Turning the tables...

Not exactly funny... but true!

Does the Death Star make economic sense?

I am a Star Wars geek. I know far more trivia about the Original Series, Prequel Series, and Expanded Universe than is healthy for me. And Wardo, CRChair, and Sean can attest that we've had more than our share of conversations about the minutiae of George Lucas's universe. But I am not sure we have ever had a discussion quite on the level of this analysis of the economics of the Death Star (WARNING! There's some salty language in spots) which uses various economic and political theories to analyze whether or not the Emperor's pet project - THE DEATH STAR - really makes sense on a macro-economic scale.

The more you spend on bureaucracy, the less control you have directly over your Empire. The less you spend on bureaucracy, the more you have to tighten your grip, and the more star systems slip through your fingers.

So, the Emperor and Tarkin focus on making one really huge, high-impact investment: The Death Star. They throw in Alderaan as part of that investment. This doomsday weapon will supposedly free up their resources to spend less on administration, personnel and infrastructure, and continue to function without a Senate. It seems like a big investment until you realize how much they save by not actually having a functioning government.

This is an attractive option even today, as politicians look to pay for tax cuts and handouts to core constituencies by laying off or cutting salaries and benefits for bureaucrats and government workers, as well as by skimping on infrastructure.

The problem, of course, is that it doesn’t work. The underpaid, undermotivated, poorly managed stormtroopers can’t even track down the Empire’s most wanted fugitive androids in an extremely sparsely populated area where they have undisputed control. If Tatooine still had meaningful senatorial representation and local government, Luke never would have gotten off the planet.

If you love Star Wars, I must say this article is a must-read piece.

Are we ready for another 1 Party Government?

Back in the days of George H. W. Bush and Clinton, I can remember thinking "If only Congress and the President were from the same political party. So much more would get done!" Unfortunately, I was right. Both under President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama, we have seen the presidency and the Congressional majority from the same party. And the results were the same - massive overreaching, no attempt at compromise, and ultimately a painful correction afterwards. Not to mention a clear incentive towards corruption, without any watchdogs around. My opinion has shifted and I believe a divided government - president from one party, congress from another (or split between parties) is the way to provide the best product from a republic like our own.

But some are already speculating that 2012 may see a Republican sweep with a super-majority in the Senate. Count me among those who would see that as a bad thing. Conservatives AND Liberals, Democrats AND Republicans need the loyal opposition to keep them honest and level-headed.

Yeah, that's pretty much how I see it

Eric Allie political cartoon from Townhall.Com.

Why is the United States so quiet on the Jasmine Revolutions?

Well, the so-called Jasmine Revolutions are still rolling through the Middle East, and are lapping at the shores of Asia. Tunisia and Egypt have thrown off their decades-long dictators, and countries like Bahrain and Libya are struggling to do the same. Even Iran and Yemen are seeing mass demonstrations against tyranny. And yet, the United States has remained relatively silent. We have engaged the conflicts only after the victors are clear or the attacks on demonstrators are so monstrous that they can not be ignored. How is it that the country that regards Freedom and Liberty more highly than any other, has so little to say?

My best guess is that or leaders - primarily President Obama - is thinking one of these thoughts:
1. We're hated in the Middle East, so our support may hurt more than it helps.
2. We've supported too many Middle East Tyrants to credibly support democracy.
3. We can't afford to send money or troops, so we won't support with words.
4. These revolutions have nothing to do with America.

Unfortunately, all of these thoughts are incredibly cynical. Especially when we're lead by a man who campaigned on "Hope" and "Change". Hope and Change are coming to the Middle East. I'd rather we go down in history as standing with them, than standing on the sidelines.

No, Virginia, Mubarak was NOT the worst dictator the USA supports

International politics is always a combination of high ideals, and tough-minded realism. The tough question is always "When is it worth it to work with Evil, in order to server a greater Good?" Hosni Mubarak - the dictator of Egypt - has been one example of America's "tough-minded realism", but there are many worse men who are our friends. The best line from the linked article - that illustrates how much we compromise out values - has got to be this one.

The thing that makes Karimov so special is his penchant for boiling his political opponents to death.

Of course, there is nothing new about this. Iraq's Sadaam Hussein was once our ally as well.

Egypt's Next Choice

Mubarak says "No Mas!"

After a week of non-stop protests across the country, Hosni Mubarak, president of Egypt, will announce he is not running for another term. A powerful reminder that political change can happen without violent revolt.

President Obama's special envoy delivered a message to embattled Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on Tuesday about the need to prepare for an "orderly transition" of power in the country, a U.S. official said.

Word of the meeting between retired ambassador Frank Wisner and Mubarak came as Al Arabiya television reported that the longtime autocratic leader would say in a speech that he will step down at the next election but stay in office until then to meet demands of mass protests now rocking the nation.

Tunisia has been transformed. Now, Egypt. We are seeing a transformation of the Middle East. The question is, will it be for the better or for the worse, long-term? I am hopeful. But nervous.

Southern Sudan votes 99.57% for Independence!

It has been a LONG time in coming, but the Sudanese finally got a chance to vote for the independence of Southern Sudan. How sure are they of their desire for separation? They voted 99.57% for independence! And unlike most votes of this magnitude, there are no charges of fraud being bandied about in the international press.

Six of the ten southern states registered a 99.9 percent vote for separation, with the lowest vote in favor of secession came in at 95.5 percent in Western Bahr al-Ghazal state, which borders Darfur. The long-awaited referendum produced an overwhelming turnout of 99 percent among voters in the south, one of the poorest and least developed regions on earth.

In northern Sudan, voter turnout was only 60 percent, and a modest 58 percent of voters – southerners who live in the north – were in favor of the oil-rich south breaking away. Many southerners opted to leave their lives and work in the north to move home ahead of the referendum, and the United Nations says it expects another 100,000 southerners to make the north-south journey within the next month. More than 190,000 southerners have flooded back into the south since early October, though the most recent arrivals were not able to participate in the referendum, since they had not registered to vote in either the north or the south.

Keep in mind (and your prayers) that this does not end the matter. The North still wants large portions of the South, and especially their lucrative oil fields. There are a number of issues to be worked out. But the fact that the vote took place - without violence - is a hopeful sign that peace may finally come to this poor war-town nation.

Tunisia had a revolution! Did you notice?

"Revolution" is a big word for Americans. Our own nation was founded by a Revolution where our founding fathers wrested control from a monarchy to found a Republic. So, whenever another country cries "Revolution", we are usually quick to sit up and take notice. But not so much with Tunisia, the north-easternmost country in Africa and a neighbor to Libya.

On December 17, a 26 year old Tunisian man named Mohamed Bouazizi reached the end of his rope. An unemployed university graduate, Bouazizi had become a seller of fruits and vegetables in the southern Tunisian town of Sidi Bouzid. When authorities confiscated his wares to punish him for selling without a license, Bouazizi set himself on fire...Bouazizi’s suicide struck a chord with other frustrated Tunisians. Thousands took to the streets in Sidi Bouzid to protest widespread unemployment, government corruption and lack of opportunity. Another frustrated youth in Sidi Bouzid, Lahseen Naji, killed himself by climbing an electricity pylon while crying out “No for misery, no for unemployment!” before grasping the high voltage line. The Tunisian government responded by sending baton and teargas-wielding reinforcements to the city and by promising future economic development projects...The director of Mr. Ben Ali's presidential security force was arrested in the afternoon, and after nightfall army special forces battled armed units loyal to the former president that had holed themselves up in the presidential palace on the outskirts of Tunisia...Tunisia's caretaker prime minister said a new coalition government would be announced Monday that includes members of the country's opposition and some leaders, like himself, from the previous regime—a move that could fill the country's power vacuum and help stabilize the tense North African country.

But America has barely been paying attention, distracted by the shooting in Tucson and the NFL playoffs. Now is the time to catch up with your knowledge of Tunisia as this revolution is expected to have international repercussions, and may trigger other revolutions across Africa.

Southern Sudan voting for Independence

My family spent the weekend watching the History channel's series The Revolution about America's split from England. So, it is with no small interest that I read Southern Sudan is ready to vote for independence from the North. But, like our Declaration of Independence, this vote may not be the end of the matter. The South contains 80% of Sudan's oil wealth, and the North has shown plenty of willingness to shed blood in order to protect their interests. Here's hoping the will of people prevails, and that the international community stands behind the vote.

Famous last words, "You've got to stop this war in Afghanistan."

No really. The Washington Post is reporting that these were the last words of Richard C. Holbrooke, President Obama's chief diplomat in Afghanistan. Our final thoughts tend to be those which have haunted us for some time. Clearly, the inner circle is ready for the war to end. But they can't find a way out, which does not make it appear Osama Bin Laden or the Taliban have won.

It is days like these that I am MOST happy I never chose politics as my career.

Moderation is never easy

I'll do anything... except the one thing you want me to do

President Obama had admitted that the results of this week's elections were bad for him - a "shellacking" is the term he used. Clearly, the nation wants a change in course from the last 2 years, and has handed the reins of the House to the Republicans. But with a divided Congress, compromise and negotiation will be critical. So, what is the president's idea to start negotiations?

To take the one thing Republicans are sure to want off of the table completely.

"At a time when we are going to ask folks across the board to make such difficult sacrifices, I don’t see how we can afford to borrow an additional $700 billion from other countries to make all the Bush tax cuts permanent, even for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans," the president said. "We’d be digging ourselves into an even deeper fiscal hole and passing the burden on to our children."

Obama noted the importance of extending the tax cuts in the lame-duck session, but focused the address on digging in against the full extension sought by Republicans and some Democrats.

Well, clearly the president is eager to take back the "Party of No" label he had previously stuck onto the GOP. Unfortunately for him, I get the sense that many Democratic congresspeople are more ready to compromise in order to win back the electorate.

Congrats, and a Reality Check

Congratulations to the Republican Party (and Tea Party) on winning back the House in a historic sweep not seen in 70 years. Congratulations to the Democratic Party for holding onto the Senate, if only by a seat or two.

As all parties settle down to the business of governing, let's remember a few basic facts that will be all-too-tempting to ignore:

1. This was a HOUSECLEANING, because the People believe Congress has been ignoring their will and best interests.

2. This was NOT a mandate for every Republican idea in the hopper. It was specifically a mandate to FIX THE ECONOMY. Let's not get sidetracked onto other issues, at least until people are going back to work.

3. This was a warning to all career politicians - Left and Right - that if the major parties don't get their act together, voters are ready to embrace a Third Party (in this case the Tea Party) who offers solutions and vents their anger. We see no benefit to hanging onto historical party structures "just because".

So, please govern humbly, and be focused on the task at hand. Or else 2012 will look a lot like 2010, but without a happy ending for Republicans.

California judges plastic bags more important than budget crisis

If you're a politician facing re-election with a crushing budget deficit, impossible budget, and hard decisions that require strength and fortitude, what do you do? In California, you change the subject.

Supporters of AB1998 say the 19 billion plastic bags Californians use every year harm the environment and cost the state $25 million annually to collect and transport to landfills.
"California is poised to lead a national movement against plastic bag pollution that is injuring and killing marine life and imposing a costly blight on our land," said the bill's author, Assemblywoman Julia Brownley, D-Santa Monica.
The ban, if eventually signed into law, would take effect in supermarkets and large retail stores in 2012. It would apply to smaller stores in 2013.

Here's hoping Republicans - especially the governor - are able to call Democratic lawmakers on this attempt at sleight-of-hand. California needs legislators and executives ready to make tough choices, not politicians ready to run away to "easy" wins.

I am curious to hear what our Caliornian Mod-Bloggers and readers think of this.

What if?

One of the differentiating marks of a Moderate over either a Liberal or a Conservative, these days, is the ability to see and the honesty to acknowledge the strengths of both sides. So in that vein, let me ask a question.

Barack Obama ran on a platform of "hope and change," where his core promise was to "change Washington". He noted that the political culture was broken, and pledged to fix it. The last year and a half seems like a bust on that score. Partisanship is worse than ever. Now that it looks like the Democrats may lose the House, Republicans are already talking about returning to the old practice of White House probes and hinting at special prosecutors. This is the new rhythm that has existed since Reagan, where the wrongs of the last majority are used to justify those same wrongs by the new majority over and over.

What if Barack Obama's real legacy of "change" is turning the other cheek? What if he manages to break the cycle by making such tit-for-tat politics unsavory, by letting his enemies destroy themselves as they overplay their hands? In theory, it could work and could lead to a new era free of the hardball politics that have characterized the USA since at least the Clinton era.

Honestly, I remain skeptical. The President has shown himself to be, if anything, an old-school Chicago politician. But if this were his only legacy, it might be one of great service to the American system.

Hmmmm....

Blumenthal lied about Vietnam?

Richard Blumenthal has served as Connecticut's Attorney General for many years - and is widely respected - but recently he took the podium at a ceremony regarding veterans and apparently misrepresented his own service in the Vietnam era. This apparent lie has been exposed by the New York Times, and some are arguing it may lead to the end of his political career.

“We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam,” Mr. Blumenthal said to the group gathered in Norwalk in March 2008. “And you exemplify it. Whatever we think about the war, whatever we call it — Afghanistan or Iraq — we owe our military men and women unconditional support.”

There was one problem: Mr. Blumenthal, a Democrat now running for the United States Senate, never served in Vietnam. He obtained at least five military deferments from 1965 to 1970 and took repeated steps that enabled him to avoid going to war, according to records.

This will be an interesting one to watch. Mr. Blumenthal is running to replace Senator Chris Dodd. If he should fall, is there a Democratic candidate who can step in to fill the gap, or is this one seat that the GOP can mark as "safe" for 2010?