those guys or for the injured Frankie Hedjuk and John O'Brien. Our player pool isn't as deep as most of us thought it was and, while that's not Bruce Arena's fault, it's time we moved on and brought in a new coach and a new way of thinking.

Kartik Krishnaiyer
Coral Springs Florida

Oh Phil!

2006-06-18T22:33:00.000-04:00

With the World Cup taking place this summer and the Miami Heat in the NBA Finals (an event I typically do not watch) I have paid less attention to the US Open this weekend than anytime in the past twenty years. Loyal readers of my blog will remember that last year I had day by day commentary for both the US and British Opens. (I do plan to have daily reports on next month's British Open from Royal Liverpool). While I love watching the Masters, the Golf Majors I truly crave watching are the two opens. They are the championships of world golf, because you must be a complete player playing a complete game to win an Open. You must be mentally tough and you must use every club in your bag. At the Masters you just have to be long, creative and a good putter.

So much about this US Open was surreal with the passing of Earl Woods a few weeks ago to Tiger Woods missing the cut, to the fact that two Indian citizens played in this US Open, the first Indians to ever qualify for a major on US soil. (And Arjun Atwal India's top player who now resides in Orlando did not qualify-the two Indians that qualified were Indian based players!)

But the most surreal thing about this United States Open will be the ending. Tough courses tend to make the world's top golfers look mortal. Carnoustie did it in the 1975 and 1999 British Opens', and Pebble Beach has done it in several different US Opens'. Winged Foot did it this week much as it had in 1974. Great courses require great shotmaking but more importantly impeccable course managment and understanding of the situation in the tournament.

For the past several months we have been hearing about how Phil Mickelson had eclipsed Tiger Woods and how Lefty was easily the best player in the world. True, Phil Mickelson had won the past two majors but my feeling was until he won an Open: either the US Open or British Open, he could never be considered a truly great golfer by historic standards. (the same goes for Vijay Singh the other member of Golf's "Big Three" who has gotten fat off wins at the Masters and PGA Championship while blowing several golden opportunities to win both open championships....Singh basically had the 2003 British Open won but allowed Ben Curtis an unknown who had never won a professional event to beat him down the stretch) The two opens require much more patience, discipline and course management than the Masters and most PGA Championships. At the US Open you cannot get away with blasting a driver off the tee to try and shorten your approach shot, or by hitting errand shots off the tee and then just painlessly blasting the ball back into play. The US Open, unlike the Masters makes you think around every shot on the course, and the US Open unlike Augusta which has fairways which seem wider than the Mississippi River makes you pay even if you just barely miss the narrow landing area.

Phil Mickelson for all his success still doesn't get it. Lefty for all his talent still is lacking common sense. For the fourth time in eight years, Mickelson finished 2nd in a US Open after leading down the stretch. But this collapse, given Mickelson's recent record in majors and the brain freeze he had will go down in the annals of history much like Jean Van De Velde's 1999 British Open collapse (where Van De Velde was unlucky and stupid, unlike Phil today who actually got a lucky break when his tee shot hit off the scorers tent and back into play) and the famous collapse of Curtis Strange at the 1985 Masters.

To win a US Open you keep the ball straight even if that means keeping short. With a one shot lead Lefty opted for a Driver off the tee much to the chagrin of NBC's Johnny Miller who said "he better have a 4 wood in his hand." Then after the errand tee shot, Mickelson could have played a simple chip back into the fairway and taken his medicine, something you always do at a US Open. Try for par, but at worst make the bogey and go to a playoff on Monday. Instead Phil in yet another Greg Norman moment, decided to take an obstructed shot at the green. After his shot hit a tree, he was sunk.

I'm not a Phil Mickelson fan and obviously he has won three majors when critics like myself felt he didn't have the mental toughness to win even one. But a mistake like this often kills careers. Just also Jean Van De Velde, Constanio Rocca or Len Mattiace. For Phil Mickelson's sake I hope he is mentally tougher than some of us think.

History Revisited

2006-06-02T00:32:00.000-04:00

For many years I have been interested in the nation of Turkey and its predecessor the Ottoman Empire. I cannot actually finger why I had such interest in the Ottomans other than the idea of an empire that stretched from the edge of Vienna through the Middle East and throughout North Africa for such a long period of time (the 1400s through World War I) was fascinating to me. The idea that the decline and eventual collapse of one empire led to the formation of over 25 nation states just seemed too interesting to some one as curious about history, geography and travel as myself. Or perhaps it was my interest in Roman History that drove me to an fascination with the Ottomans because the Turks who captured Constantinople in 1453 and deposed the final (Eastern) Roman Emperor were the closest thing to an actual successor state Rome had, because unlike the Barbarians who toppled the west in the 400s and 500s, Ottoman Sultans were interested in promoting learning, literature and many other “Greco/Roman” ideas.

As a buff of Turkish history my ability to get information was basically limited to age old texts at university libraries. In fact Turks themselves made a concerted effort to distance themselves from their past through institutional means that avoided Ottoman History totally. When Kemal Ataturk modernized Turkey following the dismissal of the final Ottoman Emperor in 1922, he went out of his way to undermine any legacy the Empire for which he had served ably as a military commander in first World War might have had for the Turkish people.

But following the events in Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, and Iraq a major revival in Ottoman Turkish history has taken place in the west. After all historians finally have realized, many of the problems caused by modern day political boundaries only began after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Moreover, with some exceptions (the treatment of Kurds and Armenians being the major exceptions) the Ottomans were able to kid a lid of ethnic and religious strife. Heck, the Turks were so progressive towards Jews in the Empire and the Holy Land which the Turks had ruled since the early 1500s that Winston Churchill claimed the Sultan had aligned with Germany in 1914 because of his “Jewish advisors.”

In the last two years I have seen countless books on the Ottoman Empire’s history on the shelves at major bookstores. For me it is a nirvana because for years I have sought knowledge on the great Turkish Empire and its legacy and now I have an embarrassment of riches to choose from. More importantly then my own interest in the subject these books serve as important studies as to why the Balkans, Central Asia and Middle East are today so volatile. It would be wise for American and British policymakers to read Ottoman History and understand the world they have inherited and how to be proper caretakers.

GROUP B PREVIEW

2006-05-30T21:33:00.000-04:00

Group B originally looked like one of the toughest in the World Cup Draw. However in the past few weeks, arguably the most important player for each of the three serious contenders from this group has fallen with a serious injury. This makes prognostication of this group particularly risky, but certain variables will remain the same regardless of the who is healthy and who is not. While England looked solid in Tuesday's 3-1 win over Hungary, they still look uncomfortable without Rooney up front.

Sven Goran Eriksson's rocky but successful tenure as manager of England will come to and end at the end of the World Cup. Eriksson's has restored English confidence and pride in its national Football squad, but he has not advanced the squad past the final eight at either the European Championships or the World Cup. This cup was supposed to be different, until Wayne Rooney, possibly the best young Footballer in the world was injured in a match versus Chelsea in April. The rise of Rooney who is destined to be mentioned among the all time greats of English Football (alongside Bobby Charlton, Bobby Moore, Gordon Banks, Gary Linekar, etc.) had done so much to revive the sagging hopes of a Football mad nation. Now it appears, England will have to wait four more years to make a run at the ultimate prize.

The English squad has some major deficiencies that probably would have prevented a world title even with a healthy Rooney. Now those come into open view in Rooney's absence. The team has excess of talented center backs, such as Rio Ferdinand, John Terry, Sol Campbell, and Jamie Carragher. However, Eriksson doesn't have a particularly strong stable of outside defenders which are critical in England's long ball attack. Gary Neville and Ashley Cole are likely to start outside but neither inspires a whole lot of confidence.

The midfield is outstanding, being led by Steven Gerrard and Frank Lampard. Oh and England also has some guy named Beckham. Keep an eye on speedy Aaron Lennon, a youngster who showed great skill this past season with Totenham, and was a controversial selection of Eriksson's. Jermaine Jenas, who also plays for Spurs, and the versatile Joe Cole could contribute as well. England is absolutely loaded in the midfield. Gerrard had to play a little bit of a withdrawn striker in the Hungary friendly and despite scoring a goal, he looked uncomfortable.

The Forwards beyond Wayne Rooney whose health as mentioned above is in serious doubt, are average at best for a squad with England's expectations. Michael Owen has seemingly regressed over the past few years and had a disastrous time with Real Madrid before returning home to play for Newcastle. Owen has a foot injury that has been nagging him all year and tends to fall asleep during games, although he is still capable of the spectacular. Peter Crouch provides a tall target at 6'7,'' and is much liked by his manager. However, Crouch is a poor finisher and probably will not be an adequate replacement for Rooney. Young Theo Wolcott, only 17 years old could get some time up front as a late game sub. Wolcott is destined to be one of the brightest stars in the world a few years down the road, but is still very inexperienced at the highest levels of club and international football. Wolcott's selection that evidently came at the expense of

England is a solid side, despite some obvious problems. While they will win this group, they will not win the World Cup, and that is the ultimate goal in a nation as Football crazy and as commercially vital to the sport's worldwide appeal as England.

Paraguay has reached the second round in each of the past two World Cups and looked poised for more in 2006 until Roque Santa Cruz revealed last week that he is still suffering the affects of a knee injury he suffered during the Bundeslegia Season with Bayern Munich. With Santa Cruz still not fully fit, Nelson Haedo Valdez who plays his club football for Werder Bremen may be forced to pick up the slack. A concern for Paraguay is the lack of height and size at the back that could be exposed by both England and Sweeden. Julio Dos Santos is a skillful wingman who pushes the ball forward with allegiance and ease. Dos Santos like Santa Cruz plays his club football for German powerhouse Bayern Munich, so adjusting to German conditions should not be a problem. Roberto Acuna who is among the world's best holding midfielders returns for his 3rd world cup. Acuna combines solid positioning with some of the best pinpoint passing anywhere in the football world. Paraguay has much offensive firepower, and that should be enough to overcome a somewhat shaky backline and goalkeeping situation.

Sweden got perhaps the biggest injury blow of any nation in the World Cup when Fredrik Ljungberg, one of the great players in the recent history of the storied Arsenal Football club suffered a foot injury that team doctors feel should keep him out of the group stage matches. Ljungberg, however seems intent on playing through his intense pain, but how effective the speedy midfielder who sparks the Swedish attack will be is up for debate. Sweden is a disciplined and defensive oriented side that holds their defensive shape even under intense attacking pressure. Henrik Larsson and Zlatan Ibrahimovic are two of the best attackers in Europe, but an hobbled Ljungberg will adversely affect the type of service the forwards receive and probably sinks the Sweds chances. Anders Svensson who is a classy wing player will likely have to move to a more attacking oriented role in Ljungberg's absence.

Trinidad and Tobago qualified for its first World Cup thanks to two of the great attacking players in recent years of English club football, former MLS superstar Stern John and former Man U goal scorer extrodinaire and Champions League winner Dwight Yorke. Stern John is a particularly great story because it was Brian McBride's trip to France 1998 with the USA, that moved John into the Columbus Crew starting lineup, and the rest is history as they say. John averaged almost a goal a game as a starter with the Crew in 1998 and 1999 and was sold for a then MLS record $4 million to EPL side Nottingham Forest. Dwight Yorke made his T&T debut in 1989 and sixteen years later he will make his World Cup debut at age 35.

The Soco Warriors have the aformentioned two great attacking players but little else that indicates they can be competitive in the World Cup, especially when drawn in a group with three quality sides. Both the midfield and defense are filled with players who do not regularly play for their clubs or toil in the obscurity of England's lower divisions. T&T's qualification however should be enough to make the island nation proud of their national team.

WHO ADVANCES: ENGLAND, PARAGUAY
BEST PLAYER IN GROUP: WAYNE ROONEY, ENGLAND (INJURED)
BEST HEALTHY CO-PLAYERs IN GROUP: ROBERTO ACUNA, PARAGUAY, STEVEN GERRARD, ENGLAND
BEST YOUNG PLAYER IN THE GROUP: THEO WOLCOTT, ENGLAND

World Cup: Group A Preview

2006-05-28T12:28:00.000-04:00

This article can also be found at www.worldcupusa.blogspot.com

22 months ago Former German great Jurgen Klinsmann was called back home from exile in Los Angeles to coach the national team. With Germany hosting the 2006 World Cup and the poor results between 2002 and 2004 incurred by former coach Rudy Voller the choice was obvious to Germans of all stripes.

However since talking the helm, Klinsmann has encountered much criticism, of both his decision to continue to reside in Los Angeles as well as his use of attacking tactics whom critics claim is leaving Germany, a traditionally strong defensive side weak at the back. The truth however is that Germany has few if any world class type perfomers on its squad, save the great Michael Ballack. But is is possible in 2006, much like 2002 when Miroslav Klose, an unknown player who had just recently been capped for the first time with the national team went on a goal scoring tear which eventually led Germany to the final of Korea/Japan 2002. Germany has so many strong players in its player pool, who are football savvy, that perhaps someone will emerge as a top flight impact player.

Germany doesn't have a quality finisher in the mold of Oliver Bierhoff or dare I say it Jurgen Klinnsman on this squad. (though youngster Lukas Podolski has a shot to be a star) Nor, does it have a real strong defensive presence on the back line. But what Germany does have besides home field advantage is two world class goalies in Jens Lehman and Oliver Kahn. Klinsman prefers Lehman, but you really can't go wrong with either. This alone should be enough to get Germany out of a relatively weak group and on to 2nd round, and beyond.

Poland dissapointed at the 2002 World Cup, but not before handing eventual quarterfinalist the USA and embarresing but meaningless 3-1 defeat. Poland's strength lies in its experience and cohesive starting squad. A concern for the Polish side is the number of key players who are not seeing first team action with their clubs. Poland does have in advantage in that they can play multiple styles and that they have enough pace to stay with the quicker sides in the World Cup. Goalkeeper Jerzy Dudek was the star of Liverpool's Champions League triumph in 2005 will be hard to beat. Poland's opening game with Ecuador will be critical to determining the chances of advancing beyond the group stage.

Ecuador is led by steady veteran defender, Ivan Hurtado. The stakes are high in this World Cup for the nation as no question exists that Ecuador is an emerging South American Football power. Edwin Tenorio of Barcelona lead the midfield and Ecuador will stress possession and ball control to the frustration of the opposition. Edison Mendez, and Luis Valencia are key midfield weapons as well and each is capable of scoring goals from long range. Ecuador is not a favorite to advance, but certainly they have the tactical savvy and patience to be a surpirse team. Don't be shocked if Ecuador sneaks up on Germany or Poland and gives an emerging soccer power a major boost for the future. Even Ecuador does not advance in World Cup 2006, keep an eye on this young team in upcoming Copa America and World Cup Qualifying competitions.

Costa Rica performed well at the 2002 World Cup, losing out on advancing out of the group stage on goal differential to eventual thrid place side, Turkey. However, Costa Rica probably had its best team in 2002, even when compared to the 1990 side that advanced to the knock out stage, and this year's group seems a bit old and tired. Paulo Wanchope, Mauricio Solis and Winston Parks have all had distinguished international careers but each seems on the downward spiral. Defender, Douglas Sequeira who plays in the MLS for Real Salt Lake is the Ticos best player in the air and if Costa Rica is going to be competitive they will have to make the most of their set piece opportunities. The Ticos will not advance out of the group.

WHO ADVANCES: GERMANY, POLAND
TOP PLAYER IN THE GROUP: MICHAEL BALLACK, GERMANY
BEST YOUNG STAR IN THE GROUP: LUKAS PODOLSKI, GERMANY

Does John Gibson hate America?????

2006-05-24T00:42:00.000-04:00

A few years ago I turned on MSNBC in the middle of the day and stumbled upon a dogmatic arrogant commentator I had never seen before attacking President Clinton. This commentator John Gibson, is one of the many faces of TV "News" that rose to prominence in the early days of cable news channels. Gibson had never appeared on any show of merit, say a Meet the Press or NewsHour with Jim Leher, yet he seemed to take his opinion and assumptions about the President so very seriously.

MSNBC as always had a short shelf life for its hosts not named Chris Matthews and Gibson smartly moved to Fox News where he is obviously very comfortable. In 2003 as the US prepared for War in Iraq, Gibson released a book entitled, "Hating America, the New World Sport." For those who are fans of this particular blog site, you'll know Soccer is the world's sport, and for some reason most Americans are contemptous beyond reason about the beautiful game. As we'll examine deeper in my World Cup Preview next week, America's lack of interest in the world game further isolates American thinking and the American psyche from that of the rest of the planet. But, I digress since today we are discussing John Gibson, a frequent nominee for worst person of the world by MSNBC's Keith Olbermann. (Gibson trails only his colleague and ideological comrade in arms Bill O'Reilly in nominations for this daily award.)

Gibson's book basically attacked all nations on the European Continent and went on to blame the American media, Democratic Party and Secularists (a code word for Jewish-Americans) for all of America's trouble. Since 2003, Gibson has made repeated attacks on all of these groups, as well as on any person who dares to disagree with the notion that Christianity is tantamount to an official state religion in this country. Moreover, he has shown his disregard for the practice of objective journalism with almost daily attacks on the BBC for "anti-Americanism.", considered by many around the globe to be the premier source of objective television news and reporting.

Here are some of John Gibson's most notable and offensive statements:

(content and links from Wikipedia.com)

When London was chosen to host the 2012 Olympics, Gibson said that he regretted that Paris had not been chosen because it would have subjected that city to the threat of terrorism. [6] He also has stated that no one would care if France was a victim of a terrorist attack. [7]

On the July 12, 2005, edition of Fox news The Big Story, host John Gibson said that White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove should be given "a medal" for outing covert CIA operative Valerie Plame, adding that Plame "should have been outed by somebody." [8]

In his book The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought, Gibson wrote, "The wagers of this war on Christmas are a cabal of secularists, so-called humanists, trial lawyers, cultural relativists, and liberal, guilt-wracked ChristiansÂnot just Jewish people." [9]

On the January 19, 2006, edition of Fox News's The Big Story, after the release of a tape by terrorist Osama Bin Laden, Gibson stated, "(Bin Laden) is talking to America's far left and saying, 'You know what. We're on the same side. So why don't you work on that hardhead George W. Bush? Bin Laden told us Thursday that our far left has been working for him. It's their poll results he quotes.'" [10]

In his defense of Ambassador John Bolton and repudiation of the United Nations and the Third World, referring to the Third World - "That latter group includes a huge number of so-called nations, little more than spots on the map that would get invaded, taken over, subsumed, eliminated, except no-one wants to get stuck with their problems of poverty and disease and corruption."[11]

On the May 10, 2006, edition of Fox New's The Big Story, after the release of a letter from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to U.S. President George W. Bush, Gibson compared the letter from the Iranian President to talking points and positions by democrats. Gibson said, "Terry McAuliffe and the other Democrats should pay close attention to their talking points these days. That nut job running Iran, President -- let's see if I can pronounce it -- Ahmadinejad, sent President Bush a letter, and if it weren't postmarked Tehran, it might have been mistaken for a crank letter from an angry leftist in L.A. or Boulder or Cambridge, Massachusetts. Christians are not acting like Christians, says the Iranian president. Democrat talking point. WMD lies, says the Iranian president. Democrat talking point. Human-rights abuses in Gitmo. Another Democrat talking point. The gap between haves and have-nots. The Iranian president and the Dems in lockstep on that one, too." [12] The letter in question actually denounces "Western liberalism".

For all of these comments, Gibson's most recent flap takes the cake. On the May 11th edition of his Fox News Channel show Gibson called upon his viewers of European decent to have more children. Gibson cited a number of news sources who had indicated that the Hispanic birth rate was higher than that of any other group in America, and that African-Americans were also producing more children than the group he called "whites". Making an appeal for a continuation of the American way, mom and apple pie, Gibson said this could only be done if European Americans made career sacrifices and bought into the greater good of salvaging what he considers American civilization by having more children even if it meant financial distress. If this wasn't done Gibson indicated America would beoverrunn by Hispanics and Arab Terrorists.

Is it possible since Gibson is so anxious to attack every American ally and seemingly every advocacy group in the USA outside of the White House and Christian Right, that it is he that really hates America and everything the American nation stands for? Perhaps Gibson, is in fact an advocate for a suspension of civil liberties and democracy and would like to install a Theocracy? Perhaps Gibson's rhetoric about the American way and saving American civilization was merely a defense mechanism to hide the fact that he in fact hates what America is because of the liberal forces he rails against. Or maybe he is just a provocative failed news anchor who is trying to get attention in order to stay on the air????? Either way, he's not worth watching or paying attention to any longer.

World Cup Preview coming May 31st

2006-05-23T10:57:00.000-04:00

We'll begin a daily look at Germany 2006 next Wednesday.

Reports: Blair to step down next year

2006-05-15T14:15:00.000-04:00

The man who changed the face of British Politics and the image of the Labour Party will step down as Prime Minister and Party Leader next year, according to several UK News sources. Tony Blair was a visionary who changed both the dialogue domestically and the relationship between the UK and Europe. Blair also allowed Wales and Scotland to resume its own Parliaments for internal matters. Much more in the upcoming days on this amazing leader.

Why Americans should watch the World Cup?????

2006-05-13T18:16:00.000-04:00

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=91450

A True Neo-Conservative??????

2006-05-06T15:33:00.000-04:00

When I was a political science student at the University of Florida close to fifteen years ago, my favorite professor, Dr. Richard Scher always referred to commentator Kevin Phillips as the "smartest Republican in America." From that point forward I took particlar interest in Phillips writings as well as his televsion appearences on CBS News and C-SPAN. I was shocked to see such a prominent Republican making so much sense on every major issue of the day. As it turns out Phillips, the architect of Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy went from the brightest Republican operative in late 1960s to partisan outcast in the mid 1990s and finally left the GOP and Washington for good in the late 1990s.

Kevin Phillips who wrote the seminal political work of a generation, "The Emerging Republican Majority," in 1969 while working as a political advisor to President Nixon, has now written two important books in the past five years: Wealth and Democracy, a History of the American Rich and most recently, American Theocracy.

Phillips' work with Nixon, led the President to adopt the "Southern Strategy" which has helped the Republicans hold the White House for 7 of the past 10 national elections. But these days Phillips seems contemptuous of the GOP coalition, and especially of the Bush Family whom he has labeled an "American Dynasty." As traditional conservative, Phillips expresses disappointment with the GOP's current alliance with the oil industry, big business and fundamentalist religious forces from non-traditional churches. (Such as the Penacostals, and the Southern Baptist Convention)

Beginning in the late 1980s when he expressed disdain with the Reagan legacy, Phillips has laid out in several books, public appearances and essays the historical background for the current GOP governing coalition, and its dangerous excesses which could create a collapse of both American hegemony economic and political as well as the groups that make up the coalition. Phillips is not only a brilliant contemporary political analyst, but he's about as good as anybody in understanding historical precedence and its significance in current times. The underlying point of his works is that the Republican coalition he helped assemble in the 1960s has run amok and has skewed its priorities and to where not only the coalition is endangered but so to is the American nation.

Full World Cup Preview Coming this May!

2006-04-22T11:32:00.000-04:00

We'll have a team by team breakdown of this Summer's FIFA World Cup, Germany 2006 up on the site.

Immigration Reform: Myth or Reality?

2006-04-15T13:32:00.000-04:00

The current debate on Immigration "reform" is quite puzzling. The Conservatives who are advocating the Sensenbrenner bill that passed the House in December have resorted to the worst type of political race baiting in recent years. That's not to say the bill lacks any sort of justification. More thoughts on this bill are coming in the upcoming days.

Kartik's world

CNBC is Dangerous

Iraq: The British Should Have Led the Coalition

The Adams Dynasty: A Historical Look

Clinton's Conflicts Worrying in the Context of History

Indian Hypocrisy

A Public Works New Deal Needed

Florida Election History: Discrimination is Nothing New

The Post Clinton South: More Democratic, Less Polarized

Moving Past the Clintons

House Race Ratings: Nov 4

House Race Ratings: Nov 3

The Conservative QB Club

House Race Ratings: Nov 1

House Race Ratings: Oct 31

House Race Ratings

Will the South Sink Obama? (And what the term Socialism means in the South)

Congressional Races Galore

Should Al Qaeda Hope for a McCain Victory?

Bush's Legacy: Coddling Dictators

Election Coverage

South Florida Expressways Never Built: Part I

The Negro President by Gary Wills

Conservative Hypocrisy: Confessions of a Liberal Operative

Condolezza Rice Restores American Credibility

Putin: The Master of the new Energy Politics

The Cost of Conservatism: French Defeat in World War II

Changes to This Site

Heathrow Airport: Terminally Ill

The Violent End to the Roman World

Gibbon's Decline and Fall: Volume Three, Pre-Justinian Volume Four

Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: Volume Two

What's the Matter With Kansas? Clinton Elites Think Kansas Doesn't Matter

Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: Volume One

Cowgirl Clinton's Rhetoric More Dangerous than Bush's

Northwest-Delta Merger a Mixed Bag

Marcus Aurelius: Transitional Emperor

Thoughts on CBS Masters Coverage

Airline Carnage: The Immediate Future

Politicians and Affairs: A Dangerous Game

Evan Goldman's New Blog

Factors Leading to the Fall of the Roman World

The Surge Worked: So What's Next?

More Roman Empire Related Reading and Watching

Gibbons Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

Deception, Distortion and Dishonesty: The Clinton Way

The Clinton Dynasty: Victory By Any Means

Obama Shows Red State Strength

Obama, Romney Weak Among Conservative Rural White Voters

Hillary Clinton is no LBJ

The Clinton Dynasty: Bad for Democrats, Bad for America

Winter Reading

Baby Boom Bye Bye?

New Hampshire and Iowa: A Gift to America

Huckabee Could be a Uniter

The Disgraceful Legacy of William Jefferson Clinton

The NFL's Imperial Hubris

The Bear Becomes More Dangerous By the Day

Delta Aims to Be the New TWA/Pan Am

The War Day Two and Three: America's Shining Moment

The War: Day One- The Concept of Self Sacrifice

Return to Blogging: The War; A Film By Ken Burns

A Mixed Legacy

Wolfowitz Deserved Better

Keep Gas Prices High

Conservative Winds Blowing over Europe

An Indian Misadventure in Iraq

The Real Roots of Al Qaeda's Recruitment

Roger Ailes & Co. needs to know the truth about Iran

The Glory Days of Worldwide US Airlines Are Long Gone

Administration Cherry Picking Facts Again

Main Street Florida's Fifty Nifty Years

DeJa Vu All Over Again

Book Review: Thomas Jefferson, Author of America

George W. Bush: Wilsonian Liberal, Dangerous Idealist

What To Listen For Tonight

Lesson from the Gingrich Revolution: Don't Ignore Foreign Policy

Check Out The Napoleon Show!

New for 2007

Debunking the Myth of the DLC