Dick Cheney should be quiet...

Former Vice President Dick Cheney was a guest on Fox News's Hannity program this week and made some statements about the Benghazi situation that are worth looking at.

"It’s one of the worst .. incidents in frankly that I can recall in my career. It put the whole... capability claiming the terrorist problem is solved once we got Bin Laden that Al Qaeda was over with. If they had told the truth about Benghazi that it was a terrorist attack by an Al-Qaeda affiliated group it would have destroyed the false image of competence that was the basis of his campaign for re-election. Well they lied!" 

The death of four Americans working to advance the goals of the United States is not something we should dismiss lightly. Does it really compare to all the deaths, injuries, damage to Iraq, Afghanistan, national reputation, etc? I don't know. Strictly speaking on the issue of scale, perhaps not. Probably not. But viewed in a different light, its surely still pretty bad. Without assigning blame, I can safely say that preparations for Ambassador Steven's safety were lacking. I'm not prepared to suggest how, but its hard for me to accept a premise that everything that could've been done had been, and that sorry, it was just his and three other's time. Blame the CIA, State, the Administration, Congress, etc. in varying doses if you please, but I'll mostly defer to the report Admiral Mike Mullins and former ambassador Thomas Pickering released last December citing issues at State which produced, "Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies resulted in a security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place."

Mr. Cheney felt compelled to suggest that "they" assuming he means the Obama Administration, claimed that the "terrorist problem is solved once we got Bin Laden, that Al Qaeda was over with." Why he felt compelled to make such a statement is beyond me, because those claims were never said by the Obama Administration. The Obama Administration DID say things like "Al Qaeda is on the run," "Al Qaeda is decimated," "...on the path to defeat." Which is quite different than suggesting that the terrorist problem was "solved" or that Al Qaeda was "over."

Mr. Cheney shows no hesitation when it comes to criticizing Mr. Obama or this Administration.Which is fine for talk show hosts and entertainers like Sean Hannity to do, but not so much for former Vice Presidents who have decades of public and elected service experience. Mr. Cheney's legacy will be determined by smarter writers than me, to be sure. Cheney is a polarizing figure, not unlike President Obama in some ways. Some find him to be a brave and faithful patriot who has served this country well, others find him to be a self serving, cold-hearted opportunist who has done tangible harm to the reputation of the United States around the globe. The truth, is, probably somewhere in the middle, and time and the wisdom of historians will decide where Mr. Cheney really falls on the conduct continuum.

Its unbecoming for Mr. Cheney to appear in these forums like the Hannity shows, and behave the way he does. It would be difficult for anyone to convince me that he has improved his reputation or legacy by his repeated appearances. Nor do I think he would've condoned this sort of conduct from a former sitting Vice President to a current Administration. Former VP Al Gore even showed restraint on criticizing the sitting POTUS/VP....



I could be wrong, but I think Mr. Cheney would've been better served by taking the approach his former boss, George W. Bush has taken, which has been to avoid publicly criticizing President Obama and Administration.

Sources:

http://aattp.org/dick-cheney-tells-fox-news-that-benghazi-is-worst-disaster-in-his-lifetime/

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/government_programs/july-dec12/benghazi1_12-19.html

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-touts-al-qaeda-s-demise-32-times-benghazi-attack-0

Article worth reading from Bruce Bartlett...

Bruce Bartlett is an interesting man.

Formerly the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy at the Treasury Department under President George H. W. Bush, he also served in the Reagan administration as a senior policy analyst. He's worked with both Jack Kemp and Ron Paul. He is the author of the New York Times best-seller “Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy” (Doubleday, 2006) and “The New American Economy: The Failure of Reaganomics and a New Way Forward” (Palgrave Macmillan, 2009). His latest book, “The Benefit and the Burden” (Simon & Schuster, 2012), is a history and review of issues related to tax reform. 

He writes regularly for the Economix Blog at the New York Times, the Fiscal Times and several other outlets. He's a serious guy with a long successful career who not afraid to speak his mind. I came to learn about Mr. Bartlett via the "Stand up with Pete Dominick" program broadcast on Sirius XM's "POTUS" (channel 124), where he is a frequent guest.

Bartlett's expertise is in taxes and economic matters. His political background is that of a Republican. To say he is disenchanted with the GOP is accurate. Like myself, after supporting conservative candidates and policies for much of my adult life, he needed a change. Clearly the Party has changed in many ways, very few of which I'm comfortable with. After hearing him several times on POTUS, I decided his was a voice I respected, valued and would take seriously.

Earlier this week, Mr. Bartlett penned an article in The American Conservative that chronicles his journey out of the embrace of the Republican Party and Fox News, where he had been a guest on many occasions. Its an interesting read about one very reasonable man's experience. It's called "Revenge of the Reality-Based Community", but as he said on Dominick's show yesterday, he could've used the original title, "I told you so..."

A preview: 

"Revenge of the Reality-Based Community" by Bruce Bartlett
My life on the Republican right—and how I saw it all go wrong.

I know that it’s unattractive and bad form to say “I told you so” when one’s advice was ignored yet ultimately proved correct. But in the wake of the Republican election debacle, it’s essential that conservatives undertake a clear-eyed assessment of who on their side was right and who was wrong. Those who were wrong should be purged and ignored; those who were right, especially those who inflicted maximum discomfort on movement conservatives in being right, ought to get credit for it and become regular reading for them once again.

I’m not going to beat around the bush and pretend I don’t have a vested interest here. Frankly, I think I’m at ground zero in the saga of Republicans closing their eyes to any facts or evidence that conflict with their dogma. Rather than listen to me, they threw me under a bus. To this day, I don’t think they understand that my motives were to help them avoid the permanent decline that now seems inevitable.

For more than 30 years, I was very comfortable within the conservative wing of the Republican Party. I still recall supporting Richard Nixon and Barry Goldwater as a schoolchild. As a student, I was a member of Young Republicans and Young Americans for Freedom at the height of the Vietnam War, when conservatives on college campuses mostly kept their heads down.

We need more people like Mr. Bartlett who are smart, serious professionals who have the integrity and character to step up and speak candidly about their former party's shortcomings and delusions. We need more guys like him from both sides and from all points to view to reject the blinding, mind-numbing narratives that too many people bow down to. The average American relies on people like Bartlett and others of his ilk to provide us a perspective that isn't being provided very often anywhere else, least of all cable news channels. 

Read Mr. Bartlett's full article here...Its worth your time...

Source: 

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/business/economy/bruce-bartlett-bio.html

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/revenge-of-the-reality-based-community/

Chik-fil-A: Liberal Hypocrisy Is Still Hypocrisy...

For as far back as I can remember, there has been a movement towards equal rights in the United States. I was born in 1960 in Pittsburgh, PA and grew up in the suburbs about 20 miles away. There were black kids on my street, in my school, in my class and in my church. There were pretty similar to me except for the obvious physical differences. Mostly, I never understood what the big deal regarding equal rights was about until I got older, learned some history and understood. 7 year old kids don't think on these things. Things are better now than they were then, and I suspect will continue to improve over time.

I see a similar curve for the LGBT community, although a much steeper one. Progress seems to be coming at a faster pace than it did for Blacks. Ten years no States permitted same-sex marriage. Currently, seven States have made it legal, with three more recognizing it. Twelve more recognize same sex civil unions. Public opinion, which was at just 25% approval for same sex marriage back in 1996, has basically doubled in less than twenty years. President Clinton's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is currently not even being enforced by President Obama's Justice Department. We know where this winds up. In my children's lifetime, this Country will see widespread equal rights for the LGBT community when it comes to marriage benefits.

Both groups have been in pursuit of equal rights. Not special rights. Equal rights are guaranteed to each of us by the Constitution. White, Black, Asian, Straight, Gay, Bi, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Atheist, etc. Everybody in America has a birthright of equal rights.

This week the comments from Dan Cathy, President of the fast food chain "Chick-fil-A" regarding his traditional Christian views that marriage is between one man and one woman drew fire from many on the left. Here's exactly what Mr. Cathy said:

"We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives."


A growing list of Democratic politicians have gone public with condemnations of Cathy's remarks and some have pronounced his company "not welcome" in their cities. The mayors of Boston, Chicago and San Francisco have sent a message loud and clear to the company that new locations planned by Chik-fil-A should look elsewhere. 


I fully appreciate the irresistible temptation to pander whenever possible to constituents, but Boston Mayor Thomas Menino and Chicago's Mayor Rahm Emanuel are way wrong on their response to this issue. Totally wrong to threaten punishment to a business because of its Christian viewpoint. As it would be to a Muslim business or a Jewish business or an Atheist business.

I don't personally agree with Mr. Cathy's definition of a family. Not at all. However, when government starts to pick winners and losers in this area, its a bad, bad idea. Its hypocritical. How high and fast would the Left jump if some back woods mayor in America's southwest decided "we ain't having no gays running a business in our town." The left wing media would lose their minds and initiate a bloodbath. 


There are no charges or allegations that any discrimination has taken place in any of Chick-fil-A's store's. None whatsoever. If there were wrongdoings, then there are remedies via the legal system to punish them. That's not the case here, is it? These people are entitled to believe in whatever form of religion suits their fancy. 


For all the words over the years about "equal rights" its disappointing to see a few of our largest cities leaders   lose sight of this fundamental principle. Equal rights isn't just for things you believe in, its also for things you may not believe in as well. If you're truly an advocate of equal rights, then you should defend unconditionally Mr. Cathy's right to say what he said. If you don't-you've gotten caught up in the moment and the emotion and opted to score cheap political points with a group of voters who's vote you likely already had. So, you probably gained very little and looked foolish in the process. Nice job...


The public will express their opinion of Cathy's remarks with their wallets and pocketbooks. Frankly, I'd never heard of this gentleman before this story broke but now with the predictable pushback from Conservatives, the bluster & blunders from a few will likely result in a increase in revenues for the chain, at least in the short term. So, while there might be a case to make for the stimulative economic effects, its hardly what they had in mind. Both Menino and Emanuel have walked back their comments acknowledging that do deny Chick-fil-A business permits would be illegal and un-Constitutional. 

Mind you, I don't think the hypocrisy is limited to those who fowled this up on the left. With the outpouring of support from the conservative religious community, I have to wonder where was this support when it came to the 911 Mosque in New York City a few years ago? The very public concern for religion's "equal rights" seemed to be lost in the noise and pandering of that time as well, didn't it?

Sometimes its best just to leave a thing alone. Leave it be and it usually goes (mostly) unnoticed. Want it to flare up into something it otherwise would not have? Try and ban it. There's an old Billy Joel story about his song "Only the Good Die Young." The song had been floundering on the pop charts in the late 70's when one day the radio station at Seton Hall University in New Jersey, a catholic institution, banned it. Then the archdiocese of St. Louis banned it also. Then Boston banned it. The record became a big hit because somebody in authority tried to stop people from enjoying it. When preparing to release his next album, Joel wrote letters to these archbishops and Seton Hall asking them to please ban this one too...

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

http://www.brnow.org/News/July-2012/%E2%80%98Guilty-as-charged,%E2%80%99-Dan-Cathy-says-of-Chick-fil-A

http://www.brnow.org/News/July-2012/Experts-Politicians-can%E2%80%99t-legally-block-Chick-fil

http://performingsongwriter.com/only-good-die-young/

When Are Wives Political "Fair-Game?"

When Are Wives Political "Fair-Game?"


There's been some discussion recently about the wives of politicians being "fair-game" in the media. Some politicians love to issue the directive "My wife and children are off limits..." which sounds great and correct, but its not that simple.

There seems to be two different groups of political wives. One group avoids the limelight at any cost and is usually seen and not heard. Most of the time, that is. Think Barbara Bush.

The other group is willing and almost eager to engage and participate in the political back and forth. They often speak on the President's behalf, and sometimes do it better than their husbands do. Think Hillary Clinton.

If someone avoids the process most of the time and stays away from critical or controversial statements, then I think they should be left, for the most part, alone. It's bad form, I say, to attack a person who isn't exerting whatever political force they possess in a aggressive fashion. If they're staying out of the fray, don't try and pull them in. If on the other hand, they always seem to be in the news and have taken to the campaign trail and are trying to benefit from the process, then within the limits of good journalism, have at them.

Kids are and should be off limits no matter how their parents use them.

Could We Elect an Atheist As President?

Could We Elect an Atheist As President?


Can you imagine the people of the United States of America electing someone President who was a non believer? Someone who openly admitted to NOT believe that Jesus Christ was Lord God Almighty?


Well, of course, they could, couldn't they?

Don't hold your breath...

Intellectually, I know an Atheist could fulfill the duties of the office of President of the United States. There are no requirements, such as "special" religious duties listed in the Constitution. In fact, Article Six expressly states that, "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." That seems to take care of any official roadblock preventing an Atheist from at least running for office. The hurdle that remains, of course, is how the voting public feels about such an eventuality. Which at least for the first two-hundred plus years of our Country, isn't very keen on the idea.

There have been Presidents who were not devout worshipers. Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln claimed a belief in the Almighty, yet did not claim membership into a certain sect of Christianity. The same can be said of William Howard Taft and our current President, Barack Obama. All were accused of being Atheists during their campaigns. James Madison and James Monroe were hardly devout worshipers. Madison especially recorded his thoughts on the dangers of religion playing too prominent a role in the Federal Government. Madison said, "...Freedom arises from the multiplicity of sects, which pervades America and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest."

While there seemed to be a tolerance for a lack of religious fervor in our early years as a Republic, in the last several decades, that tolerance has dwindled. Especially since the not so secret liaisons between the Evangelical movement and the Republican Party of the early 1980's, the matter of a candidates' faith has indeed become a required component of his credentials. Its not enough to possess advanced education. Its not enough to possess years of experience in the Military or business. At some point in the election process, the candidates faith is brought front and center for inspection.

With the advances in media and technology-the worthiness of a candidates faith is evaluated on a national scale. 24/7 cable news channels loop video clips of juicy quotes that have been enunciated in a stump speech, debate or press release. I have to think the very same Founding Fathers the recent GOP field loved to mention so often, would find many of these public displays of faith a bit unpleasant. A bit unseemly. A bit arranged for our benefit.

Suppose there are two men running for President. One a self described Christian who very publicly makes it known for all to see how MUCH he believes. The other candidate either says he's an Atheist or simply "no comment" to any question regarding his beliefs. If everything else is equal, its understood that the Christian would win in a landslide, yes? What if everything isn't equal? What if various past sins and misconduct are revealed of the Christian? Would that be enough to see a significant percentage of people change their votes and support the Atheist? Who knows?

If an Atheist won election, how would he be sworn into office, if not on a Bible? In the history of the United States, there's only been one President-Theodore Roosevelt-who was not sworn into office with the use of the Bible. The Atheist POTUS would follow the rest of the usual swearing in ceremony sans Bible. They could also avoid the use of the word I "swear" by substituting I " affirm" as Franklin Pierce did when he was sworn in. There's no official mandate that a newly elected president use a Bible or swear to "God" anywhere in the process. Article Two, Section One of the Constitution lays out the exact oath a new President is to be sworn into office with:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."


You notice what isn't in there? The "so help me God" part that many Presidents have added...as was their right to do. Or not to do.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Its difficult for me to conceive of a Non Christian candidate for President let alone one that denied the existence of a Creator. Since George Washington was sworn into office, there's been no Jewish, Buddhist, Islamic, Hindu, Sikh, Atheist or Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormon) Presidents elected. Mitt Romney appears on track to be the first Mormon to receive a major party nomination later this year in Tampa, Florida during the Republican Convention.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the other hand, when polled, voters often indicate non religious factors as most important selecting their candidate. In a 2007 AP-IPSOS Poll found 55% of those surveyed said honesty, integrity and other character issues are most important compared to policy choices or other factors. Ironic, given how much time and money candidates spend trying to show off their faith bonafides, isn't it?

At the end of the day, I look for intelligence, character and policy direction when it comes to choosing who to vote for. I need to feel like the candidate has the mental capacity for the job. I look for character to see if he has the strength to go against the grain and sacrifice personal political power to help the Country. I also look heavily at policy choices.

Example: I think Mitt Romney is plenty intelligent to perform the duties of the POTUS. He loses me quickly when it comes to character as its been shown over and over again that he's changed his policy positions. Sometimes its just good sense to change direction when new information is made available. Too many times Romney has, in my opinion, switched how he felt on an issue based on how the political winds were blowing. Most political experts agree the next election will be mostly about the economy, which isn't going to be a slam dunk for Mr. Obama. That said, several years ago, Governor Romney pushed through landmark, pragmatic changes in how the citizens of Massachusetts were able to obtain health insurance. While no system is prefect and there are cost issues in Massachusetts, the program is a success. Almost every person in that State is covered. President Obama used Romney's plan as a blueprint for the Affordable Care Act in 2008. Romney has said he will repeal "Obamacare" as soon as he enters office. To the character question, I would've so respected Gov. Romney if, in spite of the hailstorm of criticism from his fellow GOP candidates, he'd stood up on day one and announced, "I must disagree with my fellow Republicans on the matter of the Affordable Care Act. While I may not agree with some of the details in the plan, the overall goal is a worthy one and one that I will continue to work hard to enhance and improve as we go along. A Country as great as the USA shouldn't see any of its citizens going without adequate health care. I disagree with President Obama on most other issues and will be voicing my differences with him for all to hear...but as far as health care reform goes...he's done the right things..."

I'll bet a large sum of money that such a posture would've served him quite well with the undecided independent voters. It shows honesty, character and a willingness to not follow the pack. Obviously, he's gone a different route...one that he may regret come November.

Its a very small percent of voters who select their candidate based on mostly religion. More often its a pocket-book issue, the economy, their employment status, etc. But make no mistake, the religion thing is sort of a "pre-qualifier" to gain admittance into the fray. You might possess the character, integrity, honesty, etc. in large quantities but I fear that is such a person also indicated no belief in God, it would prevent them from any serious contention.

Which is a sin, if you ask me.






Sources:

http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_JMadison.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_affiliations_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-03-11-candidate-traits_N.htm

New Rick Santorum Ad: "Obamaville"

Here is the newest ad from the Rick Santorum campaign. Its full of scary images, scary video, scary sound effects audio, a scary voice over, etc.

It's scary, ok?



Production wise, this is very well done. The video editing of the various images, such as during a shot of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, there is an image of President Obama intercut into the picture of Ahmadinejad. There's plenty of eye candy to woo voters away from the dark side. Its a sort of end of the world motif. Not exactly cheery...

It's interesting to me, as the Santorum campaign is short on cash and seems to have their hands full trying to defeat former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney for the republican nomination. There's no tagline of, "I'm Rick Santorum and I approved this message," so, I feel pretty confident that one of his super-pacs funded this.

Prepare Yourself for an Onslaught of Health Reform Rhetoric...

Prepare Yourself for an Onslaught of Health Reform Rhetoric...


This Friday marks the two year anniversary of President Barack Obama signing the controversial Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law. Those on the Left felt it was a good step in the right direction but aren't exactly passionate about it. Many on the Right feel it's a dangerous Bill that strips away fundamental rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution and does a frightfully lousy job of improving how we handle health care delivery in the United States. Some on the Left feel it didn't go far enough, therefore it and those who are responsible for it are failures. Likewise some on the Right feel it goes too far, especially the individual mandate that forces people to purchase a product, and therefore it and those who are responsible for it are also failures.

The funny thing is of course, if you strip the various components out of the Bill and ask people, from all political persuasions if they like the specific items, they are generally supportive of each. However, bundle it all under one name and we have problems.

The loyal opposition is quite aware of the upcoming anniversary. The uptick in op-eds, speeches on the floors of Congress, mailings and special interest media buys not to mention the numerous lawsuits brought by over two dozen various states are all examples of the contempt the PPACA has generated. Over a dozen states have already established State laws that prevent various aspects of the Federal Bill to be enacted. (Which is mostly for show as Federal law trumps State law in most cases.) Voices from the Right have been saying since before the Bill was signed into law that it wouldn't stand up to judicial review.

We'll find out soon who was right.

Next Monday, perhaps the most significant Supreme Court case since the Bush/Gore Election results of a few years back will begin three days of hearings. Is the individual mandate legal? Will the mandate be stripped out from the law but leave everything else intact? Will the entire law be tossed? Will the entire ACA including the mandate be determined as fully Constitutional? No one knows. Anyone who says they do, is a little ahead of themselves.

Both sides, pro and con, have a lot to gain and a lot to lose depending on this court case.

No political figure stands to lose as much as President Obama does if the SCOTUS tosses the whole law, even if they just vote down the individual mandate part. He needs this to emerge whole and intact. If the Court decides its Constitutional, Obama gets a nice lift heading into the serious campaign season. It would be an affirmation of sorts that he used reasonable judgement in directing the PPACA in the direction he did. He will be able to use this decision as proof positive that he's the adult in the room and that the Republicans are behaving desperately.

The Republican party and the eventual GOP nominee can try to make the case that the Court got it wrong, but beyond party loyalists, I'm not sure how convincing they would be. If the nominee is Mitt Romney, healthcare becomes an asset, not a liability to campaign on for President Obama.

On the other hand, if the Court strikes down the mandate, it won't be good for Mr. Obama. Not at all. The centerpiece of his first term will be on life support. Without the mandate, adverse selection comes into play as the youngest/healthiest to insure are no longer required to purchase insurance, and therefor, many won't. That effects the health insurance companies ability to cover the rest of the population, pre-existing conditions and all. There will likely be a ripple effect which will leave the Affordable Care Act in tatters. Some components may survive, but the damage will be done. It will have been de-fanged and politically, President Obama will be held responsible. It will, as someone said a few years ago, become his Waterloo.

For the GOP, the glee and celebrations will be just the beginning of it. There will be, on all major media outlets, a steady stream, 24/7 style, of stories droning on endlessly about Obamacare being found to be unconstitutional. They will discuss how it was an example of wild government over-reach and unbridled ambition from Mr. Obama. They will talk about the waste of time, the confusion that now needs to be sorted out. It will be Barack Obama's fault. They will talk about how a failure of this magnitude, probably unrivaled by any recent President, leaves Obama politically neutered and not worthy of re-electing. He will be radioactive to the point that even some Democrats will avoid him like the plague. It will be Barack Obama's fault. Make no mistake, his chances of re-election take a huge hit.

And finally, let us not forget the other big loser in this drama. The American people.

Some will say the Democrats should fight for the ACA in a piece of revised legislation. Some will say we should go a different route, like Single-payer or the updated Ryan Plan. Given the unlikely outcome this November that any one party controls all three branches AND holds a filibuster proof majority, I suspect not much of anything will actually get done. The Democrats will prevent the Republicans from passing anything and vice versa. Bipartisanship isn't exactly a strong suit of Congress these days and I don't think an adverse finding by the SCOTUS will breed goodwill, fellowship and teamwork.

What I do forsee should the Court rule against the ACA partly or completely, is too many Americans not being able to afford health insurance. Too many Americans not having access to preventative medicine. Too many senior citizens stretching their monthly meds out because they're stuck in the donut hole and can't afford to buy them. Health care costs will continue to grow, with no enhanced mechanism to slow them down. It will revert back to how it was before the 2008 Election. If you're able to afford health insurance and your employer offers it, you'll be ok. However if you can't afford it, or your employer doesn't offer it, good luck finding someone who will insure you and your family. More and more people will resort to using the local Emergency Rooms for non-critical care which will add to the cost problem.

Access, Quality and Cost are considered the three pillars of a health care delivery system. The ACA best addresses access for the uninsured. There are components that address quality and cost issues but not to the same degree that access is improved. We need to improve all three areas to find the health care system that befits the richest nation on Earth. Clearly the Affordable Care Act isn't a magic bullet. Its just a step. One good sized step in the right direction to improve things. If its left intact, there will still be a ton of work to do to make things better. If its voted down, there will still be a ton of work to do to make things better.

Netanyahu 1992: "Iran will Have the Bomb by 1997."

 Via a friend, this piece was brought to my attention. Its not really a traditional blog work, but a very short collection of quotes from Israeli leaders through the last twenty years predicting the imminent acquisition of a nuclear weapon by Iran.

These were public comments made by Israeli leaders as far back as 1992.

From the Informed Consent Blog, who references a piece by the Christian Science Monitor:

Netanyahu 1992: Iran will Have the Bomb by 1997

Posted on 03/06/2012 by Juan

Scott Peterson at the Christian Science Monitor did a useful timeline for dire Israeli and US predictions of an imminent Iranian nuclear weapon, beginning 20 years ago.

1992: Israeli member of parliament Binyamin Netanyahu predicts that Iran was “3 to 5 years” from having a nuclear weapon.

1992: Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres predicts an Iranian nuclear warhead by 1999 to French TV.

1995: The New York Times quotes US and Israeli officials saying that Iran would have the bomb by 2000.

1998: Donald Rumsfeld tells Congress that Iran could have an intercontinental ballistic missile that could hit the US by 2003.

For clarity's sake, here's the link to the original work from the Christian Science Monitor: 

Christian Science Monitor: Imminent Iran Nuclear Threat

*******************************************************************************************************

To suggest that anyone sharing this info could be, in any way, in favor of Iran obtaining or developing a nuclear weapon, is laughable. That said...I think this information should at the very least give people a moment's pause before we take any steps toward military action against Iran. Netenyahu, Peres and Rumsfield weren't kidding, and likely believed those thoughts when they expressed them. Just as Netenyahu believes them now as tensions seemingly are on a slow burn toward military aggression. 

It is a problem. For all the well enunciated reasons why, I'm not in favor of Iran developing nuclear weapons. That said, I'm not comfortable with the United States having nuclear weapons. Reality tells us many nations have nukes and so far there has not been an occasion where one was used. (The bombs dropped during World War II were Atomic weapons, a fraction as powerful as nuclear weapons.) Is the world safer because of them? The argument goes that if everyone has one, then no one will use one. Really? Ok, if you say so. 

Aside from the whole "right to do what they please" argument, it does seem that the religious factions are pulling power from Iranian President Ahmadinejad. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Who knows? If the powers that be reach the point where military actions are chosen as a path forward, I sure hope there's more meat on the bone than apparently there was back in 1992, 1995 and 1998. If lives are at stake, American, Israeli or Iranian, let's make sure our information is of a better caliber than it appears to have been over the last twenty years. 

Source:

http://www.juancole.com/2012/03/netanyahu-1992-iran-will-have-the-bomb-by-1997.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/1108/Imminent-Iran-nuclear-threat-A-timeline-of-warnings-since-1979/Israel-paints-Iran-as-Enemy-No.-1-1992

The Kennedy speech that Santorum said "made him want to throw up..."

From this morning's "This Week" program...

“I don’t believe that the separation of church and state is absolute,” Rick Santorum said in an interview today on ABC’s “This Week” program. “The First Amendment means the free exercise of religion and that means bringing people and their faith into the public square.”

Santorum, 53, made the comments in an interview from Michigan, where he is campaigning ahead of the Republican primary this week. Polls show a close race there against Mitt Romney, who spent his boyhood in the state and where his father, George, was governor and an automobile company chief executive officer.

Santorum said Kennedy’s 1960 speech in Houston about the separation of church and state was an “absolutist doctrine” that he disagrees with.

“To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? What makes me throw up is someone who is now trying to tell people that you will do what the government says,” Santorum said. “That now we’re going to turn around and impose our values from the government on people of faith.”

Santorum said “there are people I disagree with. Come into our town hall meetings and let’s have a discussion. Air your ideas and why you believe what you believe.”

“That’s what America is all about — bringing in that diversity,” the former Pennsylvania senator said. “What we saw in Kennedy’s speech was just the opposite — and that’s what’s so upsetting about it.”

  I thought it would be interesting to provide the clip of the actual speech Santorum is referring to. The main part is here: 




Or, you can watch the longer version, that includes a question and answer period after the speech here:

Extended Version of John F. Kennedy speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on September 12, 1960.

Source: 

Santorum Says Separation of Church and State Isn’t Absolute 

http://thefilmarchived.blogspot.com/2010/10/john-f-kennedy-speech-on-religion-and.html

Boy, its great to a be a straight, protestant white guy...

Boy, its great to a be a straight, protestant white guy.

Seriously.

Its pretty cool.

There's a bunch of us and for the most part, we rule the world. Always have and, if its up to us, we always will. Remember that, ok?

Here's just a few of the ways we have an edge up on you "other people."

BIRTH CONTROL: No one's too pushy with us about what, if any, birth control option we use. Yes, my Catholic pals are told contraception's a no-no, but for the most part, the condom police are on holiday somewhere other than their bedrooms. If you think these guys are abstaining, you've lost your mind. Further if you think the only times they've ever had intercourse, even within the sacred boundaries of marriage, was to have a child, again, you've lost your mind. I'm told (anecdote alert!!) Catholics use birth control a lot. Being raised Protestant (Methodist) means the only person who cared/cares if I'm using something is my partner. There's never been a third party involved in this discussion as far as I can remember. And I would've remembered. Further, not once did anyone try to tell me that if I prevented my sperm from entering my partner's uterus, that I'd killed an unborn life. No one ever picketed outside my window with hateful signs. No politician ever seemed too concerned about it. Besides, if they ever said that a less than "proper" disposal of a viable sperm cell was akin to murder, than 95% of all teen age boys would be hauled off to prison for, uh, well, you know. I'm really glad I'm not a woman. First off, I'm not tough enough. Secondly, I'd be pretty upset if my employer could potentially withhold a variety of medical benefits based on "moral grounds" like whether they would cover contraception for Pete's sake.

MARRIAGE RIGHTS: Being a straight, protestant white guy, no one ever actually tried to produce a law that would've prevented me from marrying the person I love. My wife and I decided this all on our own. Eh, we might've kicked it around with our friends, but no legislators were involved. Once we said this is what we wanted, as long as we had $25.00 for the Marriage License, we were good to go. No fuss, no muss. The options to get officially hitched were impressive. We could find almost any "man of the cloth" to perform the ceremony. We could've retained, for a modest fee, the local Justice of the Peace or for that matter, almost any judge licensed in our State to perform the ceremony. Or, we could've asked the local mayor to handle it for us. Plenty of options, no real stress trying to figure this out. Life being married has been pretty straight-forward as well. When my Wife had an emergency C-Section there was no question whether I could be in the room. I was the husband. Period. They even gave me a nifty little gown, a hat and cool booties to wear. Our marriage counts everywhere we could go in the USA. Every one of the fifty States accepts the notion that we're legally married. Gee, how cool is that? Good thing I'm not a gay man, because I'd only be able to marry my partner in six other States and the District of Columbia. More are in the works, but the current mark of 14% of the Country just isn't good enough, is it? Well, being a straight, protestant white guy, I don't have to worry about it, do I?

LIVING ARRANGEMENTS: Again, straight, protestant white guys rule! Anytime I've wanted to rent an apartment or a house or purchase a home, there haven't been any questions in this regard. I've lived in nice neighborhoods and not so nice neighborhoods. I'd fill out the paperwork and applications, give it a few days and voila! I had a new place to call my own. I guess its not the same for everyone though. I was friends with a gay couple about 25 years ago who liked my apartment. They noticed there was another unit for rent in the same building. They made more money than me. They had better credit than me. They had more references than me. They were will to pay for three months in advance. (Something I couldn't afford to do...) Yet they were turned down. Who moved in? Some middle-aged jack-ass white guy who liked to blast Merle Haggard music off his balcony after the bars closed and drink his Jack straight from the bottle. Damn good thing those gays didn't move in. It might've upset the neighborhood.

MEDICAL PROCEDURES #1: I've been pretty healthy for the most part through my first fifty-one straight, protestant white guy years. I have asthma, which is treated by a few daily medications and is under control. I had a deviated septum repaired back in my early thities. That was cool. (The kids still love to pull out the pictures at parties to show our guests what Daddy looked like with a roll of toilet paper shoved up each nostril. Its amazing how far the nose can be stretched. Oh well, a small sacrifice for a major improvement in breathing.) I was asked to cough a few times in high school-no big deal. I also have this weird tumor on my right adrenal gland which, after about forty thousand dollars worth of expensive tests, I've been told is nothing. They call it an "incidental-oma." No one has ever objected to any medical procedure I decided, with the help of my physician, that I wanted to be done. I remember a co-worker who had a fairly severe heart condition and to her surprise came up pregnant about twenty years ago. Her physician told her the chances of carrying the baby to term were almost nil and that if she tried, she'd be placing her own health at great risk. She had three other kids at home plus a husband. She and her doctor decided it would be best to terminate the pregnancy. (You know how sacred that patient/doctor relationship is, right? Remember the Republicans voicing their concerns about this very issue during the debate over the Affordable Care Act, right?) My friend was given a pretty rough ride as she walked into the clinic to have the procedure done that day. It occurs to me that there is nothing that I could experience that would produce the same meanness and harshness toward myself that she was subjected to that day. She was called terrible names as she walked past these creeps. Too bad for her she wasn't a straight, protestant white guy that day.

MEDICAL PROCEDURES #2: Another difference between us straight, protestant white guys is that no one has ever tried to legislate that we be forced to undergo an additional separate procedure performed if we had decided to have a certain procedure done. You might've heard about what's going on in Virginia. Nope, nothing to do with straight, protestant white guys. Just expectant mothers who have decided to have an abortion. (Which last I checked in the United States, was still a legal procedure.) The good lawmakers in Virginia, who are mostly (yup, you guessed it) straight, protestant white guys, are trying to pass a law (House Bill 462) that would require women, even against their wishes to undergo an invasive vaginal ultra-sound before they could receive an abortion. Maybe its like a "two for one special" or something. The fetus would be described in detail to the mother before the abortion could proceed. In seven other States there are similar laws on the books, some of which require the mother involved to actually listen to the fetal heartbeat. It is important to mention that the House Bill was sponsored by a woman, Kathy Byron-R. The boys on the "right" side of the chamber are preparing her "man card" as we speak. Again, there's no equivalent situation for straight, protestant white guys I can think of.

MEDICAL PROCEDURES #3: Boy, our politicians are smart guys. One GOP hopeful named Rick Santorum (please don't GOOGLE search Santorum) has announced he has a problem with pregnant women undergoing amniocentesis because it leads to a greater number of abortions being performed. Does that procedure sometime lead to a termination of a pregnancy? Yes, sometimes they do, but often it does not. This  goes back to that sacred ground between a patient and her doctor. Yet again, there's no medical equivalent for straight, protestant, white guys I can think of.

VOTING ISSUES: Voting is easy for straight, protestant white guys. Nothing to it. Truthfully, its pretty easy for almost everyone. Well, almost. If you're a minority and you haven't got a state issued photo-ID card, then that's going to be a problem. Why don't they just use their driver's license? Because many poor minorities don't drive, that's why. Same thing for the elderly. Some have surrendered their licenses because of declining health reasons, but there's almost no medical requirements to vote. The number of hoops for folks like this to jump through is fairly daunting. Not impossible, but difficult.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION: Straight, protestant white guys are the vanilla milk shakes of the universe. If I want to build my own church, hell-START my own church, the local community applauds me. Now if a guy across town named Mohammad would want to start HIS own church, well-we've got a problem, don't we? Same thing if a group of Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual or Transgendered folks want to build a church to enjoy fellowship in the name of the Lord, right? In some cities, these Mosques and GLBT churches get built, but can we agree that their road is more tricky than the road us straight, protestant white guys have to navigate when we want to build a church?

SEXUAL PRACTICES: As long as you stay true to your straight, protestant white guys definition, you can do just about anything you want. (Or should I say "do" anything you want?) We can sleep around, have multiple partners, etc. as long as we don't get caught, its not usually going to be a problem. Just try to do the same thing if you're a single thirty-five year old woman. Remember the rule of thumb is this. A guy with multiple partners is hot and desirable. A woman with multiple partners is a whore. Got it?

SINGLE PARENTING: Society looks upon a straight, protestant white guy trying to raise his family on his own as admirable. Which it is, of course. Taking responsibility for a child isn't easy but when a man is seen stepping up he gets "extra credit." Compared to a single mother, who is too often looked down upon as "paying the price" for her mistake.

SUMMARY: All of the advantages I've described above aren't necessarily applicable to every location every time in the US. There are places where Gays can marry, where minority couples can find safe, affordable housing in a variety of neighborhoods, where people of all faiths are welcomed in the practice of their religion, etc. I take much of what rights I enjoy, both official and unofficial, for granted. I can't imagine any other way.

As we move toward selecting a Republican nominee for President, much of the recent headlines have featured a handful of comments and speeches and in some case, outright legislation that seek to push us far to the Right under the guise of protecting our liberty and personal freedoms. Ironically and probably hypocritically as well, many rights of gays, non Christians and especially woman seem grist for the mill. How is it a political party can lay claim to the banner of "protecting personal liberties" when it seems hell-bent on depriving so many of those exact rights? Its as if the conservative right has declared, "We'll decide what's moral and what's not" which is bullshit and not indicative of the Country that I think we're supposed to be. We'll see how all this plays out. Hopefully, this blows over and the Republican voters of our Country choose a different option (Ron Paul?) than the one so many would seem to have us take. On the other hand, if the voters go along with them and limit other's personal liberties, well all I can say is its good to be a straight, protestant white guy.


Sources:

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/same-sex-marriage-overview.aspx

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-02-19/politics/politics_santorum-prenatal-testing_1_rick-santorum-prenatal-testing-abortion?_s=PM:POLITICS

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/22/virginia-ultrasound-bill-abortion_n_1294026.html

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/295207-virginia-hb462.html

Llewellyn King: What Makes a President?

NOTE: Llewellyn King's column from February 16, 2012 on the notions that business people are superior choices to run the Country than politicians and that free markets and national interest don't always equate with one another. Good read...


****************************************************************************************************


Come walk in the garden where the fallacies grow. Today, we’ll examine two varieties that are enjoying strong growth: the businessus presidentus and the marketus perfectus.  


The first fallacy (businessus presidentus) is that a business person, presumably Mitt Romney, is better equipped to run the government than a professional politician. This is an idea as old as anything in the garden. The supposition is that business people are organized, understand the economy and are less prone make decisions based on politics. It also suggests that as a species they are innovative, strategic thinkers and have an acquired understanding people.  


Well let's see: The purpose of business is business; in short, to make money. Romantics of the right like to credit it with virtues it doesn't have and doesn't want.  Business is about the numbers, and making the numbers. It’s not intrinsically wise, nor is it necessarily more inventive than government. 


It’s true that business innovates; but only when it’s forced to by competition and disruptive technologies. Coca-Cola was supposed to be the smartest company on the planet until it introduced New Coke and had to beat an ignominious retreat. Many old and new businesses simply can't change fast enough. We’ve seen the demise of Kodak, Polaroid and Borders and the emasculation of Western Union. The American car companies had to be rescued — especially General Motors which was a model of management structure, celebrated by Peter Drucker, until its management choked the life out of it.


If Romney has the skills to be a good president, he didn't learn them in the wheeler-dealer world of investment banking – Remember Lehman? – but rather in the statehouse in Boston. By and large, business success prepares a man or a woman for retirement and maybe volunteer work, not political office. 


Click here to continue reading...

Source: http://www.whchronicle.com/2012/02/what-makes-a-president-fallacies-about-business-markets/

Watch Bill Maher Go Off on Republican Divisiveness

Watch Bill Maher Go Off on Republican Divisiveness:

I don't watch Bill Maher's show on a regular basis, but I have seen it and have a hard time watching it. Its very predictable and mean spirited when it doesn't need to be.

That said, its hard to argue with Maher's basic point in this clip...

Reading list on Susan B Komen charity defunded Planned Parenthood...

IT was announced today that the Susan G. Komen charity will no longer donate funds to Planned Parenthood. At the heart of this is the fact that PP is currently under investigation by some conservatives in Congress, and that by Komen's new by-laws, they will not donate to organizations being investigated. Planned Parenthood has come under fire from the Right for using public tax dollars for abortions and contraceptives. Reaction has been fairly intense in the last few hours on social media.

Here's a reading list of current articles and relevant links on this issue:

Susan G. Komen for the Cure
Planned Parenthood

Write-ups on the funding story:

Washington Post 

The New York Times

NPR

Red State Blog

Slate Blog

Christianity Today

CNN

FOX News

Wonkbook: It's too late for a new candidate to enter the GOP primary - The Washington Post

Wonkbook: It's too late for a new candidate to enter the GOP primary - The Washington Post:

Solid article by Ezra Klein on the unlikely entrance of a "outsider" into the Republican field. Not enough time to organize an effective campaign, let alone a national one, the issue of fundraising, the issue of being able to get your name on enough State ballots to even have a prayer of competing on a national scale against 2-4 other conservatives who have had months and in some cases years to prepare their campaign.

Really, Mr. Romney?

Romney tells Newt Gingrich, "...And I think you should recognize that having differences in opinion does not justify labeling people with highly-charged epithets."

I, of course, agree you shouldn't stoop to name calling, demeaning language or misrepresenting anything your opponent believes. I think Newt Gingrich is a desperate candidate who sees his chances slipping away and is unable to do much to stop it. He knows Florida was big for Romney. It wasn't very close, so this isn't a very good batch of lemons to perhaps make into lemonade. Michigan's primary is coming up soon, which is Romney's home state so chalk that one up as a loss, then shortly after that will come Utah. Utah is the home base for all Mormons in the United States and Gingrich's chance of upsetting Romney there is nil. Or as Elvis Costello once wrote, Less than Zero.


Presuming there's no dead girl or live boy that shows up in the Romney campaign over the next several weeks, I believe he will be the Republican nominee to challenge President Barack Obama in November. Wouldn't it be a surprise if Romney practiced his own advice in the general election campaign? No calling Obama a Muslim, Socialist, a radical, etc...Certainly don't suggest he doesn't love this country or know what it means to really be an American, etc...

The person who wins elections at this level should do so on merit. Not on who has the sharper tongued speech writers, debate coaches and advisors. I hope we have a polite, respectful competition between Romney and Mr. Obama but I'm almost certain we will not. 

With the impact of the Citizens United case, we've come to a place where money is literally no object in politics anymore. For candidates like Rick Santorum, money is a real and serious hurdle that prevents him from sustaining a long term campaign. But for both Romney and Obama...there's no worries that there's not enough dough. Both campaigns have a crapton of money, plus the Political Action Committees (PACS) for each side have a fiscal faucet that has no off position. 

I do hope that Mitt Romney takes the high road later this year when he turns his full attention towards President Obama. Likewise, I hope our President acts and campaigns in a fashion that fits the position he currently holds. 

We deserve a higher level of debate given the stakes. 

Sources: 


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/mitt-romney-hits-newt-gingrich-anti-immigrant-line/story?id=15452536#.TyiyJsXOx2E

Good news for Democrats & Obama, but let's look deeper...

This morning's edition of Roll Call had an interesting article by Stuart Rothenberg related to the keeping of political polls in context.

The gist of Rothenberg's point is that while several metrics do show an improvement for Democrats and even President Obama, its important to understand the dynamics of the various polls. He makes a compelling case that Democrats would be well advised to heed. There's a lot that can happen between now and election day next November and a few nice looking polls just isn't cause for celebration. Certainly not yet.

From the article:

Even more noteworthy, the current 6-point Democratic advantage on the generic ballot is only a little better than the party’s 2-point advantage in October 2010 and is far smaller than its 13-point advantage right before the 2008 elections.

But even if the economy doesn’t move one way or the other decisively, you can bet that the partisan argument will heat up again, putting the president back into focus and into the center of the political discussion.

And when the GOP race ends, probably well before the convention in August, voters will start to compare the two nominees across a large number of dimensions during a very spirited campaign.

I’d bet that only then will independents, who are more sensitive to short-term factors and the national mood, seriously consider the two nominees and decide how they will vote. And only then will we get a reliable handle on the shape of the electorate heading toward Election Day.

To read the full article, click here...

Source:

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_87/presidential_polling_context_always_matters-211949-1.html?ET=rollcall:e12033:80124651a:&st=email&pos=epol

The bipartisan myth - POLITICO.com Print View

The bipartisan myth - POLITICO.com Print View:

Interesting article discussing the chances of the two chief political parties bridging their differences are finding common ground. Partisanship seems worse than ever before and compromise seems unlikely. Are there reasons to be optimistic? Read on....

The Myth of American Decline...

Not Fade Away

The myth of American decline.

(NOTE: I found this essay by Robert Kagen of the New Republic to be a fascinating review of where America has stood in the global pecking, the reasons why and a clear-eyed look at where we are now and what the future holds for us. The fundamental question addressed is this. Is the United States of America in decline? While we hear this notion perpetuated by those on both sides of the political spectrum, is it true? Is it a legitimate concern? Its a bit lengthy but stay with it. I highly recommend it. BC)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: At the State of the Union on January 26, President Barack Obama argued, "Anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn't know what they're talking about."  According to a Foreign Policy report, the president had read and been influenced by the TNR article below, discussing it at length in an off-the-record meeting on the afternoon of the speech.  

I.

Is the United States in decline, as so many seem to believe these days? Or are Americans in danger of committing pre-emptive superpower suicide out of a misplaced fear of their own declining power? A great deal depends on the answer to these questions. The present world order—characterized by an unprecedented number of democratic nations; a greater global prosperity, even with the current crisis, than the world has ever known; and a long peace among great powers—reflects American principles and preferences, and was built and preserved by American power in all its political, economic, and military dimensions. If American power declines, this world order will decline with it. It will be replaced by some other kind of order, reflecting the desires and the qualities of other world powers. Or perhaps it will simply collapse, as the European world order collapsed in the first half of the twentieth century. The belief, held by many, that even with diminished American power “the underlying foundations of the liberal international order will survive and thrive,” as the political scientist G. John Ikenberry has argued, is a pleasant illusion. American decline, if it is real, will mean a different world for everyone.

But how real is it? Much of the commentary on American decline these days rests on rather loose analysis, on impressions that the United States has lost its way, that it has abandoned the virtues that made it successful in the past, that it lacks the will to address the problems it faces. Americans look at other nations whose economies are now in better shape than their own, and seem to have the dynamism that America once had, and they lament, as in the title of Thomas Friedman’s latest book, that “that used to be us.”

The perception of decline today is certainly understandable, given the dismal economic situation since 2008 and the nation’s large fiscal deficits, which, combined with the continuing growth of the Chinese, Indian, Brazilian, Turkish, and other economies, seem to portend a significant and irreversible shift in global economic power. Some of the pessimism is also due to the belief that the United States has lost favor, and therefore influence, in much of the world, because of its various responses to the attacks of September 11. The detainment facilities at Guantánamo, the use of torture against suspected terrorists, and the widely condemned invasion of Iraq in 2003 have all tarnished the American “brand” and put a dent in America’s “soft power”—its ability to attract others to its point of view. There have been the difficult wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which many argue proved the limits of military power, stretched the United States beyond its capacities, and weakened the nation at its core. Some compare the United States to the British Empire at the end of the nineteenth century, with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars serving as the equivalent of Britain’s difficult and demoralizing Boer War.

With this broad perception of decline as the backdrop, every failure of the United States to get its way in the world tends to reinforce the impression. Arabs and Israelis refuse to make peace, despite American entreaties. Iran and North Korea defy American demands that they cease their nuclear weapons programs. China refuses to let its currency rise. Ferment in the Arab world spins out of America’s control. Every day, it seems, brings more evidence that the time has passed when the United States could lead the world and get others to do its bidding.

Powerful as this sense of decline may be, however, it deserves a more rigorous examination. Measuring changes in a nation’s relative power is a tricky business, but there are some basic indicators: the size and the influence of its economy relative to that of other powers; the magnitude of military power compared with that of potential adversaries; the degree of political influence it wields in the international system—all of which make up what the Chinese call “comprehensive national power.” And there is the matter of time. Judgments based on only a few years’ evidence are problematic. A great power’s decline is the product of fundamental changes in the international distribution of various forms of power that usually occur over longer stretches of time. Great powers rarely decline suddenly. A war may bring them down, but even that is usually a symptom, and a culmination, of a longer process.

The decline of the British Empire, for instance, occurred over several decades. In 1870, the British share of global manufacturing was over 30 percent. In 1900, it was 20 percent. By 1910, it was under 15 percent—well below the rising United States, which had climbed over the same period from more than 20 percent to more than 25 percent; and also less than Germany, which had lagged far behind Britain throughout the nineteenth century but had caught and surpassed it in the first decade of the twentieth century. Over the course of that period, the British navy went from unchallenged master of the seas to sharing control of the oceans with rising naval powers. In 1883, Britain possessed more battleships than all the other powers combined. By 1897, its dominance had been eclipsed. British officials considered their navy “completely outclassed” in the Western hemisphere by the United States, in East Asia by Japan, and even close to home by the combined navies of Russia and France—and that was before the threatening growth of the German navy. These were clear-cut, measurable, steady declines in two of the most important measures of power over the course of a half-century.

To continue reading, please click here...