Filed under: 2009, Boston, Corruption, Current, Election, Jay, Mayoral Race 09, Politics, Tom Menino | Tags: 2009, Boston, Corruption, Current, Election, Jay, Mayoral Race 09, Politics, Tom Menino
Local news outlets have erupted since the recent call for an investigation into City Hall officials deleting Emails. With less than two weeks away from the Boston’s preliminary election for mayor, this story has quickly become the issue of the campaign. In fact earlier today each opponent spoke at a press conference, slamming the Mayor and City Hall employees with charges of corruption and a potential cover up.
The Anatomy of a Smear Campaign
This story is one of many attempts by the news media, and Menino’s political opponents, to portray the Menino administration as a thuggish “Boss Tweed” like Mayoral Administration. However, the more one looks into the issues being reported, this attempt begins to toe the line of appealing to ridicule. Something along the lines of “He’s been in office for 16 years, he MUST be corrupt.”
Boston Globe’s depiction of the Menino camp
NECN’s piece on the deleted emails
Boston Globe on the call for investigation coming from Menino’s rivals in this month’s election
Apparently the deleting of emails which are pertinent to official city business is illegal. However, City Hall has a system in place which automatically archives all of City Hall’s email, this system was flawed by design (which has since been fixed) and many Emails were lost as a result. There has been virtually no evidence whatsoever that would suggest a “cover up” or for that matter, that the permanent deletion of these emails were intentional in the first place. The attempted connection to Diane Wilkerson is almost laughable as wild speculation, and conjecture at best. As of today the Menino administration has acted completely in good faith and cooperated in every way with investigators.
The attention this is getting alone is remarkable. There is an entire city of issues, and by the end of this ‘investigation’ we will all know more about Michael Kineavy’s email habits than issues of actual importance. Its impossible that the Menino administration has successfully addressed every problem this city has had. Campaign Finance Reform, Traffic & Parking, Education, these are the actual issues that effect everyone in the city everyday. If Yoon and Flaherty do not think they can beat Menino on the issues they should not be running in the first place.
(more…)
Filed under: 2009, Corruption, Current, Jay, Politics, justice | Tags: 2009, Corruption, Current, Jay, justice, Politics
When Stevens was first convicted of corruption back during the 08 election all I could do was be disgusted. From the media coverage it seemed clear that this man had conducted himself in a vile, dishonest, and truly dishonorable way. As one of the highest ranking public servants in our nation such conduct is inexcusable and should be punished with extreme prejudice. However it now seems that his trial was not only mishandled, but that there was “intentional misconduct” on the part of the prosecutors. Such a situation suggests political motives.
Political maneuvers via our judicial system are utterly unacceptable on so many levels. If it turns out that these prosecutors did what the judge has described, they should not only be removed from office but permanently disbarred and put into jail. This is the United States of America. We will not put up with corruption of our public officials, and we will especially never tolerate the use of the judicial system for political purposes. This is infuriating and universally unjustifiable.
-jay
Filed under: 2009, Debate, Foreign policy, Israel, Jay, Palestine, Politics, Radicalism, Terrorism, Uncategorized | Tags: Alan Dershowitz, Debate, Foreign policy, Noam Chomsky, Palestine, Politics, Radicalism, Terrorism
Noam Chomsky and Alan Dershowitz both came to my university recently (at different times however). Both discussed the situation in Israel. Here is my (very) breif commentary based mostly on their debate at Harvard
With regard to US policy I see Chomsky’s point. I think he is correct in his statement that our nation’s response to terrorism should not initially be violence. But I state this from a policy perspective rather than a moral perspective. Declaring war against terrorism simply does not work as a policy. One may even argue that using occupational military forces is counter productive. Instead, strong resolve, unity, and unshakable values will serve us far better.
However, in the case of Israel. What they are facing can not be characterized as terrorism. What they are dealing with is a quasi civil war. It hard to define exactly what it is, but easier to define what it is not:
It is not terrorism – Israel is fighting a organization that essentially has sovereignty over their nation. This makes them a de facto government, even more so because they were voted in democratically. As such they are not clearly a terrorist organization as much as they are a government using terrorist tactics.
it is not war – As stated, Hamas is using terrorist tactics, including the use of their own civilians as human shields. Conventional warfare dictates a separation of civilian and military forces. Hamas has intentionally and systematically done the opposite.
To consider this is to realize that when Israel fights Hamas they must do so in a way which has no historical guidelines or rules. As such consideration of human rights or the normal rules which govern warfare has no relevance.
Also, I think the vast majority of Chomsky’s perspective is predicated on the idea that Israel has no right to exist. He has stated numerous times that the Arabs are defending themselves, and their right to Israel. I’m sorry but this is straight up bullshit. Im not a historian, I do not have a detailed account of how Israel came into existence and whether it was legal. But the fact is that it has existed as a state with fully sovereignty for over 50 years. What happened 50 years ago is utterly irrelevant. Stating that Hamas has full authority and righteousness to continue acting as they are because of an perhaps illegitimate, perhaps even illegal taking of land is idiocy. What if Mexico decides that when the US took ownership of parts of Mexico for Texas it did so illegitimately, so it decides declare a similar war against the US. Would Chomsky then stand up and say that it is justified because it is simply a continuance of the Mexican-American war!?! Maybe it was too long ago? Well then where’s the tipping point? Again, I really cant speak on whether actions taken by Zionist Israelies and the British government was…ahem…kosher. But even if they weren’t…the idea that actions taken 50 years ago can be used to justify complete disregard for practicality, human life, peace, and humanity altogether is beyond reason, and beyond reality. Until one side joins the other in a mentality practicality and concessions both sides will continue to lose and commit horrible acts.
Also, I do not think Chomsky is a self-hating jew and whatnot.
-jay
Filed under: 2009, Current, Debate, Jay, Monetary Policy, Politics | Tags: 2009, Currency, Current, Debate, Jay, Monetary Policy, Politics
A quick commentary on this somewhat bizarre story.
The idea that we are anywhere close to establishing a new global reserve currency to replace the current global reserve currency is crazy. Mostly because the dollar isn’t really to the global reserve currency to begin with. There is no law making the dollar a universal reserve currency to be respected by all other nations. The reason why most countries hold US currency as a reserve currency is because of completely natural and un-regulated reasons. As it should. The United States has a military power that utterly dwarfs the rest of the world. As such the continued existence of our nation, our government and therefore our currency is about as close to a certainty as you can get in political science.
A universal currency would have to entail backing by some sort of international organization, something like the world bank. But no one in their right mind would trust a currency such as that. Unless it has a military force the organization only need be dissolved, never mind the toppling of an entire government.
As US currency becomes less trusted, people will move to other currencies. Even if the US currency blows up (which it wont) other nations have holdings in other currencies, and the world and based on that we would be able to continue with finance. Money is about faith, and is one of the best examples of the absolute necessity of invisible hand. This call from China is simply political and has no policy implications for the near future.
Moreover no one wants to replace the US currency.
Its unnecessary
Its bad monetary policy
It would require a unparalleled amount of work and diplomacy
It would would be politically unpopular
and did I mention its unnecessary??
The Economist on China’s call for a new reserve currency
Some of our Representatives clearly need a reality check.
-jay
Filed under: 2009, Current, Pakistan, Terrorism, War, afganistan | Tags: 2009, afganistan, Current, Pakistan, Terrorism, War
MSNBC’s 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is reporting right now that Obama has asked from Congress that 1.5 billion in aid be delivered to Pakistan. This may be a greasing maneuver, a bribe even, that will help allow United States military forces operate in Pakistan without significant government opposition.
-jay
Filed under: 2009, Current, Foreign policy, Jay, Obama, Pakistan, Politics, Terrorism, War, afganistan | Tags: 2009, afganistan, Current, Foreign policy, Jay, Obama, Pakistan, Politics, Terrorism, War
According to The Economist Obama has “already ordered 17,000 more soldiers to Afghanistan and announced on Friday that 4,000 more “trainers” would be sent to the country later this year. His vice-president, Joe Biden, has told NATO representatives to prepare to redouble their effort to defeat the Taliban in southern Afghanistan.”
This recent surge of effort, troops, and media focus on the war in Afganistan was not unexpected. The dire economic situation has all but demanded every ounce of Obama’s attention, and the American public. As such Obama’s other potential policy initatives have compeltely dropped out of the picture. The recent rally in the market, and the passing of new and major legislation working to bring stablity to the markets makes now an adventageous time to switch gears for a bit. It is my guess that he is announcing his plan today, friday, so that the Sunday news shows (which have an enormous impact on the week’s news cycle) will be forced to adress foreign policy rather than the economy for the first time in months.
That being said I see the real story here being Pakistan. Yes, US troops have already had minor scrapes within the borders of Pakistan. Those were not big deals, and were often unintentional in nature. However Obama, stated with clear intent today: “The future of Afghanistan is inextricably linked to the future of its neighbor, Pakistan.” Despite this statement there does not seem to be a clear policy proposal regarding US forces operating in Pakistan. The operation of military forces in Afganistan is incomprable to the potential operation of military forces in Pakistan.
Afganistan is mostly rural nation with a shell of a government being held vertical by the US government. Pakistan is a nuclear power with intense claims to soverginty and is in cosntant conflict with other asain nations including India and China. This alone makes any military operation in Pakistan politically signifcant on a level we have not yet experienced in the past two decades. On top of all of this it has yet to be seen whether the Pakistani government will be cooperative at all. While Obama was running he stated that as President he might order unilateral strikes in Pakistan in order to fight terrorism. This statement was met with harsh resistance by the Pakistani goverment. This is a major potential problem. If Pakistan’s attitude towards US military invovlement is anything short of stellar, we are going to be putting ourselves into a Iraq sized quagmire.
-jay
Filed under: 2009, Christina Romer, Current, Economic Crisis 2009, Jay, Meet the Press, Politics, ideology | Tags: 2009, Christina Romer, Current, Economic Crisis 2009, ideology, Jay, Meet the Press, Politics
In my first post I addressed a not so serious, but clear cut example of the how despite the true believers claim that Obama is somehow a new brand of politician he is in fact not. In this post I will address the economic policy as presented by Dr. Christina Romer, Chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers
During Romer’s response regarding the potential success/ failure of Obama’s ongoing plan for economic recovery she mentions many of the different aspects of the plan. During this she refers to them as “medicine” stating that the economic team has prescribed “incredible medicine and comprehensive programs” in an attempt to fix the economy.
While this statement seems like an innocent enough statement of support I see it as a very telling remark. Quite often when people discuss the current economic crisis they use words like this which are loaded. Words like “fix” and phrases like “prescribing incredible medicine” are loaded in that they imply that the problem with the economy is analogous to a sickness which can be treated, or a mechanical failure in a car which can be repaired. Unfortunately I think that because the leaders think and act this way as does everyone else. But this is wrong. The economy is not a car, nor a human. It does not get broken, and it does not get sick. As such it cannot be prescribed medicine and it cannot be fixed. But allow to explain what I mean by that.
When the market faces a downturn as it is today it is wrong to think of the market being broken or sick. For arguements sake lets say that generally when a car breaks down it is because the car has a part of it which has broken and needs fixing. In this case the car is not acting as it should, something has gone wrong. When a human gets sick it can also be because of a broken component (dead liver), or an a unnatural disease which has entered the body. In both of these cases we have two distinct forces at work. The natural working of a complicated system, and the unnatural entry of a force which has caused the problem. In the case of the market, most often when we reach down turn this is not the case. While it may seem as such, the problems we are facing today are NATURAL. And that’s important. Stupid behavior = stupid results. Congress and the banks acted stupidly and now their paying for it. Its as simple as that. Now the market is correcting itself in appropriately.
Instead what the market can be compared to is the ocean. The ocean behaves as it wishes. The tide comes in and out not because we have told or designed it to, but because it does so by nature. As humans we can harness, and benefit from the ocean, or we can even be damaged by the ocean. For instance, if we tempt the ocean, and think that we are better, and stronger than the ocean and that we can control the ocean by building levvees and build homes too close we put ourselves at risk. But we can also respect the ocean, do our best to understand its natural workings, and harness its power and natural capabilities.
If we face problems with the ocean our response is not “how can we fix the ocean.” That is stupid on its face. We recognize that the ocean is a powerful and natural force. Instead we come up with creative and reactive measures that do not try to control the ocean necessarily, but allow us to better be safe from its potentially dangerous side. The proper solutions are not levees which attempt to control the uncontrollable, but instead the moving of homes and the establishment of better emergency services for when the inevitable occurs. The same should be done with the market. We have to recognize that the market inherently has a dangerous side, but that it is unaddressable. It will always exist. Once we realize this the solutions become real, and effective for the long term because they are no longer trying to control the uncontrollable.
-jay
Filed under: 2009, Current, Democratic Party, Economic Crisis 2009, Economy, Jay, Meet the Press, Obama, Politics | Tags: 2009, Current, Democratic Party, Economic Crisis 2009, Economy, Jay, Meet the Press, Obama, Politics
As a conservative most poeple who know me found it somewhat surprising to find out that I voted for Obama. I had reasoning for why. During the campaign McCain became a different McCain. He chose Sarah Palin. McCain’s shift to the middle put him not so out of line with Obama’s platform. And then Obama seemed, smarter, and more virtuous. And beyond that, if he (the messiah), failed to live up to expectations (which he has an will) it would allow for a rebirth of conservatism not dirtied with religious populism.
But most of all I suppose, I voted for Obama because he seemed to have a staunch dedication to truth, openness, and true governance that I’ve ever seen of a nationwide candidate. His removal from the far left after the election has shown this to be at least somewhat true. And I can’t say I haven’t been impressed by his (not necessarily the rest of his party) attempts for bi-partisanship and his candid attitude.
But for those who didn’t acknowledge the level bullshit he was spewing during his campaign…at this point you must either be delusional or just straight up dishonest. The most clear cut example I have ever seen was presented on the most recent meet the press with David Gregory interviewing Dr. Christina Romer, the Chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. Gregory point out how McCain was ostracized by virtually everyone for stating that the fundamentals of the economy were strong. At the time this statement, while politically unsanitary, was a true and fair statement. It in no way deserved the controversy that it received, but because of (probably) outright terror and a sheep like mindset, no on spoke out in defense of it. No public person would want to be lumped into the “out of touch” category that McCain had been thrown into. But there were those who knew that the controversy was unjust. I knew it.
Apparently so did Gregory because he hit Romer, and he hit her hard. During his line of questioning she finally admitted that “of course the fundamentals are strong.” Of course. Of course they are strong. Everyone actually watching and listening sure enough had the same mental explosion of disbelief. The Obama team finally caught in a real perversion of truth. Despite being virtually undeniable in its nature she continued, needlessly, to try to provide a intellectually dishonest defense of what had just been revealed on national television.
Here’s the link. Commentary on the rest of Romer later today.
-jay
Obama’s recent, and extremely controversial decision to opt out of public campaign funding has created a firestorm of press surrounding recent so-called “Flip-Flops” by the two candidate. The reason flip-flips are so important because they show an inconsistency of character. Such an inconsistency is especially notable when votes being cast primarily (theoretically) with regard to the principals each candidate currently stands aside and pledges to remain dedicated to. However to a certain extent issue based flip flops potentially can be a sign of consistency in principals. This is important because overall principals are of much greater consequence than singe issues.
For instance, lets say hypothetically Obama originally decided to receive public financing with the intent to remove big money’s influence on his campaign and potential future office. However, he later was informed of some situation within the system public funding that actually gave big money greater influence on his campaign and potential future office. While this is purely hypothetical, if something like this did happen would we not expect him to change his decision? Not changing his position would be a compromise of his principals. In such instances where principals are to be maintained by otherwise “flip-flopping”, politicians are in fact doing what is right and should not be criticized for it.
However, unfortunately for Obama it seems quite clear that this is not what happened. As it has been said many times already Obama is making a real politik, practical, and amoral decision in opting out of public financing. He is going back on his word and he is doing it so that he may ensure his victory. Apologists such as Biden (on Sunday’s Meet the Press) have made the justification that doing this makes both idealistic and practical sense. This is nothing more than political spin nonsense. Obama is a politician trying to win a presidential race. Period.
At the same time I do not think this is even close to as big of a deal that the media and everyone else is making it out to be. For a long time Obama has been the everything to everyone candidate. He voted for the Iraq war, but the republicans are not about to hit him on that. Other than the Iraq vote he hasn’t really made decisions that have consequences for a Democratic 08 presidential campaign. That is, until now.
What this really comes down to is the idea of Obama finally meeting the reality of Obama. The reality is that he is just another politician who will compromise his principals from time to time. Maybe more than “from time to time”, maybe a lot.
But anyone not drunk on Obama’s cool aid knew that from the beginning.
-jay
The fact that either side is discussing this whatsoever is a shame. But an entire panel…for an issue equivalent if not less important than lapel pins? Shame on both the right and the left.
The question is: How more irellevent can we get?
-jay
