Nick Oliva

We are finally entering the era of introspection - too soon by far in the backs of the minds of those that beat the war drums.

Levin says Feith exaggerated the relationship between Hussein’s government and al-Qaeda when the Bush administration was trying to build public support for the Iraq invasion.

What Levin claims is not exactly something new, of course. But under Republican administrations the truth is never as important as the agenda. (Oh, and no… lying about sex has nothing to do with putting your agenda above the truth in matters of national importance, you frivolous idiots that are reaching for Clinton!)

What is different is that the mice are no longer in control. The cat is back and he’s not happy.

What can save those people that lied in order to bring about a military adventure?

First, failure has been so massive and complete that they may be able to stall and distract accountability with calls to action. Second, the Democratic grip on Congress is hardly secure - as this week’s speculation over #51 has brought to the fore. Finally, plenty of the same weapons that got us to this point remain in the Republican arsenal: Lies.

But lies will only stall and kill; they can’t save…. I hope to see the issue, "Should George Bush be pardoned" being seriously considered on whereistand.com…. I would vote to pardon him, of course, but under very strict terms that ensure he causes damage on this scale, "never again". And I will hope his father will live to see his son’s disgrace.

whereIstand Tags

• ChristopherShays
• CarlLevin
• ArnoldSchwarzenegger
• JohnKerry
• NancyPelosi
• JohnMcCain
• IkeSkelton
• Should President Bush be impeached?
• Based on the information available at the time of the invasion of Iraq, was it justified?

Tags: Uncategorized by nick
2 Comments »

Not long before the Welcome Back Kotter episode where Vinny Barbarino pretends to be a junkie and demands, "Gimme drugs! Gimme drugs!", there was such a thing as the Shafer Commission….

I didn’t know about Shafer, actually. I read about it in the comments to Kevin Drum’s nail in the coffin of the stillborn Iraq report that just came out. In the thread, anandine answers Kevin’s rhetorical "irrelevance" question:

How about the report of the Shafer Commission, which was appointed by Nixon to justify a war on drugs but instead found marijuana to be essentially harmless and recommended decriminilization?

I found a good read on Alternet.

Nixon appointed Raymond Shafer, former Republican Governor of Pennsylvania, as Chairman. As a former prosecutor, Shafer had a "law and order," drug warrior reputation.

And how do these things look in hindsight?

For thirty years, the United States has taken the path of Nixon’s prejudice and ignored the experts. We now have the largest prison population in world history, and drug problems are no closer to solved. Indeed, plenty of evidence indicates that drug-related problems are worse than ever.

It did not have to be this way. At the same time that the Shafer Commission issued its report, the Bain Commission in Holland issued a report that made similar findings and recommendations. In Holland, they followed the advice of their experts. Thirty years later Holland has half the per-capita marijuana use as the U.S., far fewer drug-related problems and spends much less on drug enforcement.

I tried pot once and I don’t really care to try it again. But I do believe it is no more harmful than the bottle of Chimay I love to have on occasion. It sucks that regular people go to jail for that. All that useless suffering… and all because of Presidents that ignore research in favor of the morality they learned in Sunday School….

I can picture Nixon now, "Before you create a problem for yourself by moving on to heavier drugs and probably even homosexuality, we’re going to send you to prison for years where you’ll probably get a whole lot more exposure to drugs and homosexuality than you ever would have known in Union Square!"

Thanks a lot, Dick!

whereIstand Tags

• ArnoldSchwarzenegger
• JohnKerry
• NancyPelosi
• JohnMcCain
• BarbaraAnnRadnofsky
• Should marijuana be legalized for medicinal use?

Tags: Uncategorized by nick
2 Comments »

With the arroz con pollo pot stirring rapidly in anticipation of Fidel’s Final Feast, it is once again time across the United States to play the old party game, "Let’s decide the future of Cuba!"

It would seem that if we can figure out the positions of each of the more prominent possible candidates for president, that we may see a little bit better into the future.

First, has the embargo been effective? This is a good place to start - with a little introspection. It’s fun to play historical "what if?" with this. Sometimes it’s easy to do that, for example, "Would Hiroshima have spontaneously combusted if Truman had not pulled the trigger?"

Sometimes it’s more difficult. My own take is that the embargo has not been a complete failure. It has succeeded tremendously at accomplishing the opposite of its purpose! Of course, it did fail miserably at bringing about regime change or anything like it. And, in case you haven’t noticed, Raul has been in the cockpit for some time now - which looks rather like a successful transition of power, eh?

But can an embargo work? Not really. It is basically just another name for foreign aid to Canada and Western Europe. The only way for a policy of economic deprivation to actually have an impact is for it to actually result in economic deprivation. This isn’t the case in Cuba. Sure, people are undernourished and unable to eat staples of local cuisine - possession of beef without a receipt proving you paid for it at a government store in dollars is a criminal offense. Most of your average owners of Che t-shirts don’t know these things.

But is the US really ready to blockade Cuba? Probably not. Unless the argument that Cuba represents a terrorist threat takes hold, it’s rather unlikely. Those that really want to push this angle, however, ought to begin planning to send a US ship into the harbor in Havana.

In the absence of a blockade, this foreign aid policy is really untenable. Cuba uses it to justify keeping the people hungry. The general understanding being that a hungry person doesn’t have the stomach to worry about being oppressed.

It’s time, as they say, to declare victory and leave.

whereIstand Tags

• JohnEdwards
• BarackObama
• AlGore
• HillaryClinton
• JohnKerry
• WesleyClark
• EvanBayh
• TomDaschle
• JohnMcCain
• GeorgePataki
• MittRomney
• Has the U.S. embargo on Cuba been effective?
• Should the U.S. end the embargo against Cuba?

Tags: Uncategorized by nick
No Comments »

About a year and a half ago I took a stand that the the US should "wait and see" what happens with Iran. The reason?

…the country is running at full aggression and lunacy with a self-righteous, agenda-intoxicated teetotaler at the helm

That was then. We’ve finally stepped back from the brink now that the system of checks and balances has been restored. We can now expect that further attempts to exceed Constitutional powers will not be tolerated - or at least may be investigated.

It’s time for diplomacy now. It’s been time…since the election results came in.

whereIstand Tags

• What are the appropriate next steps that the U.S. should take with Iran?

Tags: Uncategorized by nick
3 Comments »

I think that part of the problem with debating how the United States ought to continue to fund Social Security, or how it should administer the funds accumulated by the program, is that there are fundamental disagreements over the plan’s functions.

Here’s a simple situation for comparison. Suppose the UN were to put me in charge of a Marshall Plan of sorts for Cuba immediately after the natural death of the present Cuban government. One of my objectives regarding the economy would be to ensure worker security. I would set as my goal the following:

Establishing that all people that have met minimum requirements, or fall under certain exceptions (e.g., unable to work, disabilities, infirmities) will be provided with a "safety net" upon their retirement. Based on reasonable actuarial calculations, they will pay into the program during their lifetimes to cover the expected costs.

[Note that administrative details are irrelevant for purposes of establishing policy in my example. If you want to go negative on details of bureaucracy, write your own blog entry and keep mine out of it!]

This would be categorically an INSURANCE plan. It would not be a pension plan.

There is such a thing as an insurance industry. I participated in compliance audits of most of the big insurance companies after Hurricane Andrew and I think their adjusters’ abilities to detect fraud are actually quite good.

Back to Social Security then,  I’m actually more than willing to concede the private accounts argument - as much as I have railed
 against it - so long as the insurance component doesn’t change.

My only desire is for the government to ensure a safety net is available for the people that need it, regardless of whether they had the foresight to know they would be needing it. Righties may be against the state providing services of any kind, but until they get some actuarial backup that shows how they intend to flout the fact that x number of people will become destitute, they will have zero credibility.

 Back at the Cuba example…. I have seen withered and half-starved old people in Cuba that subsist on their rations of rice, a piece of bread, and other things like an egg every fourteen days - but only if they happen to have eggs on your day to pick up your egg. The government bread usually has some protein in the form of ants. I have personally gone with somebody to pick up his ration and I did eat of this bread.

The reason I defend Social Security is that I strongly believe that old people should live with dignity and that society should guarantee a subsistence living. Society should do a lot more to ensure there are as few free-riders as possible, but it should error on the side of letting there be more free-riders rather than letting people starve in their old age.

I don’t really believe that changes to Social Security are necessary. But I’d be willing to consider separating out the component that represents a retirement plan for people that don’t really need it. If you want to manage your own investments during your lifetime… I really have no problem with this at all; I wonder that you don’t just shut up and do it - it’s not like SS sucks up the bulk of your income, you know….

whereIstand Tags

• adamelijah
• JHWhicker
• What are the functions of Social Security?
• Does the government have a responsibility to keep Social Security as is for those already invested in the program?
• What obligation does the US Government have regarding the funds on loan from the Social Security program?
• What should be done to Social Security?

Tags: Uncategorized by nick
1 Comment »

We do have a peculiar shift going on in American politics: liberals are said to out-conserve conservatives. Some of this doesn’t really exist - regardless of what the increasingly desperate righties want you to believe.

For example, part of the monumental Bush failure to kill Social Security has been to label liberals as conservatives.

Let’s consider that for a moment. Social Security is a program that protects the poor, but unfortunately has become an entitlement for the well-off. It is a liberal program at the core and "conservatives" have been trying to destroy it since it’s inception.

The program has worked for 70 years with tweaks here and there and has survived countless announcements of impending death. One could easily catalogue conservative prophets of doom on a monthly basis since the legislation took effect.

One would be more hard-pressed to explain why after 70 years of being wrong, none of these people will actually come to terms with being wrong. I’d like just once to hear a conservative agree to admit he’s wrong if his predictions don’t come true.

Instead, what we get is the canard about destroying one of the greatest success stories in the history of democracy - a hallmark of liberal genius and compassion - somehow being the liberal thing to do (An Odd Definition of Progressive).

What is so liberal about destroying a liberal program that provides a desperately needed safety-net to the poorest amongst us?

When we look at the issues on which conservatives think they have been progressive, it seems much more appropriate to say they have been destructive. It’s not like the neo-con theories have played in Peoria….

And it’s not like there’s any confusion about which position is the liberal one and which the conservative one…

What Social Security needs is not private retirement accounts; people can already create those all they want. It’s just an enabler that conservatives want to introduce to eventually wedge out the insurance component.

People that are not poor when they retire don’t need their "destitution insurance" paying them as though they were. The solution to Social Security’s ills is for the rich to stop feeling entitled to this benefit.

I think it can’t be long now before conservatives start telling us that health insurers should have to pay people that don’t ever get sick, so they can manage that money themselves too.

whereIstand Tags

• adamelijah
• DNC
• RNC
• Should Social Security include private
  retirement accounts?

Tags: Uncategorized by nick
6 Comments »

So… where were you when you heard that John Bolton decided to spend the rest of his life on a fishing boat?

Good  riddance, Johnny! The Teddy Roosevelt mustachios just weren’t enough, eh?

whereIstand Tags

• JohnBolton
• The nomination of John Bolton to represent the US at the UN sends what kind of message to the rest of the world?

Tags: Uncategorized by nick
1 Comment »