Good observation here that Texas has three parties, except I'd rephrase it as: Democrats, conservative but not nutso Republicans and nutso Republicans.
On two financial issues, the use of the Rainy Day Fund for the next budget, and further reforming the franchise tax to generate more money for the state in general and education in particular, it's clear that Gov. Helmethair, Rick Perry, is a nutso.
It's pretty clear Speaker Joe Straus is not.
That leaves Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst as the tiebreaker. Dewhurst has in general struck me as suaver, more urbane Perry but not much else.
Now, given his claim that education funding can even be increased in the new budget, without mentioning the Rainy Day Fund one way or the other, he strikes me as also being even more disingenuous than Perry. Selling state land? Outside what's in state parks, most of it's not worth a lot unless the state sells the mineral rights with it, which would be dumb squared.
March 26, 2011
Smoke and mirrors on Texas budget
I expected this a month ago, but we're starting to get concrete evidence now that the state GOP is ready to do that.
A question for Wilsonian idealists
Samantha Power is a strong Wilsonian interventionist within the Obama administration. VERY strong:
Per this story, she's apparently so powerful, and perhaps so worrisome to Team Obama's PR on interventionism, that she wasn't made available for an interview for the story, as this indicates:
Why Bosnia but not Uganda, back in Clinton Administration days? Was it white and European vs. nonwhite and African?
Why Libya and not Yemen today? Is it oil or the lack thereof? Or, with Bahrain, the fact that we have such a military presence there already as to be semi-intimidating without further effort?
Along those lines, if any intervention is done in the name of "international stability," first thing I am going to do is check how much oil that country produces.
And, sorry, Ms. Power, but the U.S. checkbook isn't unlimited. Are you going to dun the rest of the UN every time you decide the U.S. should intervene somewhere? Are you, per a Bob Herbert, going to try to sell the American public on every price tag? Or, like Bush with his two wars, will you not only not ask Congress for declarations of war, but will you try to run every intervention "off budget"?
Remember, the French Revolution started not just because of bad harvests, but because Comte de Vergennes had bankrupted France ... by intervention, intervention in the American Revolution.
Beyond the finances, what about human lives, especially when it becomes clear that air power may make a Roman-style, if temporary, "desert" out of mini-Carthages, but, it won't quell unrest on the ground. Will you try to sell that cost to the American public?
And, again, on what utilitarian calculus? Libya's level of unrest IS just about the same as Yemen's. So, why are we there?
How great a level of civil unrest is "permitted"? Is an "Obama doctrine" forthcoming?
Per this story, she's apparently so powerful, and perhaps so worrisome to Team Obama's PR on interventionism, that she wasn't made available for an interview for the story, as this indicates:
Precisely what parts of the unfolding policy (in Libya) Power advocated or opposed aren't clear. She declined a request for an interview, and White House officials declined to comment on her role.On the political fallout issue, here's her POV:
Power has long argued that politicians shy away from humanitarian intervention because they see too much domestic political risk with little payoff for saving foreign lives. ...Beyond the domestic political risk, let's take a look at a nut graf:
The prevailing political theory in the United States, Power said, is that "you don't get any extra credit for doing the right thing," that U.S. casualties for the sake of humanitarianism cost politicians power and support. "It's up to us on the outside" to change that calculus, she said.
After the publication of "A Problem From Hell," Power said in a wide-ranging 2002 discussion with Boston interviewer Robert Birnbaum that she believes "there is a moral obligation to do something about gross human rights violations" even if they don't meet the definition of genocide.But, to do WHAT? And, by what moral calculus do we judge what to do?
Why Bosnia but not Uganda, back in Clinton Administration days? Was it white and European vs. nonwhite and African?
Why Libya and not Yemen today? Is it oil or the lack thereof? Or, with Bahrain, the fact that we have such a military presence there already as to be semi-intimidating without further effort?
Along those lines, if any intervention is done in the name of "international stability," first thing I am going to do is check how much oil that country produces.
And, sorry, Ms. Power, but the U.S. checkbook isn't unlimited. Are you going to dun the rest of the UN every time you decide the U.S. should intervene somewhere? Are you, per a Bob Herbert, going to try to sell the American public on every price tag? Or, like Bush with his two wars, will you not only not ask Congress for declarations of war, but will you try to run every intervention "off budget"?
Remember, the French Revolution started not just because of bad harvests, but because Comte de Vergennes had bankrupted France ... by intervention, intervention in the American Revolution.
Beyond the finances, what about human lives, especially when it becomes clear that air power may make a Roman-style, if temporary, "desert" out of mini-Carthages, but, it won't quell unrest on the ground. Will you try to sell that cost to the American public?
And, again, on what utilitarian calculus? Libya's level of unrest IS just about the same as Yemen's. So, why are we there?
How great a level of civil unrest is "permitted"? Is an "Obama doctrine" forthcoming?
Obama promotes top Gitmo and Abu Ghraib psychologist
Larry James will now head a new White House task force on the well-being of the military family. Glenn Greenwald has all the details, including on how James appears to at least "let it slide" on torture at both sites, if not give a degree of active condoning, in psychological language. Greenwald's got links to protests against Wright and more.
Glenn doesn't really get into how psychiatrists, as a group, early on protested supporting military torture, torture-lite and and reverse-engineered SERE, while it took the main U.S. psychologists' group almost a decade to even come close to the same level of condemnation.
Greenwald adds that James hasn't been charged, let alone condemned, with any offense. Of course, a kick upstairs like this means he never will be. And, having read ames' self-serving book about his time at both Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, I have no doubt he's guilty of aiding and abetting torture.
That said, sadly, Greenwald still doesn't push third-party voting in posts like this, either.
You can do better, Glenn.
Glenn doesn't really get into how psychiatrists, as a group, early on protested supporting military torture, torture-lite and and reverse-engineered SERE, while it took the main U.S. psychologists' group almost a decade to even come close to the same level of condemnation.
Greenwald adds that James hasn't been charged, let alone condemned, with any offense. Of course, a kick upstairs like this means he never will be. And, having read ames' self-serving book about his time at both Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, I have no doubt he's guilty of aiding and abetting torture.
That said, sadly, Greenwald still doesn't push third-party voting in posts like this, either.
You can do better, Glenn.
Jew or not a Jew?
Sounds like right-wing Israeli Jews are awfully damned close to defining members of the J Street as not being real Jews.
J Street and AIPAC, the American-Israeli Political Action Committee, "got it on" in debate in Jerusalem in front of select Israeli politicians and others.
Boy, I would have loved to been a fly on the wall at this debate. Was the term "self-hating Jew" used at all? (Even as Israel gets less democratic on controlling free expression.)
No, to Zionists in Israel, the U.S., Canada, or elsewhere, Israel is certainly not Hamas. It really isn't the Palestinian Authority, but the increasing fragmentation, intransigence, and even corruption in Israeli politics mean that it IS getting closer to being like the PA, at least.
As for moving further away from robust democracy? Two examples, or, rather, two new laws:
J Street and AIPAC, the American-Israeli Political Action Committee, "got it on" in debate in Jerusalem in front of select Israeli politicians and others.
Boy, I would have loved to been a fly on the wall at this debate. Was the term "self-hating Jew" used at all? (Even as Israel gets less democratic on controlling free expression.)
No, to Zionists in Israel, the U.S., Canada, or elsewhere, Israel is certainly not Hamas. It really isn't the Palestinian Authority, but the increasing fragmentation, intransigence, and even corruption in Israeli politics mean that it IS getting closer to being like the PA, at least.
As for moving further away from robust democracy? Two examples, or, rather, two new laws:
Two laws passed this week have been widely condemned by civil liberty groups and advocates on the left. The first is known as “the Nakba bill,” in reference to the Arabic word for “catastrophe” commonly used by Arabs to describe the birth of Israel in 1948. Arabs who are Israeli citizens often commemorate Israeli independence by noting their losses — the destruction of hundreds of villages and the exile of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.Of course, only self-hating Jews or "moral equivalence" goyim would protest such laws, right?
The new law allows the Finance Ministry to remove funds from municipalities or groups if they commemorate Independence Day here as a day of mourning or reject Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. The original bill, which produced much alarm and was altered, would have imposed prison sentences.
The second new law that has drawn criticism from the left establishes admissions committees for small communities in the Negev and Galilee, areas with large Arab populations. The new law says that communities with 400 or fewer families may set up committees to screen potential residents for whether they fit in socially. At the last minute, a rider was added barring discrimination based on race, gender or nationality, but critics contend it will still serve to keep Arabs out of Jewish communities.
March 25, 2011
Millions for Libyan no-fly zones, but not one cent ...
Bob Herbert's farewell column for the New York Times is here. Apparently, he's leaving now, unlike Frank Rich. Interesting. Anyway, he goes out with a bang - call it millions for Libyan no-fly zones, but not one cent for the U.S. homeland.
Ironic, indeed, since the Tripoli pirates of Marines' Hymm and "millions for defence, not one cent for tribute" fame were from ... Libya, among other places.
Ironic, indeed, since the Tripoli pirates of Marines' Hymm and "millions for defence, not one cent for tribute" fame were from ... Libya, among other places.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)