There You Go Again, McCain

Insert Pun About Mastery of Debate Here

In case I don’t post anything longer about it, here are a couple quick notes on the presidential debate, most of them in reference to errors or distortions, historical or otherwise, that McCain made:

-Claim: Reagan refused to meet Soviet leaders with no preconditions and it took Gorbachev’s glastnost and perestroika reforms for Reagan to finally have talks.
When Reagan was recuperating in the hospital following his assassination attempt, he wrote a letter to Brezhnev suggesting they meet and directed Alexander Haig to send it along. Haig read it and said something to the effect of “This isn’t our policy.” Reagan, a bit taken aback, smiled and replied “Well, it’s my policy!” Eventually, it was sent along, but Brezhnev, who by this time had already been revived from death more than once and who had long since left most of the duties of running the government to Andropov and others, unsurprisingly declined. After Brezhnev kicked the bucket, Andropov got his turn running the USSR and Reagan tried again. No luck, Andropov died of kidney disease shortly into his term and was followed by Chernenko. Again, Reagan tried. Again, the Soviet leader died fairly quickly. Gorbachev came to power in 1985. Reagan met him in 1985.  This is what’s called “The Geneva Summit.” This occurred before most of Gorbachev’s reforms got off the ground. McCain’s claim is patently false.

-Claim: Pakistan was a failed state when Musharraf’s coup overthrew the democracy.
Well…highly corrupt, yes, but a failed state? This characterization usually applies to countries like Afghanistan and Somalia. Pakistan was nowhere near as bad off as either of those – indeed, there basically is no state power in either Afghanistan or Somalia. Is this a more subjective criticism? Certainly, since it depends on one’s definition of a failed state. But I still think it’s salient.

-Not exactly a claim, but: McCain expressing disbelief at Obama’s claim that Ahmadinejad is not the most powerful person in Iran. Obama is right, Ahmadinejad is not the most powerful person in Iran. Ayatollah Khamenei is. The Ayatollah controls foreign and nuclear policy, and can fire Ahmadinejad at any time he wishes. True, the fact that he hasn’t fired him may mean he approves of what he is saying. But the fact that he also hasn’t thrown Ahmadinejad’s more pragmatic or centrist opponents out of parliament suggests to me that he probably doesn’t have strong opinions on it either way. Despite all Ahmadinejad’s raving about Israel (perhaps he actually believes what he says, perhaps he’s just appeasing his base, or both), all he really controls is domestic policy. Khamenei has been in power since Ayatollah Khomeini, modern Iran’s founder, died – he’s a smooth political operator, and although its certainly possible they are developing nuclear weapons, I find it hard to believe Khamenei would ever use them.
This, however, is a more nebulous issue. Although I don’t think Iran possessing nukes presents an existential threat to Israel (mostly because if they ever used them it would mean Iran’s utter annihilation, and they know that), I can see the argument of Israel: the last time some idiot was raving about how Jews needed to be destroyed, he actually followed through with it. For them, it’s a risk they simply can’t take. Ultimately, I don’t know where I stand on Iran’s nuclear program – but I think that it would behoove our next president to know who the person who really pulls all the strings in Iran is; that is, Ayatollah Khamenei. And it doesn’t help that we give a free pass to Israel on everything, including their foot dragging on all things Palestine related.

A slap on the wrist for both Obama and McCain for perpetuating a fairly flawed view of the Russia-Georgia war. Yes, Russia was provoking the hell out of Georgia for months by issuing Russian passports to citizens of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, among other things. Yes, Russia has always been sort of an asshole to the more independent minded former Soviet Republics that ring it. For further evidence, see their support of Moldova’s breakaway republic Trandniestria, their treatment of Estonia, and their generally obstreperous behavior towards anyone that does not toe the Moscow line. But the fact is, the two breakaway regions in Georgia had been de facto independent since the early 1990’s. Georgia was the one who started the conflict by trying to reassert control over these areas, neither of which even want to be a part of Georgia or are majority ethnic Georgian.

But an extra slap on the wrist for McCain and his league of democracies idea. Such a league would of course exclude corrupt or highly restrictive democracies like Russia, Venezuela, and Iran, but also democracies that are technically squeaky clean but we find distasteful because of their opposition to the US, like Bolivia and Ecuador, or their authoritarian but otherwise legitimate nature, like Singapore. And, of course, it would include our little friend Georgia. For the same reason that Georgia should not join NATO, they shouldn’t join a league of democracies. You never, never want to be obligated or expected to help an ally who has pervasive territorial conflicts. But even aside from that, a league of democracies would make the UN even more irrelevant than it already is, insulate the US, and discourage diplomacy with countries. You don’t have to be an idealist to believe that diplomacy can solve problems. Isolating ourselves from the parts of the world that we dislike will not be productive in the least.

P.S.  Didn’t feel like footnoting this whole thing, but if anyone wants the bibliography I’ll post it as a comment.

LaBruzzo’s Immodest Proposal

After seeing the suffering of the poor in the low income areas of Louisiana after Katrina and recently with Hurricane Gustav, Louisiana State Representative John LaBruzzo was moved to action. Now this action does not involve offering fiscal aid, rebuilding homes or businesses in affected areas, or even providing health care to the recently displaced. LaBruzzo looked out on this impoverished area and thought “We have far too many poor people.” And instead of considering how to help these people rise from their current financial circumstances, his proposal suggests just to get rid of the poor people as best we can. Since it would be tricky to get rid of them in one foul swoop we will have to stop them from reproducing. To be fair, he is offering a monetary incentive for sterilization, so the recipients will be slightly less poor once they have been sterilized.

I hope that Representative LaBruzzo means well, and perhaps he never read Swift’s, “Proposal”. At this point it sounds as though Swift might have had at least a more inventive and opportunistic idea. If we were eating the low income offspring then we would be contributing to their livelihood and creating a market for something only they have the means to produce (well not the offspring’s livelihood, because they would be lunch, but you get the idea). But I digress.

This was not LaBruzzo’s only suggestion on how to ease the strain on the welfare system. On what seems to be a completely unrelated note, he suggested that college-educated, high-earning couples should receive monetary incentives to procreate. While this seems like a good idea, considering that college-educated couples tend to reproduce at slower rates than people with lower levels of education, it really doesn’t seem to have anything to do with welfare. If people who are not on welfare have more children I don’t get the impression that it will somehow stop people currently on welfare from having children. This is not a zero sum situation; it’s not that high-earners are thinking “Well I’d like to have kids, but Suzy from the projects just had one, so I don’t see how we can right now”. It seems as though LaBruzzo sat through half of a sociology lecture on current family issues and chose to create policies based on this experience. Half listening to statistics and creating policy from that brief experience. This suggestion serves to illuminate his feelings about the poor population of Louisiana. LaBruzzo’s mind-set of cultural superiority ooze through his proposal and taint his suggestions.

Hopefully, someone in Washington will come up with better solutions to our economic crises, like perhaps having a lemonade stand or a huge bake sale, I’m sure that will help.