Obama and Afganistan

From CNN:

• Extra 30,000 U.S. troops to secure uncovered areas, help Afghan security forces train
• Obama said he hopes to start transferring U.S. forces out of Afghanistan in July 2011.
  
• Troop buildup just one strategy to achieve goals in Afghanistan, Obama says
• U.S. also to pursue more effective civilian strategy, Obama says
• Better partnership with Pakistan also essential, Obama says

In October 2001 the US went to war in Afganistan following the Al-Queda 9/11 attacks.  After the initial invasion, the US gained significant control of most of the country and its nominal government relatively quickly.  However, contrary to much popular belief the Taliban and Al-Queda was not defeated, at least not in the sense of defeating an organized government as one can not defeat an idea.

Now, some 8 years on the US through its president proposes to send some 30000 extra troops hoping to improve the situation so that US forces can begin leaving in July 2011.

While I have been in wars and in Afghanistan I do regard myself as an expert in either.  That said I offer the following common sense:

Much of Afghanistan is very harsh and difficult terrain.  While additional forces can help, 30,000 is not nearly enough to actually subdue a very determined enemy under these circumstances.

This strategy depends on establishing a functioning government in Afghanistan.  Unfortunately, the country has never had a functioning government in the sense that the US or other western countries have.  There is in my view and the history of several other failures no hope of creating such a government in the hoped for time frame.

Notwithstanding the above, leaving Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan to the Taliban and Al-Queda is unacceptably dangerous for the US.  9/11 happened.  Al-Queda is a sworn enemy of the US.  An  enemy that finds motivation in a perverted interpretation of Islam.  In that part of the world such enmity is taken very seriously.  Much as everyone might wish it otherwise, the US is hated and while that hatred has means it will lead to continued attacks on the US.

I have no clever solution to offer but I note that common sense dictates that 30,000 troops will help but not lead to anything that can be understood as victory, 18 months is not nearly enough time to create sustainable government institutions it will take many years, and the US dare not allow the Taliban to regain control of the area and provide another haven for Al-Queda

Criminal justice and parol

From CNN:

Seattle, Washington (CNN) -- A suspect in the shooting deaths of four police officers was not found in an east Seattle home where authorities had tracked him, police said Monday.
 ...
Clemmons is a convicted criminal with a long rap sheet who was given a 95-year prison sentence in 1989 for a host of charges, including robberies, burglaries, thefts and bringing a gun to school.

Clemmons' sentence was commuted in 2000 by then-Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, said Troyer.

Huckabee, a Republican presidential candidate in 2008, is considering a run for president in 2012.


"Should [Clemmons] be found responsible for this horrible tragedy, it will be the result of a series of failures in the criminal justice system in both Arkansas and Washington state," Huckabee's office said in a statement Sunday night.

Clemmons, 37, of Pierce County has an "extensive violent criminal history from Arkansas, including aggravated robbery and theft," the sheriff's department said in a statement.

He also was recently charged in Pierce County in the assault of a police officer and rape of a child, according to the statement.
...
Huckabee cited Clemmons' young age -- 17 at the time of his sentencing -- when he announced his decision to commute the sentence, according to newspaper articles.

Clemmons was paroled in August 2000, after serving 11 years of his sentence.

Huckabee's office said Clemmons' commutation was based on the recommendation of the parole board that determined that he met the conditions for early release.

"He was arrested later for parole violation and taken back to prison to serve his full term, but prosecutors dropped the charges that would have held him," the statement said.

It's hard to know where to start with this one, common sense seeming to be habitually absent.

First we have a violent felon sentenced to 95 years when he was 17.  As later events seem to prove the sentence was entirely appropriate.  Had it been carried out a rape and four murders might well have been avoided.  Common sense dictates that harsh sentences for young offenders is NOT cruel and unusual, at least not when the offender is habitually violent.

Then we have a former presidential candidate, you remember that part of his claim was tough on crime, who pardoned the criminal noting that the parole board suggested it.  So how does an appointed board unaccountable to the voters get to decide that a violent criminal should be set free?  Why does an elected official get to say the devil made me do it, oh, that's right it was the parole board?  Common sense suggest that parole boards are entirely out of control and need some serious changes.  Likewise governors.

Finally we have a subsequent arrest that would have put a clearly dangerous criminal in prison where he belonged because prosecutors dropped charges!  Now there are four dead and a rape!

Common sense suggest that the criminal justice system is, well, criminal.  Perhaps actually having prison terms served is a reasonable thought.

Just some common sense.

Swiss ban minarets

From the AP:

GENEVA — A top Swiss official said Monday that voter approval of a ban on minarets next to mosques could be struck down in court, as critics at home and abroad swiftly condemned the vote, saying it undermined the country's secular image.

The Swiss, normally a sensible people, have passed by 57% a ban on minarets next to mosques!  One wonders what this normally sober people were on.

Consider that Swill mosques do NOT broadcast call to prayer from loud speakers instead choosing to have a man sing the call in the courtyard of the mosque.  Note as well that it is a violation of noise laws to broadcast the call by speakers as is comon in much of the Islamic world.

Why then this ban on an architectural symbol of Islam?  If there is a concern for the secular nature of Swiss government OK, ban minarets.  Oh, also ban church bell towers and all other religious architectural symbols.

It seems that Muslims now represent 4% of the Swiss population.  It also is reported that the vote split rural and urban with urban voters generally opposing the ban.  It would seem that at least in rural Switzerland we have reached the point where our fear of a faith overrides all common sense.  It rather brings to mind other cases where religious fear overrode common sense and morality.  Can anyone remember the holocaust or the Swiss role in financing the Second World Way?

Common sense suggest that the Swiss should be shamed.

Dubai and the Middle East

From the Wall Street Journal:

LONDON -- Dubai's debt debacle is stoking a new fear for investors across the globe: potential government default by heavily indebted nations.

The Dubai government roiled markets this week with its move to delay debt payments owed by its flagship holding company, Dubai World. The company is stressed by tens of billions in debt that funded spending on glitzy real-estate projects from the Middle East to Las Vegas.

For much of the last 30 years or so there has been remarkable interest in the Middle East and, of course, oil.  I've always been a bit bemused by it.  Certainly the Middle East generally is important to the West, particularly Europe, in the short term. But what of the long term?  What of 20 years from now?  Or 50?  What, if anything, does the Middle East have going for it?

For all their oil wealth the short common sense answer is NOT MUCH!  The middle east is only marginally habitable.  Lack of fresh water is a major problem.  The region can not feed itself today and absent the ability to import food it will return to the impoverished past.  The region has a poor to non-existent history of modern government.  Indeed the Dubai news is only one of any number of examples of mismanagement.  It's easy to find others in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait both of which have also largely squandered their oil wealth on extravagance and privilege.  If you actually need someone to work in the region, you import them from elsewhere!  When the oil that will be gone in some few years what then?  There is little by way of natural resources except for sun that might be used for massive solar farms.

What then of the near term?  Modern economies need oil.  But for how long?  Are there alternatives?  The short answer is not very long and there are in fact many other alternatives, albeit they cost more.  Does the Middle East have alternatives?  Can they demand any price?  The short answer is oil is nearly the only resource the Middle East has, it doesn't really have alternatives!  They might use it themselves but as I've noted before, you can't DRINK OIL!  While you can make water with it when its gone you are back where you started.  Price oil to high and you only accelerate the move to other energy sources.  In short the Middle East has little option but to sell oil to the West at a reasonable price.

Just a POV driven by some common sense.

Health Care - From the St Louis Tribune

Health care bills do nothing to lower costs, some experts say

"There are no provisions to substantively control the growth of costs or raise the quality of care. So the overall effort will fail to qualify as reform," Dr. Jeffrey Flier, the dean of the Harvard Medical School, wrote in The Wall Street Journal on Nov. 18. "In discussions with dozens of health care leaders and economists, I find near unanimity of opinion that, whatever its shape, the final legislation that will emerge from Congress will markedly accelerate national health care spending rather than restrain it."

Now everyone work with me as we go slowly through the crushingly obvious - the bill is almost entirely about health insurance not health care! Stunningly, notwithstanding the facts, to wit US health care cost are higher than other first world nations and our results poorer, we've focused our health care reform on insurance coverage and regulation of insurance practices.  So is there any reason we should expect any impact on cost when our apparently bought and paid for congress all but completely ignores them.  Reality and common sense need not visit congress.

American Jobs

There was a news item this evening that struck a cord with me.  It seems that the NBA, that's a professionual basketball league in the United States, is considering having their uniforms made outside the United States.  This provoked a congressman to declare that it was outrageous.

So if professional uniforms are outrageous how about souvenirs?  They've been made offshore for a long time.  If it's outrageous for the NBA, how about professional baseball (exempt from antitrust laws), or football, or hockey, or fill in the blank?  What's special about NBA and their uniforms?

While we're in the area, is it outrageous that when the government contracts for building the steel comes from offshore?  Or how about military equipment?  Or bridge steel?  When is "Buy America" required?

These questions are related, I believe, to the notion of where American jobs should come from.  I was struck recently by yet another pundit commenting that we need more education (we probably do but not in the way the pundit intended) so we can have more high tech jobs.  Never mind that the middle class and a strong economy are based on a strong manufacturing base.  Never mind that most of the things real people in the real world actually touch and use day in and day out are decidedly low tech.  Never mind that the countries balance of trade deficit if rooted not in high tech but manufactured goods.

Common sense suggest that beyond the NBA's uniforms a strong manufacturing base should be central to economic policy.

Oh, and by the way, the NBA buys its uniforms from Adidas (not a US company) who had subcontracted to a US firm and now wants to subcontract to someone who will make the uniforms for less money!  The congressman is interested in preserving those US jobs, not all the others such as shoes and promotional items.  It seems that somehow in the congressman's mind there is something somehow sacred about basketball uniforms.  The congressman might want to take a tour of Lawrence or Lowell Ma where there use to be shoe and clothing industries before they were shiped offshore.  Never mind a few million others.

WSJ: Congress Grows Fed Up Despite Central Bank's Push

From the article:

The Senate Banking Committee is considering legislation to strip the Fed of its role supervising big banks -- despite the Fed's insistence that doing so would cripple its ability to prevent and manage financial crises. The House Financial Services Committee voted Thursday to undo a 1978 law that shields Fed interest-rate decisions from congressional auditors -- overruling protests from Mr. Bernanke and predecessors Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker, as well as the Obama administration and committee Chairman Barney Frank (D., Mass.).

Now here's what's interesting, the large financial institutions that led to the financial crisis are a DIRECT consequence of acts of CONGRESS.  Herewith extract of the relevant legislation - Descriptions taken from "Major Statutes Affecting Financial Institutions and Markets", Congressional Research Service. July 7, 2004.

• Federal Reserve Act of 1913 (P.L. 63-43, 38 STAT. 251, 12 USC 221).
  Established the Federal Reserve System as the central banking system of the U.S.
  
• Banking Act of 1933 (P.L. 73-66, 48 STAT. 162).
  Also known as the Glass-Steagall Act. Established the FDIC as a temporary agency. Separated commercial banking from investment banking, establishing them as separate lines of commerce.
  
• Banking Act of 1935 (P.L. 74-305, 49 STAT. 684).
  Established the FDIC as a permanent agency of the government.
  
• Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-511, 70 STAT. 133).
  Required Federal Reserve Board approval for the establishment of a bank holding company. Prohibited bank holding companies headquartered in one state from acquiring a bank in another state.
  
• International Banking Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-369, 92 STAT. 607).
  Available from Library of Congress Thomas Website. Under Legislation, select Public Laws, then select the number of the Congress and find the Law by the P.L. number.
  Brought foreign banks within the federal regulatory framework. Required deposit insurance for branches of foreign banks engaged in retail deposit taking in the U.S.
  
• Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-221, 94 STAT. 132).
  Available from Library of Congress Thomas Website. Under Legislation, select Public Laws, then select the number of the Congress and find the Law by the P.L. number.
  Also known as DIDMCA. Established "NOW Accounts." Began the phase-out of interest rate ceilings on deposits. Established the Depository Institutions Deregulation Committee. Granted new powers to thrift institutions. Raised the deposit insurance ceiling to $100,000.
  
• Competitive Equality Banking Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-86, 101 STAT. 552).
  Available from Library of Congress Thomas Website. Under Legislation, select Public Laws, then select the number of the Congress and find the Law by the P.L. number.
  Also known as CEBA. Established new standards for expedited funds availability. Recapitalized the Federal Savings & Loan Insurance Company (FSLIC). Expanded FDIC authority for open bank assistance transactions, including bridge banks.
  
• Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-328, 108 STAT. 2338).
  Available from Library of Congress Thomas Website. Under Legislation, select Public Laws, then select the number of the Congress and find the Law by the P.L. number.
  Permits adequately capitalized and managed bank holding companies to acquire banks in any state one year after enactment. Concentration limits apply and CRA evaluations by the Federal Reserve are required before acquisitions are approved. Beginning June 1, 1997, allows interstate mergers between adequately capitalized and managed banks, subject to concentration limits, state laws and CRA evaluations. Extends the statute of limitations to permit the FDIC and RTC to revive lawsuits that had expired under state statutes of limitations.
  
• Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-102, 113 STAT 1338)
  (pdf version from Government Printing Office.)
  Repeals last vestiges of the Glass Steagall Act of 1933. Modifies portions of the Bank Holding Company Act to allow affiliations between banks and insurance underwriters. While preserving authority of states to regulate insurance, the act prohibits state actions that have the effect of preventing bank-affiliated firms from selling insurance on an equal basis with other insurance agents. Law creates a new financial holding company under section 4 of the BHCA, authorized to engage in: underwriting and selling insurance and securities, conducting both commercial and merchant banking, investing in and developing real estate and other "complimentary activities." There are limits on the kinds of non-financial activities these new entities may engage in. Allows national banks to underwrite municipal bonds.
  Restricts the disclosure of nonpublic customer information by financial institutions. All financial institutions must provide customers the opportunity to "opt-out" of the sharing of the customers' nonpublic information with unaffiliated third parties. The Act imposes criminal penalties on anyone who obtains customer information from a financial institution under false pretenses.
  Amends the Community Reinvestment Act to require that financial holding companies can not be formed before their insured depository institutions receive and maintain a satisfactory CRA rating. Also requires public disclosure of bank-community CRA-related agreements. Grants some regulatory relief to small institutions in the shape of reducing the frequency of their CRA examinations if they have received outstanding or satisfactory ratings. Prohibits affiliations and acquisitions between commercial firms and unitary thrift institutions.
  Makes significant changes in the operation of the Federal Home Loan Bank System, easing membership requirements and loosening restrictions on the use of FHLB funds.
  
  

The most relevant of these are Glass-Steagall, the bank holding act, Riegle-Neal, and Gramm-Leach-Bliley.  Under the first two acts large banks that operated in many states were NOT legal.  That is, it was generally not legal to have a bank that was "to big to fail."  The latter two acts made such banks legal.  Now, these are acts of Congress not the FED!  Perhaps rather than be angry at the FED congress ought to consider altering the laws that allow "to big to fail" banks to exist.

Just a bit of common sense.