Negotiating

The House of Representatives crafted a continuing resolution (CR) that would keep all the government running - even at its deficit-spending levels - but included the defunding of Obamacare.  The Senate thought it was almost perfect, except for that last bit.  They stripped that out and sent it back.  Moderating its demands, the House included a one year delay of the individual mandate (it's only fair since the employer mandate has been delayed for a year) and a requirement that the Congress not get 'special' treatment with regards to health insurance subsidies.  The Senate stripped out the add-ons and sent it back, giving not an inch.  It is Harry Reid's way or shutdown!  See, negotiating.  Harry is counting on the media to blame the Republicans no matter how recalcitrant he proves to be in this back and forth; they will.

President Obama took to the airwaves to blast the Republicans' efforts, saying that the people didn't repeal the law when they had the chance back in November (i.e. by electing Mitt Romney).  I did not realize that the election was a referendum on Obamacare (I believe the Obamacare referendum was the 2010 "shellacking" election).  Nor, I suspect, did the voters.  After all, they did vote for all these pesky Republicans who - presumably - are representing their constituents.  Right?

To my astonishment, the Republicans haven't cracked yet.  Barring some last minute deal, it looks like the government will shutdown in about an hour.  How long will that last?  Once it does, the Republicans are in dangerous waters.  To fold after the shutdown, they MUST get something or the whole exercise will be a PR nightmare.  At least the timing is much better than the last one which happened during Christmas and New Year in 1995/6 and led to the Gingrich Who Stole Christmas.  Once shutdown, the Republicans can send piecemeal CRs to bring everything back.  Suddenly, the refusal of a Democratic Senate and a Democratic President to accept money to reopen the government will look bad.  They will have to say "Give us everything we want or we won't accept anything."  This might work out better than I'd have expected.

But, more likely, the Republicans will cave and get nothing.  Why?  Because, as I pointed out in a previous blog, they are spineless.

Shutdown-phobia

Back in 1995, the Republican Congress had a disagreement with the Democratic President on spending.  This resulted in a shutdown of the government which - according to legend - was disastrous to the Republican Party.  Much bad press was heaped upon the recalcitrant GOP.  Not surprisingly, the Republicans are not eager to go through that again.  And that is the problem.

If you announce to your opponent that you will bend to his will rather than shutdown the government, you will be amazed how often the government finds itself at threat of shutting down.  It's like knowing that Superman's weakness is Kryptonite.  What fool isn't going to try to have Kryptonite on hand for every encounter?  If I could get the other party to acquiesce to my goals by letting us come to the brink, I'm going to keep doing that as long as it works.

If the government shuts down, it is a given that the media will report that it is the Republicans fault.  It is funny that when there was a government shutdown during the first Bush administration, it was the Republican President's fault.  But a few years later, when it shut down under the Clinton administration, it was the Republican Congress's fault.  Let's see, we currently have a Democrat as president, a Democratic Senate, and a Republican House... that means it is the Republican House's fault if there is a shutdown.  Isn't it peculiar how the Republicans are always to blame?

Arguably, a shutdown may not be a good strategic move at this moment.  The Debt Ceiling presents better 'marketing' for the Republicans than a shutdown.  But that doesn't change the point that if you always cave when a shutdown is threatened, you have announced a weakness that will be repeatedly used against you.  The Republicans have to get over 1995 and be willing to make the argument that the Democrats are just as responsible for a shutdown.

The Book of Mormon

The makers of South Park are famous (infamous?) for their willingness to poke fun at absolutely anything and everything. Hailing from Colorado, it is hardly any surprise that their gaze should settle upon the Mormon faith. In musical format, they poke fun at Mormonism but likewise show Mormons to be good and decent people.

The story opens with a musical number where young men in white shirts with black slacks and ties practice going door to door and telling about “a book that will change your life.” Elder Price and Elder Cunningham, two 19 year-olds, are paired and sent to Uganda. Kevin Price is very ambitious and was the top student in the class. He had hoped to be sent to Orlando, Florida, and certainly didn’t expect to be matched with the worst student, Arnold Cunningham. Arnold is a habitual liar – but in a good-natured sort of way – and generally an outcast; he had prayed to be partnered with Elder Price.

The pair arrives in a Ugandan village where they are immediately robbed of their luggage. They meet the villagers who have no hope and a very negative view of God. Ugandans lead a difficult life and they don’t see how a book is going to help. One of the best lines occurred here when the chief tells Elder Price that missionaries come regularly and achieve nothing. Price replies that it didn’t work because those were Christian missionaries.

Among the villagers is Nabulungi, the chief’s daughter, who shows some interest in what Elder Price has to say. However, by the time she convinces the village to listen to what he has to say, he has fled the scene in hopes of getting a transfer to Orlando and it is up to Arnold Cunningham to explain Mormonism; he has not read the Book of Mormon.

There are spots in the play where the foundation of Mormonism is explained, giving a brief outline of the religion. Two tribes had found their way to North America and prospered for many centuries though they fought one and other. Jesus had come to preach to them. Their civilization collapsed in the 5th Century though Mormon – a prophet of the Nephites – had recorded their history on golden plates that he entrusted to his son, Moroni, who buried them. Joseph Smith was told by Moroni (now an angel) to dig up the gold plates which were “conveniently” buried in his backyard. Joseph Smith translated the plates and thus Mormonism was born. Joseph Smith led his followers to the west, establishing colonies in Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois. However, many proved hostile to Mormons and Joseph Smith was shot to death, passing leadership to Brigham Young. Young led the Mormons to Utah, where they have flourished.

Though he hasn’t read the book, Arnold knows the basic outline. And yet, in order to spice it up and retain his audience, he changes some of the events and adds characters. Yes, somehow Darth Vader, Yoda, and hobbits are incorporated into the Mormon theology. All of his stories are customized to the specific problems of the Ugandans, such as AIDS, famine, female circumcision, and warlords. It proves popular and he converts the village to his brand of Mormonism. Church leaders, impressed by such success, come to discover how he did it.

 

The songs are generally very good. Elder Price’s had a great one where he declares that he and Arnold would achieve great things but it was going to be “Mostly Me.” Arnold had a song when he baptizes Nabulungi which had strong sexual connotations that made it funny on account of its awkwardness/inappropriateness. Nabulungi sang of her desire to go to the distant paradise of “Salt Lake City.” There is even a Hakuna Matata clone titled Hasa Diga Eebowai, though it doesn’t mean “no worries for the rest of your life.”

Another funny running gag was Arnold’s inability to remember Nabulungi’s name. He never uses the same wrong name twice; I particularly liked Neosporin, Neutrogena, and Nala (that is Simba’s girlfriend in The Lion King).

The biggest drawback of the show is the profanity and some of the puerile humor (Stone and Parker just can’t resist a poop joke). However, it is entertaining to see the shock value that has on the Mormon characters and thus provides a stark contrast between Mormon and non-Mormon. Unlike in some of their other work, the profanity actually has a useful purpose here.

Of particular interest, there was an ad in the Playbill from the Mormon Church that stated “The Book is always better.” That is awesome. It speaks volumes and further reflects well on Mormons. I look forward to a similar ad in the musical version of “The Koran.”

Defunding Obamacare

I am mystified by all this talk of 'Defunding Obamacare' in the forthcoming continuing resolution (CR) that will keep the government operating after September 30th.  How does that work?  Do they allocate funding in one paragraph and then rescind it in the next?  Shouldn't the budget be more along the lines of not allocating any money?  The Congress determines how much money goes where; just put $0 for Obamacare.  Simple, no?  Back in the mid-70s, the Democrats zeroed out the budget to support the South Vietnamese.  Bingo, South Vietnam fell.  They didn't pass a law repealing our agreement to fund South Vietnam which President Ford could veto.  The House should pass a budget that funds everything except Obamacare.  Heck, do it piecemeal.  Here's a CR to fund the military, here's one to fund Social Security. and here's one to fund Medicare, and so forth.  That should be easy as pie.  Moreover, this is a continuing resolution, not a budget.  The whole point of a CR is to continue current funding.  Why the heck are you adding a new budget item in a CR?  Government budgeting is arcane for a reason: to keep the voters in the dark as much as possible.  If the Senate refuses to pass anything that doesn't fund Obamacare, who would be shutting down the government?  The Democratic Senate.  Don't give the President something to veto.  If the President gets a bill that funds everything except Obamacare and he vetoes it, who is shutting down the government?

 

Now obviously, the press will blame the Republicans no matter who is actually at fault.  You see, if the Republicans don't follow Obama's priorities, they are responsible.  No negotiating, no give and take, no compromise.  If the Republicans had a spine, that wouldn't matter.  Obamacare is less popular now than when it passed and only an eighth of Americans think it will benefit them.  This is a winning issue if only the Republicans could stand firm.  That is one admirable thing about Democrats; they are steadfast in holding their ground.  It is how Obamacare passed in the first place.

In the end, I expect the Republicans to fold, as usual.  They will fund it and declare that they will tackle it again if they win the Senate in 2014 or some such.  Maybe repeal if a Republican president is elected in 2016.  Same old story.  I've seen how that story ends each time.

Interglacial Period

The current glacial age (i.e. ice age) began 2.6 million years ago when the Earth wobbled in its orbit around the sun.  Since then, the Earth has undergone glacial periods - where the ice expands from the poles - and interglacial periods - when the ice retreats back to the poles.  The current interglacial period began approximately 12 thousand years ago.  However, during that glacial period, sufficient water had been turned to ice so that the sea levels were 350 feet lower than today.  This meant that the English Channel was dry and crossable.  Siberia and Alaska were connected and allowed for cross-migration between North America and Asia.  The camel evolved in North America but migrated to Asia, where it still exists.  It died out here though its cousins - llamas and alpacas - still flourish in South America.  Of course, humans made their way to North America as well.  But the ice melted and the sea levels rose drastically.  What caused all that warming?  Not fossil fuels.

During the glacial periods, the ice has extended over much of Europe, the whole of Canada, all the Great Lakes and into the Midwest.  When there are no longer ice sheets covering the poles and Greenland, it will signal the end of the current ice age.  With that in mind, I came across the following:

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/14/earth-gains-a-record-amount-of-sea-ice-in-2013-earth-has-gained-19000-manhattans-of-sea-ice-since-this-date-last-year-the-largest-increase-on-record/

Record ice growth of 19,000 Manhattan islands.  That's a lot of ice.  Hardly what you would expect during global warming.  The Earth has experience dramatic warming during the past 12,000 years, most of it long before mankind burned any fossil fuels.  Moreover, the Earth has been much warmer than it is today.  When dinosaurs roamed, the tropics extended as far north as North Dakota.  Looking at the geological record, the Earth is far more likely to go into another glacial period than to experience endless heat waves.  There is a reason that Al Gore talks of Climate Crisis rather than Global Warming now.

Irreconcilable Differences

I'm going to let the president speak for himself.  Here is a quote from today:

"First of all, I didn't set a red line.  The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world's population said the use of chemical weapons are [inaudble] and passed a treaty forbidding their use, even when countries are engaged in war. Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red line when it indicated that in a piece of legislation entitled the Syria Accountability Act that some of the horrendous things happening on the ground there need to be answered for. So, when I said in a press conference that my calculus about what's happening in Syria would be altered by the use of chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong, that wasn't something I just kind of made up. I didn't pluck it out of thin air. There's a reason for it."

Barack Obama, September 4, 2013

He didn't draw that red line.  Somebody else made that happen.  :)  Let's check the transcript from last year:

"We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.  That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."

Barack Obama, August 20, 2012

Interesting.  No mention of the world painting that redline.  He said it changed "my calculus." not humanity's calculus.  Sounds like he did draw that line and he is trying to dodge the blame.  This is doubtless why he has gone to Congress for approval.  Regardless of how Congress votes, he wins.  If they vote no, he can blame them for America's failure to punish Assad.  If they vote yes, Congress will share the blame for the almost inevitable disaster that follows.

On a related topic, it is a fact that Saddam Hussein gassed tens of thousands of his own people and yet Barack Obama declared Iraq to be the wrong war.  He hammered Bush for that war and played up his anti-war rhetoric throughout the 2008 campaign.  Why was it wrong to attack Saddam but right to attack Bashar?  Comparing apples to apples, Saddam was vastly worse than Bashar.  Would Senator Obama vote in favor of President Obama's warmongering?

 

Not to be cynical, but this Syrian mess comes at an ideal time for the president.  Who's talking about Obamacare right now?  Remember that IRS scandal?  How about the NSA spying scandal?  Benghazi?  Talk of a war has magically brushed aside all those pesky "phony" scandals.

Syria: To Bomb or not to Bomb

Thus far, the congressional hearings indicate that the plan is to bomb just enough to punish Assad for using weapons but not enough to make him lose the civil war.  Why is that?  Well, we don't really want Al-Qaeda - which is allied with the rebels - to win.  But on the other hand, the President has been declaring for over two years that Assad must go.  So which is it?  Sad to say but Assad is probably the better option.  Do we want elements of Al-Qaeda to acquire chemical weapons in the aftermath of Assad's fall?  Secretary of State Kerry suggested that we might put boots on the ground to secure such stockpiles; I would agree that is in the national interest if Assad falls but I don't think most Americans are too keen on another Mideast adventure.

Setting aside the idea of seizing chemical weapons, what exactly is the US national interest here?  Assad allegedly gassed a thousand or so people and that must not go unpunished.  So, it was okay for him to machinegun and bomb the other 99 thousand?  We care about how they were killed, not that they were killed.

The only reason that we are going to intervene (I think Obama will probably get approval from Congress) is to make good on Obama's foot-in-mouth redline lest America lose prestige overseas.  Did the murder of our ambassador have no impact on our prestige?  What of abandoning Poland and the Czech Republic in the face of Russian complaints about missile defense?  Edward Snowden revelations?  No, none of that is hurting us overseas.  Weren't we supposed to have Smart Diplomacy now?

Rand Paul pointed out that there could be serious repercussions to an attack on Syria.  Syria has already promised to attack Israel in the event of US attacks.  Iran, which is already heavily supporting Syria, might be drawn in.  Russia has warships in port on the Syrian coast and is backing Assad.  Given Obama's track record in the Middle East (siding with Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, assassination of Libyan ambassador, abandoning Iraq, hopeless policy against pre-nuclear Iran, poor relations with Israel, etc.), I think it would be wisest to keep out.  Really, do we think he'll finally have a success in a no-win situation?

 

Now let's visit the fringe: Yossef Bodansky (http://www.globalresearch.ca/did-the-white-house-help-plan-the-syrian-chemical-attack/5347542) says that Assad is being 'framed' for the chemical attack.  In the days before the attack, the rebels had a huge influx of weapons for an upcoming campaign in the wake of America bombing of Assad.  How did they know a chemical attack was coming?  I am reminded of the USS Maine in Havana Harbor.  The Maine was sunk by an explosion while the US and Spain were having very tense relations over the Cubans.  Spain was blamed for the sinking though some suggested that it might have been Cuban rebels seeking to pull the US into what became the Spanish-American War (1898).  Bodansky also suggests that US intelligence had foreknowledge of the attack.  Hmm.

 

Like Jimmy Carter, Obama seems to have it out for dictators even though the alternative is worse.  Carter abandoned the Shah of Iran and that has not gone well for us or the people of Iran.  Obama dumped Mubarak in Egypt and that isn't going too well either.  Is Assad next on the hit list?  Yes, this is crazy talk (I hope) but may be worth consideration a year hence.