While Pakistan and Afghanistan vie to become President Obama’s first major foreign policy headache, North Korea looks like they want to crash the party.
North Korea is moving forward with nuclear tests and missile tests despite receiving several stern warnings from the United States, other countries and the U.N.
“Stern warnings” always remind me of a distracted parent asking their child who is having a temper tantrum to please be quiet. The warnings, however stern, rarely have any effect.
Has any country ever stopped moving forward on a nuclear weapons program because of a stern warning? North Korea was supposed to have dismantled their nuclear program already, what makes anyone think a stern warning would halt their current progress?
Many international pundits are chiming in on this issue and commenting that this has more to do with internal North Korean affairs than anything else. Their current leader, Kim Jong Ill is said to be very sick and some believe that as a last desperate act, he’s trying to show how strong he is by ticking off the free world.
It would be nice to be able to just ignore this tantrum like you would for any 3 year old that throws himself on the floor and screams. But you can’t ignore a 3 year old with a nuclear arsenal.
This situation for President Obama and the U.N. is tricky, but it’s going to be far more than just a difficult exercise in foreign politics. This will also serve as an important lesson to every other country aspiring to join the nuclear club on what happens when you throw a fit with your nuclear prowess.
If Obama goes forward with mere stern warnings and resolutions that promise even more stern warnings, they will not dissuade Iran from employing the very same strategy. I’m not advocating going to war with North Korea, but we need to realize that Iran will use this as a script on how to handle its own nuclear program.
In the past, we have simply bought off the North Korean government. We threaten and warn, and in the end we buy back the program. We send aid, they promise to end their nuclear program, their leaders look like they are all powerful in the face of international pressure and their people are able to eat for another few months. But, apparently what we buy is merely a short term nuclear disarmament.
We’re teaching a basic economic formula. Do whatever it takes to create a nuclear program. Threaten to use said program on a neighbor you hate. Endure countless, but meaningless warnings to stop and when you refuse to stop, instead of engaging your huge ally in a messy conflict, the United States will pay you to destroy a cooling tower.
Wait 18 months and repeat.
Whatever strategy President Obama and the rest of the international community use to handle this situation; they should keep the script handy. It wouldn’t surprise me if this engagement returns in the fall at a theatre near you called, North Korea II: Iran’s Turn.
May 28, 2009
March 13, 2009
Ward Churchill: Bill Owens' Catch-22
Ward Churchill’s civil trial kicked off this week and it’s already teaching lessons about politics and the ramifications of announcing your point of view before you are sure of your legal ground.
Former Governor Bill Owens has quickly become the lynchpin of Churchill’s case against CU because of his reaction to Churchill’s 9/11 essay. Owens commented at the time that he thought Churchill should be fired for what he wrote.
Governor Owens’ reaction was not out of line. In fact, he was in agreement with the majority of Americans who found Churchill’s comments to be tasteless and cruel.
But, as the leader of Colorado’s government, the same government that oversees the funding of Churchill’s employer, his comments became a problem.
Politically, Owens was in a Catch-22 situation.
Like most Coloradans, while Owens could recognize Churchill’s right to say what he pleases, he hated the idea that he was collecting a paycheck from Colorado taxpayers while he did it. To many of his constituents, he simply couldn’t allow this situation to continue.
Imagine the reaction to Bill Owens if he would have gone to an angry public and urged patience as he encouraged CU to do their legally required due diligence. And since the plagiarism charges were unknown at that time, that due diligence may have resulted in finding that neither CU, nor the Colorado government could do anything about it.
As a political leader, that would have made Owens look soft in the face of terribly offensive vitriol and unresponsive to his electorate.
But, legally, Owens was in a position of power, especially regarding a state funded school, and his opinion meant more than just simple words on a cable talk show. Even though he and his constituents wanted Owens to be judge and executioner, he couldn’t play that role with a tenured professor, even at a state school. Therein lies Churchill’s case.
In the end, CU did its due diligence and they didn’t have a knee jerk reaction to the comments from the Governor. Will their actions be enough to prove that they weren’t pressured? Only a six member jury knows for sure.
But I think the lesson here is what might make sense politically, may be a bigger problem legally. Don’t expect this lesson to be taken lightly by our elected officials. Don’t expect an emotional honest reaction the next time someone does something completely outrageous. Our elected officials will need to consult their legal counsel before showing their justifiable rage next time.
Former Governor Bill Owens has quickly become the lynchpin of Churchill’s case against CU because of his reaction to Churchill’s 9/11 essay. Owens commented at the time that he thought Churchill should be fired for what he wrote.
Governor Owens’ reaction was not out of line. In fact, he was in agreement with the majority of Americans who found Churchill’s comments to be tasteless and cruel.
But, as the leader of Colorado’s government, the same government that oversees the funding of Churchill’s employer, his comments became a problem.
Politically, Owens was in a Catch-22 situation.
Like most Coloradans, while Owens could recognize Churchill’s right to say what he pleases, he hated the idea that he was collecting a paycheck from Colorado taxpayers while he did it. To many of his constituents, he simply couldn’t allow this situation to continue.
Imagine the reaction to Bill Owens if he would have gone to an angry public and urged patience as he encouraged CU to do their legally required due diligence. And since the plagiarism charges were unknown at that time, that due diligence may have resulted in finding that neither CU, nor the Colorado government could do anything about it.
As a political leader, that would have made Owens look soft in the face of terribly offensive vitriol and unresponsive to his electorate.
But, legally, Owens was in a position of power, especially regarding a state funded school, and his opinion meant more than just simple words on a cable talk show. Even though he and his constituents wanted Owens to be judge and executioner, he couldn’t play that role with a tenured professor, even at a state school. Therein lies Churchill’s case.
In the end, CU did its due diligence and they didn’t have a knee jerk reaction to the comments from the Governor. Will their actions be enough to prove that they weren’t pressured? Only a six member jury knows for sure.
But I think the lesson here is what might make sense politically, may be a bigger problem legally. Don’t expect this lesson to be taken lightly by our elected officials. Don’t expect an emotional honest reaction the next time someone does something completely outrageous. Our elected officials will need to consult their legal counsel before showing their justifiable rage next time.
February 23, 2009
Constitution Convention?
For a few years now, state lawmakers have complained about the restricting spending limits and laws in Colorado’s constitution. Democrats cite problems with TABOR and Republicans aren’t fans of Amendment 23’s spending mandates on K-12 education. Both parties have blamed countless ailments in our state on the conflicting laws in our state’s charter document.
Now some lawmakers are floating ideas of asking voters to approve a Constitution Convention that would enable delegates to start from scratch and “fix” the problems.
Despite the volume of the complaints, I think lawmakers have made a poor case that our constitution needs fixing. Two efforts to address the problem were on last year’s ballot, but Coloradans voted them both down. Amendment 59, Andrew Romanoff’s move to address some issues in TABOR, and Referendum O, a move to make amending the constitution harder and statutes more permanent, both failed even though they faced minimal opposition.
Our state leaders are smart and influential people. None of them were elected by accident. I think it is time for our lawmakers to put their considerable talents to use by making a compelling case to fix our constitution, or they should stop complaining about it.
You may ask why there are so many conflicting amendments in our constitution. Amendments cannot be overturned by the legislature, only by the voters. Statutes, or basically, regular laws, can be changed by a simple majority in the legislature.
If you had an idea that you were passionate about, but you couldn’t ever get it passed in the legislature, would you try to pass an amendment or a statute? You would pass an amendment, of course. Many Coloradans feel the same way and they have made the majority of contributions to our big document, already weighing in at over 700 pages.
Referendum O tried to address this issue by making it harder to put an amendment on the ballot, but making a citizen passed statute harder to overturn. It was a good idea that was endorsed by many people. Alas, it failed on Election Day.
I think the voters are telling the politicians something. Colorado voters are not as thick as some politicians believe them to be. State leaders are worried about how their hands are tied over state spending, but the voters keep telling them the same thing, get used to it.
I like Speaker Terrance Carroll’s approach to the Constitution Convention question. He’s against it, and would rather look at specific problems and make those cases to the public.
Colorado lawmakers should get used to the feeling of constrained spending. Voters seem to like it that way, and since California just finished trying to rectify billions in a budget deficit, voters can certainly see the benefit of a restrictive constitution.
I don’t pretend to be a constitutional expert, so I might be simplifying the situation a bit. Many people that I respect a great deal would like to see a Constitution Convention. All I ask is that if they feel it is that important, please make the case. If we can’t trust lawmakers to change our minds on the issue, then we can’t trust them to “fix” our constitution.
Now some lawmakers are floating ideas of asking voters to approve a Constitution Convention that would enable delegates to start from scratch and “fix” the problems.
Despite the volume of the complaints, I think lawmakers have made a poor case that our constitution needs fixing. Two efforts to address the problem were on last year’s ballot, but Coloradans voted them both down. Amendment 59, Andrew Romanoff’s move to address some issues in TABOR, and Referendum O, a move to make amending the constitution harder and statutes more permanent, both failed even though they faced minimal opposition.
Our state leaders are smart and influential people. None of them were elected by accident. I think it is time for our lawmakers to put their considerable talents to use by making a compelling case to fix our constitution, or they should stop complaining about it.
You may ask why there are so many conflicting amendments in our constitution. Amendments cannot be overturned by the legislature, only by the voters. Statutes, or basically, regular laws, can be changed by a simple majority in the legislature.
If you had an idea that you were passionate about, but you couldn’t ever get it passed in the legislature, would you try to pass an amendment or a statute? You would pass an amendment, of course. Many Coloradans feel the same way and they have made the majority of contributions to our big document, already weighing in at over 700 pages.
Referendum O tried to address this issue by making it harder to put an amendment on the ballot, but making a citizen passed statute harder to overturn. It was a good idea that was endorsed by many people. Alas, it failed on Election Day.
I think the voters are telling the politicians something. Colorado voters are not as thick as some politicians believe them to be. State leaders are worried about how their hands are tied over state spending, but the voters keep telling them the same thing, get used to it.
I like Speaker Terrance Carroll’s approach to the Constitution Convention question. He’s against it, and would rather look at specific problems and make those cases to the public.
Colorado lawmakers should get used to the feeling of constrained spending. Voters seem to like it that way, and since California just finished trying to rectify billions in a budget deficit, voters can certainly see the benefit of a restrictive constitution.
I don’t pretend to be a constitutional expert, so I might be simplifying the situation a bit. Many people that I respect a great deal would like to see a Constitution Convention. All I ask is that if they feel it is that important, please make the case. If we can’t trust lawmakers to change our minds on the issue, then we can’t trust them to “fix” our constitution.
February 11, 2009
The GOP Three: Zeroes or Heroes?
As President Obama’s stimulus plan officially passed the Senate on Tuesday, reports were already beginning about what would happen to the three GOP senators that crossed party lines and voted for the plan.
A report on CNN showed that prominent Pennsylvania Republicans were already trying to find someone to challenge Sen. Arlen Specter in a GOP primary in 2010.
In short, most GOP party leaders consider the three senators who decided to break ranks as pariahs.
But, I believe that all of this posturing is just that, posturing. In reality, the GOP Three, (my nickname, by the way) have allowed Congressional Republicans to have their cake and eat it too.
Consider this. Let’s say for a minute that the GOP Three stuck to their party line and made the Senate Democrats take the slower road to get the Stimulus plan passed. This might have slowed the bill’s progress and may have allowed for a GOP filibuster.
But, was a filibuster going to derail the bill? No. Was a filibuster going to show America who really cares most about the current economic situation? No. And most importantly, would a filibuster have trimmed $100 billion from the package and added tax cuts that House Democrats absolutely hate? No.
A filibuster bets all of the GOP political capital on only one potential outcome. If the stimulus plan fails, they would look like geniuses. If it succeeded, they would look like fools.
But, the GOP Three have allowed Congressional Republicans to ride the coattails of more than one result.
If the Stimulus plan works, Republicans can claim part of the victory since the GOP Three helped to trim $100 billion from the original proposal and fought to include a few tax cuts.
If the Stimulus plan fails, they can say that true Republicans were against it from the beginning, and we told you so.
Congressional Republicans are in a no lose situation, thanks to the GOP Three. But if I were Sen. Arlen Specter, I would not hold my breath waiting for a thank you note.
A report on CNN showed that prominent Pennsylvania Republicans were already trying to find someone to challenge Sen. Arlen Specter in a GOP primary in 2010.
In short, most GOP party leaders consider the three senators who decided to break ranks as pariahs.
But, I believe that all of this posturing is just that, posturing. In reality, the GOP Three, (my nickname, by the way) have allowed Congressional Republicans to have their cake and eat it too.
Consider this. Let’s say for a minute that the GOP Three stuck to their party line and made the Senate Democrats take the slower road to get the Stimulus plan passed. This might have slowed the bill’s progress and may have allowed for a GOP filibuster.
But, was a filibuster going to derail the bill? No. Was a filibuster going to show America who really cares most about the current economic situation? No. And most importantly, would a filibuster have trimmed $100 billion from the package and added tax cuts that House Democrats absolutely hate? No.
A filibuster bets all of the GOP political capital on only one potential outcome. If the stimulus plan fails, they would look like geniuses. If it succeeded, they would look like fools.
But, the GOP Three have allowed Congressional Republicans to ride the coattails of more than one result.
If the Stimulus plan works, Republicans can claim part of the victory since the GOP Three helped to trim $100 billion from the original proposal and fought to include a few tax cuts.
If the Stimulus plan fails, they can say that true Republicans were against it from the beginning, and we told you so.
Congressional Republicans are in a no lose situation, thanks to the GOP Three. But if I were Sen. Arlen Specter, I would not hold my breath waiting for a thank you note.
January 18, 2009
Great Expectations
The fanfare being generated in advance of Barack Obama’s Inaugural on Tuesday is astonishing. Crowds are following the Train Tour throughout the east coast, polls show Obama’s approval rating hovering around 80%, and tickets to the event are harder to get than tickets to the Beatles/Led Zeppelin Reunion Concert.
While I am sure his Inaugural address will live up to the hype, let’s take a step back for a second and take a deep breath.
First of all, how can anyone have an 80% approval rating before their first day at work?
Secondly, and more importantly, does Obama have any choice but to disappoint people after receiving 80% approval ratings and proactively surrounding himself with reminders of Abraham Lincoln?
Yes, there will be a honeymoon, but there will also be an inevitable end to the honeymoon. I’m just wondering if we are ready to admit that all of this hype might not be a good thing.
Where do we set the balance between celebrating an historic moment with a popular new president, and the creation of unrealistic expectations of our new leader?
It’s probably nice to have the problem of high expectations, considering the alternative. But the honeymoon may be shorter than we think, because don’t look for Congress to help extend the honeymoon.
If you think Sen. Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi will enjoy looking like Obama’s rubber stamp, then you don’t follow much politics. It won’t take long for reality to set in.
But hey, who am I to rain on this parade? I hope that soon to be President Obama is able to rise to the occasion and deliver on the great expectations made of him. He’s obviously not a man to be underestimated, so I hope his successes keep the honeymoon going longer than usual.
But as citizens, let’s keep it all in perspective. He’s a man trying to get a lot of things done in Washington D.C. Trust me; we’re going to need to cut him some slack.
While I am sure his Inaugural address will live up to the hype, let’s take a step back for a second and take a deep breath.
First of all, how can anyone have an 80% approval rating before their first day at work?
Secondly, and more importantly, does Obama have any choice but to disappoint people after receiving 80% approval ratings and proactively surrounding himself with reminders of Abraham Lincoln?
Yes, there will be a honeymoon, but there will also be an inevitable end to the honeymoon. I’m just wondering if we are ready to admit that all of this hype might not be a good thing.
Where do we set the balance between celebrating an historic moment with a popular new president, and the creation of unrealistic expectations of our new leader?
It’s probably nice to have the problem of high expectations, considering the alternative. But the honeymoon may be shorter than we think, because don’t look for Congress to help extend the honeymoon.
If you think Sen. Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi will enjoy looking like Obama’s rubber stamp, then you don’t follow much politics. It won’t take long for reality to set in.
But hey, who am I to rain on this parade? I hope that soon to be President Obama is able to rise to the occasion and deliver on the great expectations made of him. He’s obviously not a man to be underestimated, so I hope his successes keep the honeymoon going longer than usual.
But as citizens, let’s keep it all in perspective. He’s a man trying to get a lot of things done in Washington D.C. Trust me; we’re going to need to cut him some slack.
January 6, 2009
An Historic Session
Wednesday marks the opening of the 2009 Colorado Legislative Session. Much has been made of the history that will take place as an African American will lead both the State House and State Senate for the first time in Colorado history.
This is significant for a variety of reasons, but I’m going to let historians and people smarter than I tackle that side of the story.
My take on the session has nothing to do with the color of anyone’s skin. I think the 2009 session will be historic for another reason.
Colorado legislators will have one thing and only one thing to tackle this year, the economy. Colorado’s constitutional budgetary mandates have created major hurdles for any expansion of the state budget, even when times are good. When times are bad, like right now, balancing the state budget, let along trying to do anything new, will be nearly impossible.
I briefly mentioned in my 2009 ill-fated prediction blog that my fiscal conservative friends may like the idea of the legislature’s budgetary hands being tied.
However, I believe they will be disappointed because the combination of infrastructure needs and constitutional budget mandates will give the legislature the public support they need to make major changes to our state’s budget process.
It’s fine to think that legislators will fight over the few dollars that aren’t already constitutionally tied down, and then end up not doing much at all. But if our roads and most importantly, our highway bridges are in as bad of shape as experts say they are, the legislature will have the bi-partisan and public support it will need to tackle TABOR and the other constitutional budget mandates that currently tie their hands.
Necessity is the mother of invention, and I think the necessity of failing infrastructure will invent a movement that may gut TABOR beyond recognition. I know Amendment 59 failed last year, and economic referenda can only be voted on during certain years, but I think we’ll see a major movement to adjust our constitution’s budget mandates.
We know most legislators feel too restricted with the constitution’s conflicting amendments. This session may afford them a golden opportunity to reset the playing field. It will take unprecedented events to unclog this log jam. But, I think we are experiencing those events right now.
I know that I’m out on another limb here, and Governor Ritter showed me the risk in doing that last week with my Senate nominee pick. But, I honestly believe history will be made during the 2009 legislative session and it will have very little to do with the color of anyone’s skin.
This is significant for a variety of reasons, but I’m going to let historians and people smarter than I tackle that side of the story.
My take on the session has nothing to do with the color of anyone’s skin. I think the 2009 session will be historic for another reason.
Colorado legislators will have one thing and only one thing to tackle this year, the economy. Colorado’s constitutional budgetary mandates have created major hurdles for any expansion of the state budget, even when times are good. When times are bad, like right now, balancing the state budget, let along trying to do anything new, will be nearly impossible.
I briefly mentioned in my 2009 ill-fated prediction blog that my fiscal conservative friends may like the idea of the legislature’s budgetary hands being tied.
However, I believe they will be disappointed because the combination of infrastructure needs and constitutional budget mandates will give the legislature the public support they need to make major changes to our state’s budget process.
It’s fine to think that legislators will fight over the few dollars that aren’t already constitutionally tied down, and then end up not doing much at all. But if our roads and most importantly, our highway bridges are in as bad of shape as experts say they are, the legislature will have the bi-partisan and public support it will need to tackle TABOR and the other constitutional budget mandates that currently tie their hands.
Necessity is the mother of invention, and I think the necessity of failing infrastructure will invent a movement that may gut TABOR beyond recognition. I know Amendment 59 failed last year, and economic referenda can only be voted on during certain years, but I think we’ll see a major movement to adjust our constitution’s budget mandates.
We know most legislators feel too restricted with the constitution’s conflicting amendments. This session may afford them a golden opportunity to reset the playing field. It will take unprecedented events to unclog this log jam. But, I think we are experiencing those events right now.
I know that I’m out on another limb here, and Governor Ritter showed me the risk in doing that last week with my Senate nominee pick. But, I honestly believe history will be made during the 2009 legislative session and it will have very little to do with the color of anyone’s skin.
August 5, 2008
RTD Eminent Domain - Two Sides to every story
Here's a quick video I did to encapsulate the recent Eminent Domain debate surrounding the RTD Fastracks project in Denver, Colorado.
Click on the title to link to the video.
Click on the title to link to the video.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
