Today President Barack Obama ordered the Office of Legal Counsel to release memos from the years between 2002 and 2005 relating to interrogation techniques then approved for use against terrorism suspects. He also issued a statement outlining his reasons for the release, explaining the principles the U.S. will follow from now on and giving his view of what the legal system should do from here. The President's reasons for making the documents public are acceptable. His statement of principles is welcome. But his vision for legal action is little but a disappointing rationale for justifying political expediency over law and principle.
You can read the documents themselves as first released here. They allowed for such procedures as depriving detainees of sleep for a week, throwing them against a wall as many as thirty times, and of course, waterboarding. There is no question such practices violate the Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners. You can see them here, particularly Article 3, Section 1 clauses a) and c). The United States has ratified this Convention, making it American as well as international law.
In discussing his decision to come forward with the material and his views on related matters, here is President Obama's statement as printed in the New York Times.
Obama said he is making the documents public because the "techniques described in these memos have already been widely reported," the "previous Administration publicly acknowledged portions of the program," and, "I have already ended the techniques described in the memos." The President spoke of maintaining a true and accurate "accounting of the past." The first two reasons are disappointing. They seem to say that since the world already knows the truth there is no sense trying to keep covering it up. The intimation seems to be that if the world had not found out then maybe Obama would think it a good idea to keep the truth hidden. He seems worried about being criticized for revealing U.S. secrets by hardliners, whether they are justifiably secret or not. That does not sound like "change we can believe in." The last reason, to set the record straight, is the one saving part of this section of the statement, along with his assertion, "their release is required by the rule of law." (emphasis added)
The part of Obama's statement outlining his perspective on torture is the most sensible and humane. After recalling his prohibition of these practices "in one of my first acts as President," Obama went on to assert his stance that, "they undermine our moral authority and do not make us safer," and rejected excusing torture as a "false choice between our security and our ideals." This is all well in keeping with the standards of the United States and the kind of conduct that will attract allies and partners rather than the abhorrence of civilized people while it swells the ranks of our adversaries.
The President, however, ends on an unsatisfactory note in his desire to sweep the unpleasantries of the past under the rug. He states, "This is a time for reflection, not retribution." He says, "nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past." It is enough, he says, to, "right its course in concert with our core values," but then to, "come together on behalf of our common future." Obama closes by saying of the memos, "we have taken steps to ensure that the actions described within them will never take place again."
It is here that I would disagree. He has taken but halfhearted steps to prevent them from happening again, even on his watch. He has issued an Executive Order. Since there is apparently to be no consequence for those who flouted U.S. law before in this regard, there is little to suggest a sterner approach if it happens again. As for letting the past fade away without resolution other than "reflection," that is what led to this problem in the first place. The fall of the Nixon Administration but the pardon of its leader led at least two of its young lions, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld, to plot for nearly thirty years to get back into power and be part of an Administration unfettered by moral or legal constraints in pursuit of its hardline "realpolitik" views.
President Obama has a lot on his to-do list, to be sure. In addition to inheriting a terrible economy, two wars and an impending environmental crisis, new problems continue to arise. The Mexican drug war, Indian Ocean piracy and reforming the tax system stand as examples of the growing list of serious challenges. From what he said today, that looks to be one of his concerns in deciding not to go after the "misguided zealotry" at best, or sadistic criminality at worst that these memos unleashed. But expedient yielding to wrong is never a good idea. It tends to invite more of it, sooner or later.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Monday, April 13, 2009
Diplomatic Movement in Syria?
If you are interested in foreign affairs and world events there are few better places to spend an hour than "Fareed Zakaria GPS" on CNN Sunday mornings. "GPS" in this case stands for Global Public Square. This week was no exception, and featured a remarkable interview with the Syrian ambassador to the United States, Imad Moustapha. You can read the entire transcript here. The bottom line from Syria's ambassador is that he says his country is ready to agree to a permanent peace with Israel.
Such a peace could be along the lines of what currently exists between Israel and Egypt and Israel and Jordan. Israel would return the Golan, the two countries would exchange recognition and ambassadors, normalize relations and so on. But Moustapha hopes the agreement would go even further, to include a comprehensive and final settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli dispute. Significantly, however, that was not held up as a precondition. "But you have alluded to the Israeli peace agreement with Jordan and Egypt. If this is what Israel wants, this can be done." But he went on to propose, "The issue is, shouldn't we at one point arrive to a point in which peace prevails in the Middle East, suffering ends, human dignity is restored to the Palestinian nation?"
The ambassador feels the election of Barack Obama has opened new possibilities. "We thought that America has vindicated herself by electing Obama after eight terrible years with the Bush administration. The ordinary, simple man from Syria was overjoyed." But for his country in particular, Moustapha explained, "However, because of Syria, the major emphasis was on the sentence in which he said that he wants to support the peace process between Syria and Israel. This made news headlines in Syria as compared to the Bush administration that used to oppose peace talks between Syria and Israel. For us in Syria, I think this was a very important message."
He contended the U.S. has a "moral obligation" to sponsor peace talks. He shows an appreciation for Israeli concerns and the special relationship it enjoys with America by saying, "The moment the United States will come in vigorously and tell the Israelis, while we are absolutely committed to your security, we believe that what you are doing is detriment even to your own security on the long term (sic)." Moustapha also praised the naming of former Senator George Mitchell as special envoy to the region, calling him, "A person known for his honesty, integrity, fairness and his capability to deliver."
Though hopes have been dashed many times in the volatile region, this is quite an important set of pronouncements from Syria's official representative to the United States. It affords an opportunity to defuse a dispute between Israel and the third of its four neighbors. Perhaps as importantly, it appears to evidence Syrian willingness to warm up to the United States and reconsider what Zakaria calls its recent "unnatural alliance with normally anti-Arab (and, of course, highly anti-American) Iran." By declaring certain countries pariah states and refusing to engage with them, American diplomacy over the past few years has done much to push them into common cause with each other. So both for reasons of peace and national interest, this is an opening the Obama administration would do well to fully explore.
Such a peace could be along the lines of what currently exists between Israel and Egypt and Israel and Jordan. Israel would return the Golan, the two countries would exchange recognition and ambassadors, normalize relations and so on. But Moustapha hopes the agreement would go even further, to include a comprehensive and final settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli dispute. Significantly, however, that was not held up as a precondition. "But you have alluded to the Israeli peace agreement with Jordan and Egypt. If this is what Israel wants, this can be done." But he went on to propose, "The issue is, shouldn't we at one point arrive to a point in which peace prevails in the Middle East, suffering ends, human dignity is restored to the Palestinian nation?"
The ambassador feels the election of Barack Obama has opened new possibilities. "We thought that America has vindicated herself by electing Obama after eight terrible years with the Bush administration. The ordinary, simple man from Syria was overjoyed." But for his country in particular, Moustapha explained, "However, because of Syria, the major emphasis was on the sentence in which he said that he wants to support the peace process between Syria and Israel. This made news headlines in Syria as compared to the Bush administration that used to oppose peace talks between Syria and Israel. For us in Syria, I think this was a very important message."
He contended the U.S. has a "moral obligation" to sponsor peace talks. He shows an appreciation for Israeli concerns and the special relationship it enjoys with America by saying, "The moment the United States will come in vigorously and tell the Israelis, while we are absolutely committed to your security, we believe that what you are doing is detriment even to your own security on the long term (sic)." Moustapha also praised the naming of former Senator George Mitchell as special envoy to the region, calling him, "A person known for his honesty, integrity, fairness and his capability to deliver."
Though hopes have been dashed many times in the volatile region, this is quite an important set of pronouncements from Syria's official representative to the United States. It affords an opportunity to defuse a dispute between Israel and the third of its four neighbors. Perhaps as importantly, it appears to evidence Syrian willingness to warm up to the United States and reconsider what Zakaria calls its recent "unnatural alliance with normally anti-Arab (and, of course, highly anti-American) Iran." By declaring certain countries pariah states and refusing to engage with them, American diplomacy over the past few years has done much to push them into common cause with each other. So both for reasons of peace and national interest, this is an opening the Obama administration would do well to fully explore.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Once Upon a Time in Freeville
Once upon a time there was a small town called Freeville. The people of Freeville were the happiest in the world because they were free. They gloried in how free they were, and told visitors and people from other towns about it all the time whenever they met.
Freeville was situated on the east bank of the Swift River in the foothills of the Snowy Mountains. Across the river on the west bank lay most of the good farmland. There the land was flat and the soil was deep and fertile. Wide fields of swaying grain and dense orchards laden with fruit abounded there.
Most of the people of Freeville lived in town on the east side of the Swift River and had to cross it to work in their fields and orchards on the west side. For a long time there had been only two ways to cross the river. One way was to pay Giles the ferryman a bushel of grain or fruit. Then he would take you across in his boat. The other way was to swim.
Everyone thought this was a great system for crossing the river, because everyone was free to make their own choice. The better-off farmers always freely chose to pay Giles and ride the ferry. It cost them but they arrived on the other side safe and dry. The not-so-well-off farmers and the workers who labored for the farmers always freely chose to swim, because they had no extra grain or fruit to trade for a ride. Some died every year, but that was accepted as part of the inevitable price of freedom. Fate acted in strange ways, and who was to question it? At least they had died free, after freely choosing their means of crossing the Swift River.
Then one day a citizen of Freeville named Newell was telling a visitor about the wonderful freedom the Freevillians enjoyed. But to his surprise the visitor did not marvel. Instead, he laughed derisively. He scoffed, "You besotted oafs have not even a bridge across your river, and many die every year because of it!" Newell was taken aback. "What is a bridge?" he asked. The conversation became so interesting Newell invited the stranger home for dinner. Through the evening the two worked together to draw a picture of a bridge. Newell found out everything he could about how to build one.
After bidding his guest good bye the next morning, Newell was bursting with enthusiasm to tell everyone in Freeville about the bridge. He showed them the drawing and described how it could be built. It would be the best thing that had happened in Freeville in a long time! All his friends became enthusiastic. Many lives would be saved.
But Newell had not thought things through. Fortunately, Giles heard of the gathering crowd and came to talk to them. "Whence heard you of this bridge idea?" he asked Newell. "From a visitor to Freeville," Newell responded. "From a stranger?" asked Giles incredulously. "From the Unfree people? How can a free idea come from an Unfree stranger?" he asked. No one could think of an answer. Everyone knew that everything about Freeville was the best.
"Such a structure would take away our freedom!" declared Giles. "Now we have the choice to ride the ferry or swim. That is freedom. But with the bridge everyone would take the bridge. Our choice would be taken away. Liberty would be sacrificed for security, and foreign philosophies like Togetherism would rule the land! People would be interfering with the natural order of Fate. The next thing you know, we would all be slaves with no freedom at all!"
Giles' brilliant logic had won the day. All the people admitted the error of their ways, including Newell. Of what had they been thinking? The people of Freeville went back to being happy and free. The next spring, when Newell's son died in the Swift current, of course he was sad. But he was also proud, proud that his son had died free.
And they all lived happily ever after. Except the ones who didn't.
Freeville was situated on the east bank of the Swift River in the foothills of the Snowy Mountains. Across the river on the west bank lay most of the good farmland. There the land was flat and the soil was deep and fertile. Wide fields of swaying grain and dense orchards laden with fruit abounded there.
Most of the people of Freeville lived in town on the east side of the Swift River and had to cross it to work in their fields and orchards on the west side. For a long time there had been only two ways to cross the river. One way was to pay Giles the ferryman a bushel of grain or fruit. Then he would take you across in his boat. The other way was to swim.
Everyone thought this was a great system for crossing the river, because everyone was free to make their own choice. The better-off farmers always freely chose to pay Giles and ride the ferry. It cost them but they arrived on the other side safe and dry. The not-so-well-off farmers and the workers who labored for the farmers always freely chose to swim, because they had no extra grain or fruit to trade for a ride. Some died every year, but that was accepted as part of the inevitable price of freedom. Fate acted in strange ways, and who was to question it? At least they had died free, after freely choosing their means of crossing the Swift River.
Then one day a citizen of Freeville named Newell was telling a visitor about the wonderful freedom the Freevillians enjoyed. But to his surprise the visitor did not marvel. Instead, he laughed derisively. He scoffed, "You besotted oafs have not even a bridge across your river, and many die every year because of it!" Newell was taken aback. "What is a bridge?" he asked. The conversation became so interesting Newell invited the stranger home for dinner. Through the evening the two worked together to draw a picture of a bridge. Newell found out everything he could about how to build one.
After bidding his guest good bye the next morning, Newell was bursting with enthusiasm to tell everyone in Freeville about the bridge. He showed them the drawing and described how it could be built. It would be the best thing that had happened in Freeville in a long time! All his friends became enthusiastic. Many lives would be saved.
But Newell had not thought things through. Fortunately, Giles heard of the gathering crowd and came to talk to them. "Whence heard you of this bridge idea?" he asked Newell. "From a visitor to Freeville," Newell responded. "From a stranger?" asked Giles incredulously. "From the Unfree people? How can a free idea come from an Unfree stranger?" he asked. No one could think of an answer. Everyone knew that everything about Freeville was the best.
"Such a structure would take away our freedom!" declared Giles. "Now we have the choice to ride the ferry or swim. That is freedom. But with the bridge everyone would take the bridge. Our choice would be taken away. Liberty would be sacrificed for security, and foreign philosophies like Togetherism would rule the land! People would be interfering with the natural order of Fate. The next thing you know, we would all be slaves with no freedom at all!"
Giles' brilliant logic had won the day. All the people admitted the error of their ways, including Newell. Of what had they been thinking? The people of Freeville went back to being happy and free. The next spring, when Newell's son died in the Swift current, of course he was sad. But he was also proud, proud that his son had died free.
And they all lived happily ever after. Except the ones who didn't.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Is Obama Caving to Banks?
Right wing pundits like Sean Hannity and the Republican congressional leadership characterize President Barack Obama more and more openly as a socialist bent on having the federal government take over the national economy. Their liberal counterparts such as Bill Moyers and the Huffington Post accuse the same man of showing himself to be captive to if not a toady of the very financial insiders who have taken the world economy to the precipice. So what is he, radical leftist or closet reactionary?
The answer, of course, is neither. When I hear both the far left and the far right going bananas my BS indicator lights up. It usually indicates someone is charting a moderate or a pragmatic course. Based on his books, his campaign and his statements on the issues so far, I think Obama gets the gist of what is happening very well. Obama is a pragmatist with a heart; that is what gives him a liberal bent. He wants to solve problems and get people the help they need. He is not a doctrinaire ideologue.
Look at his stance on health care, for instance. He wants people to have health coverage. If the private market were working he would have no problem with doing it that way. But it doesn't. Nearly 50 million people are without coverage and millions more with coverage are denied the care they need by companies whose interest lies in profit rather than providing care. Consequently we will see an effort to modify the system to make them compete against a government entity that exists to provide care. It's not the single payer the left wants. It's not the unfettered free market the right wants. It jumps out of the ruts of the ideological divide; it's a hybrid.
Word comes today from Bloomberg that the Congressional Oversight Panel led by Harvard Law School Professor Elizabeth Warren is suggesting stronger action, including, "getting rid of top executives and liquidating problem banks." The majority of the group, appointed by Democrats, said it was offering "potential policy alternatives" to the way Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has restructured the TARP setup and "not endorsing any shift at this time." Still, Warren said in an interview that bank liquidation could work faster and be, "least likely to sap the patience of taxpayers" and "provide clarity relatively quickly" to the markets.
Geithner's plan for using government leverage to incentivize investors to bid on loan portfolios containing unknown amounts of "toxic" subprime mortgages is similarly running into a lot of criticism from the left. Sam Stein in Huffington Post, for instance, quotes Columbia University economist Jeffrey Sachs as saying, "The amount of potential rip-off in the Geithner-Summers plan is unconscionably large." Bill Moyers and Michael Winship in Truthout write of a number of fears based on the reduction of FBI agents overseeing banking since 9/11, reasoning by analogy based on the S & L Crisis of the late 80s and the financial industry connections of Geithner and Larry Summers to conclude without any real evidence that criminality and favoritism are at the root of their approach to the crisis. It may be, but circumstantial evidence and suspicion are not proof.
An insight into what is likely happening comes from a scoop reported on Politico on April 3 and since picked up by others. The article by Eamon Javers, "Inside Obama's Bank CEOs Meeting" offers a fascinating glimpse of the president at work. Five White House figures were there: Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Geithner, Council of Economic Affairs Chair Christina Romer, Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett and National Economic Council Director Summers. Summers was so quiet the source speculated he had been told not to say anything.
There were no trappings of ceremony. Obama came in, went around the table and shook hands. He took his seat and said, "So let's get to it." His demeanor to "the titans of finance - men used to being the most powerful man in almost any room - was 'I'm the president, and you're not.'" He ran down the economic situation "for several minutes without notes," finally touching on Wall Street compensation. "The anger, gentlemen, is real." He said rewards must be "proportional, balanced, and tied to the health and success of the company."
"These are complicated companies," one CEO began. Another said, "We're competing for talent on an international market," trying to justify enormous salaries and bonuses. But President Obama was in no mood to hear them out. "Be careful how you make those statements, gentlemen. The public isn't buying that. My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks." Some wanted to start paying back the money early. He told them no, they would pay back the money on the schedules Treasury had devised. There would be also be regulatory reform coming and they would swallow it and like it. He said, "This is like a patient who's on antibiotics. Maybe the patient starts feeling better after a couple of days, but you don't stop taking the medicine until you've finished the bottle."
This doesn't sound like a man who is beholden to these men, in awe of them or uncomprehending of the issues relating to finance. It sounds like a man who knows exactly what he wants to do and is in the process of doing it - just as he is in practically every other matter on his very full plate. It's possible that Obama is wrong here, that heads should be rolling and half the country's major financial institutions ought to be in Chapter 11. Some say the president is showing a lack of intestinal fortitude, that when it comes down to it he is a wimp.
Or maybe not. At the very moment he was addressing these executives, GM CEO Rick Wagoner was in a private meeting he had been summoned to with Obama's Auto Task Force Senior Advisor Steve Rattner, who summarily informed him that his resignation would be required immediately. I'd say it looks like Obama thinks things can be righted the way he is going about it. The situation with Wagoner shows he will be ruthless when necessary. If the banks need it too I suspect he will pull the trigger when he judges the time has come. He doesn't think it has, yet. The guy is very smart, very sequential and deadly serious behind that infectious smile. He's been on the job ten weeks. I say give him time to unfold his strategy. It may just be that he knows precisely what he's about, and that some are underestimating him. It wouldn't be the first time.
The answer, of course, is neither. When I hear both the far left and the far right going bananas my BS indicator lights up. It usually indicates someone is charting a moderate or a pragmatic course. Based on his books, his campaign and his statements on the issues so far, I think Obama gets the gist of what is happening very well. Obama is a pragmatist with a heart; that is what gives him a liberal bent. He wants to solve problems and get people the help they need. He is not a doctrinaire ideologue.
Look at his stance on health care, for instance. He wants people to have health coverage. If the private market were working he would have no problem with doing it that way. But it doesn't. Nearly 50 million people are without coverage and millions more with coverage are denied the care they need by companies whose interest lies in profit rather than providing care. Consequently we will see an effort to modify the system to make them compete against a government entity that exists to provide care. It's not the single payer the left wants. It's not the unfettered free market the right wants. It jumps out of the ruts of the ideological divide; it's a hybrid.
Word comes today from Bloomberg that the Congressional Oversight Panel led by Harvard Law School Professor Elizabeth Warren is suggesting stronger action, including, "getting rid of top executives and liquidating problem banks." The majority of the group, appointed by Democrats, said it was offering "potential policy alternatives" to the way Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has restructured the TARP setup and "not endorsing any shift at this time." Still, Warren said in an interview that bank liquidation could work faster and be, "least likely to sap the patience of taxpayers" and "provide clarity relatively quickly" to the markets.
Geithner's plan for using government leverage to incentivize investors to bid on loan portfolios containing unknown amounts of "toxic" subprime mortgages is similarly running into a lot of criticism from the left. Sam Stein in Huffington Post, for instance, quotes Columbia University economist Jeffrey Sachs as saying, "The amount of potential rip-off in the Geithner-Summers plan is unconscionably large." Bill Moyers and Michael Winship in Truthout write of a number of fears based on the reduction of FBI agents overseeing banking since 9/11, reasoning by analogy based on the S & L Crisis of the late 80s and the financial industry connections of Geithner and Larry Summers to conclude without any real evidence that criminality and favoritism are at the root of their approach to the crisis. It may be, but circumstantial evidence and suspicion are not proof.
An insight into what is likely happening comes from a scoop reported on Politico on April 3 and since picked up by others. The article by Eamon Javers, "Inside Obama's Bank CEOs Meeting" offers a fascinating glimpse of the president at work. Five White House figures were there: Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Geithner, Council of Economic Affairs Chair Christina Romer, Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett and National Economic Council Director Summers. Summers was so quiet the source speculated he had been told not to say anything.
There were no trappings of ceremony. Obama came in, went around the table and shook hands. He took his seat and said, "So let's get to it." His demeanor to "the titans of finance - men used to being the most powerful man in almost any room - was 'I'm the president, and you're not.'" He ran down the economic situation "for several minutes without notes," finally touching on Wall Street compensation. "The anger, gentlemen, is real." He said rewards must be "proportional, balanced, and tied to the health and success of the company."
"These are complicated companies," one CEO began. Another said, "We're competing for talent on an international market," trying to justify enormous salaries and bonuses. But President Obama was in no mood to hear them out. "Be careful how you make those statements, gentlemen. The public isn't buying that. My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks." Some wanted to start paying back the money early. He told them no, they would pay back the money on the schedules Treasury had devised. There would be also be regulatory reform coming and they would swallow it and like it. He said, "This is like a patient who's on antibiotics. Maybe the patient starts feeling better after a couple of days, but you don't stop taking the medicine until you've finished the bottle."
This doesn't sound like a man who is beholden to these men, in awe of them or uncomprehending of the issues relating to finance. It sounds like a man who knows exactly what he wants to do and is in the process of doing it - just as he is in practically every other matter on his very full plate. It's possible that Obama is wrong here, that heads should be rolling and half the country's major financial institutions ought to be in Chapter 11. Some say the president is showing a lack of intestinal fortitude, that when it comes down to it he is a wimp.
Or maybe not. At the very moment he was addressing these executives, GM CEO Rick Wagoner was in a private meeting he had been summoned to with Obama's Auto Task Force Senior Advisor Steve Rattner, who summarily informed him that his resignation would be required immediately. I'd say it looks like Obama thinks things can be righted the way he is going about it. The situation with Wagoner shows he will be ruthless when necessary. If the banks need it too I suspect he will pull the trigger when he judges the time has come. He doesn't think it has, yet. The guy is very smart, very sequential and deadly serious behind that infectious smile. He's been on the job ten weeks. I say give him time to unfold his strategy. It may just be that he knows precisely what he's about, and that some are underestimating him. It wouldn't be the first time.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Wedding Bells
I've been out of town for the past couple of days. We usually go to the L.A. area for Easter. Family schedules didn't work out for that though, so we got together this weekend in lieu. One of the big developments is that my younger daughter is now engaged to be married.
I like the young man and the traditional way he handled things. Our daughter Marie met him where they both live down in San Diego. That's nearly 350 miles from here. We had met him at least a couple of times before, including spending Thanksgiving with his family in Chula Vista (near San Diego) last November. He called me on the phone about three weeks ago and asked if he could come talk to me.
So two Fridays ago he drove all the way up here. We went for a walk and talked about love and commitment and friendship and working things out and a lot of the other things that go into sustaining a relationship for a lifetime. It is good he has a college degree and a good job, and that he was able to get employed again after his job at Countrywide disappeared. Those are welcome. A good work ethic and earning capacity are not inconsequential, particularly considering my daughter is in the theater business. But of greater importance to me are his level-headed demeanor, open-mindedness, sense of humor, and seeming willingness to listen and think about things. I gave him my approval. He thanked me and showed me the engagement ring he'd bought. It was very nice. I thought back to my own proposal to Joan, when I couldn't afford one but at least she said she didn't care about having one and it was better for us not to spend scarce funds on non-essentials like that. I was grateful to her for that. It was touching to hear Marie thank me over the phone later for giving my "permission." Sometimes your children, even once they're grown, think you have more power than you really do!
Some friends and family members have remarked with amazement along the lines that it must be a shock that my daughter is getting married. They think of her as a little girl and goodness, haven't the years gone by in a hurry? Well, no, not really. Marie is 23 now, and her fiance just turned 27. I'm 54 myself. Those seem like pretty reasonable ages for people to be brides, grooms or fathers of brides to me! That is particularly true if the girl has her head on straight, as Marie seems to.
It was fun for me and my wife to spend time with her and her sister, going shopping and talkng about wedding plans. They are shooting for a January wedding--don't cringe, this is San Diego we're talking about, where the January high may be 70 instead of 74--and nine months is considered a fairly conventional time frame for arranging one of these things. Not cheap but not extravagant, is how I put it to her.
So another of those milestones of life is coming. It feels good to be getting to experience it. These are the some of the universal themes of life across all cultures: your childrens' progression into adulthood, independence and marriage. I want my daughter to be happy. She and Robert are in love, and Robert seems to be a good man, serious about making this marriage work. One never knows, but I'd say their chances are far better than average for that to happen. How do peacock blue, cream white and sunny yellow grab you for the wedding colors? I'm sure it will all be wonderful.
I like the young man and the traditional way he handled things. Our daughter Marie met him where they both live down in San Diego. That's nearly 350 miles from here. We had met him at least a couple of times before, including spending Thanksgiving with his family in Chula Vista (near San Diego) last November. He called me on the phone about three weeks ago and asked if he could come talk to me.
So two Fridays ago he drove all the way up here. We went for a walk and talked about love and commitment and friendship and working things out and a lot of the other things that go into sustaining a relationship for a lifetime. It is good he has a college degree and a good job, and that he was able to get employed again after his job at Countrywide disappeared. Those are welcome. A good work ethic and earning capacity are not inconsequential, particularly considering my daughter is in the theater business. But of greater importance to me are his level-headed demeanor, open-mindedness, sense of humor, and seeming willingness to listen and think about things. I gave him my approval. He thanked me and showed me the engagement ring he'd bought. It was very nice. I thought back to my own proposal to Joan, when I couldn't afford one but at least she said she didn't care about having one and it was better for us not to spend scarce funds on non-essentials like that. I was grateful to her for that. It was touching to hear Marie thank me over the phone later for giving my "permission." Sometimes your children, even once they're grown, think you have more power than you really do!
Some friends and family members have remarked with amazement along the lines that it must be a shock that my daughter is getting married. They think of her as a little girl and goodness, haven't the years gone by in a hurry? Well, no, not really. Marie is 23 now, and her fiance just turned 27. I'm 54 myself. Those seem like pretty reasonable ages for people to be brides, grooms or fathers of brides to me! That is particularly true if the girl has her head on straight, as Marie seems to.
It was fun for me and my wife to spend time with her and her sister, going shopping and talkng about wedding plans. They are shooting for a January wedding--don't cringe, this is San Diego we're talking about, where the January high may be 70 instead of 74--and nine months is considered a fairly conventional time frame for arranging one of these things. Not cheap but not extravagant, is how I put it to her.
So another of those milestones of life is coming. It feels good to be getting to experience it. These are the some of the universal themes of life across all cultures: your childrens' progression into adulthood, independence and marriage. I want my daughter to be happy. She and Robert are in love, and Robert seems to be a good man, serious about making this marriage work. One never knows, but I'd say their chances are far better than average for that to happen. How do peacock blue, cream white and sunny yellow grab you for the wedding colors? I'm sure it will all be wonderful.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Box Score from Europe
By all accounts, Barack and Michelle Obama are making quite a splash as they wend their way across Europe. Rapturous crowds shriek excitedly at every glimpse of the American visitors. The leaders of Britain, France and Germany have seized every opportunity to be seen with the Obamas and to conduct joint press conferences with the U.S. President in which they praise his views and leadership qualities. In terms of American image and repairing the general tenor of U.S./European relations it is hard to imagine a better trip. Barack Obama is not George W. Bush. Our allies and their publics are ecstatic.
But what about the substantive results of the conferences so far? The G-20 economic summit and the NATO meeting had serious business on their agendas. Accomplishments here are quite a bit more modest, but important none the less.
At the G-20 Obama reportedly resolved a dispute between French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Chinese Premier Hu Jintao by direct personal diplomacy. Source. Of the four main topics of the summit: cooperation, anti-protectionism, financial regulation and closing tax havens, Obama's views fared well enough for such a gathering. Cooperation included a $1.1 trillion collective pledge of assistance for the third world that was adopted. Keep in mind that a good part of the rationale for this is to allow the developing nations to continue to buy G-20 exports and you can appreciate its acceptance. Obama's other aim, to encourage the other governments to engage in strong stimulus efforts in their own countries, met with mixed results. The British government of Gordon Brown enthusiastically agreed. The Germans under Angela Merkl feel their safety net is already strong. The French government of Sarkozy says it has done its stimulating and doesn't need to do it again. Today Obama said that no one should, "believe the notion that, somehow, the United States was trying to dictate the budgets of other countries."
On the regulatory matters, all agreed that "complex financial instruments" such as credit default swaps, derivatives and hedge funds must now be brought under strict regulatory oversight. There was also surprising accord on the need to crack down on "tax haven" dodges such as Cayman Islands incorporation and secret Swiss bank accounts. The nitty gritty of getting these things done is far too arcane for quick settlement among many nations at a summit table and will be left to specialists to devise later. While this is unavoidable for practical reasons, it remains to be seen how effective or coordinated the international effort will subsequently be. Some observers are skeptical.
On the NATO front, the Allies agreed to send 3,000 additional combat troops to Afghanistan and a few hundred trainers for the Afghan Army and police. While this is a small augmentation and no doubt less than Obama hoped, he will gladly take whatever he can get. Most European publics are not supportive of combat involvement there and to get any leaders to support the U.S. President with anything militarily at this point is a successful outcome for him and certainly more than his predecessor had been able to secure.
All in all, the overall box score must be judged quite successful so far from the American point of view. Both as a campaign event to return the American image to favorability and influence foreign governments through public pressure on their leaders, and substantively in terms of U.S. positions adopted at the forums, the trip has done very well.
The Obamas are next on their way to the Czech Republic before concluding the journey with a visit to Turkey. It will be informative to see how things are received on the edge of Eastern Europe and in the most Westernized part of the Muslim world.
But what about the substantive results of the conferences so far? The G-20 economic summit and the NATO meeting had serious business on their agendas. Accomplishments here are quite a bit more modest, but important none the less.
At the G-20 Obama reportedly resolved a dispute between French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Chinese Premier Hu Jintao by direct personal diplomacy. Source. Of the four main topics of the summit: cooperation, anti-protectionism, financial regulation and closing tax havens, Obama's views fared well enough for such a gathering. Cooperation included a $1.1 trillion collective pledge of assistance for the third world that was adopted. Keep in mind that a good part of the rationale for this is to allow the developing nations to continue to buy G-20 exports and you can appreciate its acceptance. Obama's other aim, to encourage the other governments to engage in strong stimulus efforts in their own countries, met with mixed results. The British government of Gordon Brown enthusiastically agreed. The Germans under Angela Merkl feel their safety net is already strong. The French government of Sarkozy says it has done its stimulating and doesn't need to do it again. Today Obama said that no one should, "believe the notion that, somehow, the United States was trying to dictate the budgets of other countries."
On the regulatory matters, all agreed that "complex financial instruments" such as credit default swaps, derivatives and hedge funds must now be brought under strict regulatory oversight. There was also surprising accord on the need to crack down on "tax haven" dodges such as Cayman Islands incorporation and secret Swiss bank accounts. The nitty gritty of getting these things done is far too arcane for quick settlement among many nations at a summit table and will be left to specialists to devise later. While this is unavoidable for practical reasons, it remains to be seen how effective or coordinated the international effort will subsequently be. Some observers are skeptical.
On the NATO front, the Allies agreed to send 3,000 additional combat troops to Afghanistan and a few hundred trainers for the Afghan Army and police. While this is a small augmentation and no doubt less than Obama hoped, he will gladly take whatever he can get. Most European publics are not supportive of combat involvement there and to get any leaders to support the U.S. President with anything militarily at this point is a successful outcome for him and certainly more than his predecessor had been able to secure.
All in all, the overall box score must be judged quite successful so far from the American point of view. Both as a campaign event to return the American image to favorability and influence foreign governments through public pressure on their leaders, and substantively in terms of U.S. positions adopted at the forums, the trip has done very well.
The Obamas are next on their way to the Czech Republic before concluding the journey with a visit to Turkey. It will be informative to see how things are received on the edge of Eastern Europe and in the most Westernized part of the Muslim world.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
G-20 Summit: Ignore the Rumors
The G-20 Summit opens tomorrow in London. This gathering of the leaders of the world's 20 biggest economies meets with much at stake due to the global recession and financial industry crisis. The countries represented account for between 80% and 90% of the world's economic output, so any decisions reached in concert will prove decisive to a recovery strategy.
Much attention has been directed toward the seeming recalcitrance of France and Germany to get on board with the kind of stimulus ideas the U.S. and Britain are advocating. It has even been said that French President Nicholas Sarkozy is threatening to walk out of the meeting if it pushes the stimulus idea too hard. I wouldn't take that likelihood too seriously, given an op-ed Sarkozy circulated to the world this morning. Click on this link to read Sarkozy's entire text printed in the Washington Post.
In his editorial the French President recalls the G-20 meeting last November in Washington and reiterates his determination to stick to the four goals outlined at that time. He writes, "In November, we agreed on four principles that would guide our response: enhanced coordination and cooperation; the rejection of protectionist measures; the strengthening of regulatory systems in financial markets; and a new global governance." He then reported good progress on the first two--no protectionism and that, "many nations have injected massive support into their economies, undertaking ambitious stimulus programs. Countries that offer their citizens a high level of social protection, such as France, have also significantly increased their levels of crisis-related welfare spending." He even goes on to say, "...we must be ready to do even more if circumstances require it." This certainly does not sound like someone diametrically at odds with U.S. President Barack Obama's approach.
Of the summit, Sarkozy says, "This week we must attach the same sense of urgency to the regulation of financial markets," and expands this to add, "We agreed in November that not one financial player, institution or product could be beyond the control of a regulatory authority. This rule must be applied to credit rating agencies, speculative investment funds and tax havens." For his bottom line, Sarkozy concludes, "We must achieve practical results beginning with tomorrow's summit. And failure is not an option."
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for discord and people walking out in a huff. The stakes are too high and the remedies too obvious for that.
Much attention has been directed toward the seeming recalcitrance of France and Germany to get on board with the kind of stimulus ideas the U.S. and Britain are advocating. It has even been said that French President Nicholas Sarkozy is threatening to walk out of the meeting if it pushes the stimulus idea too hard. I wouldn't take that likelihood too seriously, given an op-ed Sarkozy circulated to the world this morning. Click on this link to read Sarkozy's entire text printed in the Washington Post.
In his editorial the French President recalls the G-20 meeting last November in Washington and reiterates his determination to stick to the four goals outlined at that time. He writes, "In November, we agreed on four principles that would guide our response: enhanced coordination and cooperation; the rejection of protectionist measures; the strengthening of regulatory systems in financial markets; and a new global governance." He then reported good progress on the first two--no protectionism and that, "many nations have injected massive support into their economies, undertaking ambitious stimulus programs. Countries that offer their citizens a high level of social protection, such as France, have also significantly increased their levels of crisis-related welfare spending." He even goes on to say, "...we must be ready to do even more if circumstances require it." This certainly does not sound like someone diametrically at odds with U.S. President Barack Obama's approach.
Of the summit, Sarkozy says, "This week we must attach the same sense of urgency to the regulation of financial markets," and expands this to add, "We agreed in November that not one financial player, institution or product could be beyond the control of a regulatory authority. This rule must be applied to credit rating agencies, speculative investment funds and tax havens." For his bottom line, Sarkozy concludes, "We must achieve practical results beginning with tomorrow's summit. And failure is not an option."
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for discord and people walking out in a huff. The stakes are too high and the remedies too obvious for that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)