Saturday, October 31, 2009
A Pakistani Perspective on India-Pakistan relations, written for an Indian magazine: www.outlookindia.com | To Understand Pakistan, 1947 Is The Wrong Lens
The author identifies himself as a Pakistani living in the US who recently visited India. He argues that while Indians view the relationship of the two countries through the lens of the partition of British India innto India and Pakistan in 1947, the crucial event in India-Pakistan relations for Pakistanis is the 1971 war which led to the secession of East Pakistan to form Bangladesh. Key quote: "But what the Indian mind perceives as Pakistan’s ongoing divorce from reality is in fact Pakistan’s most fundamental political reality. The Pakistani establishment has internalised the memory of 1971. In all things, and at all times, it must account for India. Dismemberment has the requisite effect of focusing the mind on existential matters. Nothing can be taken for granted." www.outlookindia.com | To Understand Pakistan, 1947 Is The Wrong Lens
Friday, October 30, 2009
Nine Senate Democrats press Reid to expand public health insurance choice - TheHill.com
Reminding us that the AFL-CIO is part of the problem not just part of the solution. Nine Senate Democrats press Reid to expand public health insurance choice - TheHill.com
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Friday, October 23, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Medicare for everyone - TheHill.com
What's in a name? E(verything). Medicare for everyone - TheHill.com
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Monday, October 19, 2009
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Palin offers calm critique of Baucus bill - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com
A surprisingly (even disturbingly) clear and cogent critique of the Senate Finance health care bill by Sarah Palin. It's all written in short, simple sentences most voters can understand but actually conveys a lot of crucial information. The fir...st half is one of the clearest explanations of the approach I've read. The specific criticisms are, mostly, spot on -- which means many Democrats will automatically dismiss them as fallacious just because she made them. The second half goes into standard Republican talking points and the alternative she proposes is the same old Republican bromide of vouchers (which would never come close to covering the cost of health insurance) and does not address whether she supports the insurance reforms per se -- which necessitate universal coverage to spread the cost -- because if she does really the only difference is mandates. All of this avoids discussion of the public option or better yet single payer which would be the real solution to the problems she identifies. But if she is the most cogent voice on the issue, the one who explains it in terms the ordinary person can understand (which she does do here), Democrats are in trouble. Palin offers calm critique of Baucus bill - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com
Shared via AddThis
Shared via AddThis
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Uri Avnery on "The Two Israels"
The dean of Israel's peace movement writes on the role of archaelogy, the al Aqsa conflict, and the two faces of Israeli society. http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?262387
Shared via AddThis
Shared via AddThis
AFSCME's Gerry McEntee takes on White House - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com
McEntee has issued a letter threatening to oppose the health care bill if it is not seriously amended. More of these hardball tactics needed, please. AFSCME's Gerry McEntee takes on White House - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com
Shared via AddThis
Shared via AddThis
Friday, October 16, 2009
Do the Math, Chris Matthews
I sent the following letter to Hardball after hearing Chris Matthews argue, yet again, that the public option only had the support of thirty senators.
"You keep arguing that the public option has only thirty votes in the Senate and suggesting that advocates of the "public option" can't do the math because they have never really had to run for office.
Well, first, thirty is the number of people who signed a letter to Reid demanding a public option. Quite a few senators who are not on that list are on record supporting a public option, including Bingaman -- who told Ed Schultz that he had voted for it three times in committee (once in HELP, twice on amendments in Finance*) -- and Reid himself. It is ridiculous to assume that the only people who would vote for a public option in the Senate are those who signed a letter -- kind of like assuming the only people who support a bill are the co-sponsors. Since a number of elected Senators -- people who, unlike you, have faced the voters many times -- believe the public option has 52 or 53 votes in the Senate, where do you get YOUR math? [NOTE: This estimate was made again today by Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who among other things comes from the "middle of the country," the region Chris keeps insisting liberals know nothing about.)
Second, when it comes to math, the most important math is the math of the health care bill. There is a very important objection to the bill -- that if forces people to buy insurance that they cannot afford, without making sure it is affordable. You brag repeatedly about your economics training yet consistently refuse to let the substance of this criticism be played out. Several pragmatic politicians (eg Anthony Weiner) and journalists (eg Margaret Carlson) have said on your show that they would support getting "half a loaf" but that this bill might be WORSE than nothing. Why don't you focus on the substance of the argument a bit instead of just the process?
Here are the objections in a nuthsell, that a former econ grad student should understand: 1. Ceteris paribus, the insurance reforms will raise insurers' costs and therefore raise average premiums; 2. the main countervailing measure in the bill, insurance exchanges, are designed to allow the individual and small business markets to access health insurance at the same rates as large groups so they would NOT, ceteris paribus, rates below those available to large groups; 3. most people participating in large insurance groups have most of their premium payed by their employer so that even now, those premiums would be unaffordable to individuals even if they could get access to them (as they can when they have COBRA); 4. the most generous subsidies in the bills would still require families with moderate incomes to pay around 12% of GROSS income in insurance premiums, which would amount to about 20% of take-home pay, and above that threshold of 400% below FPL there would be no real ceiling.
Maybe the math you need to look into is the math of an average family's budget. The liberals get it. You don't."
*Bingaman also said clearly he would vote for it again if it came up on the Senate floor but he did not sign the letter because he did not need to communicate with Reid by letter.
"You keep arguing that the public option has only thirty votes in the Senate and suggesting that advocates of the "public option" can't do the math because they have never really had to run for office.
Well, first, thirty is the number of people who signed a letter to Reid demanding a public option. Quite a few senators who are not on that list are on record supporting a public option, including Bingaman -- who told Ed Schultz that he had voted for it three times in committee (once in HELP, twice on amendments in Finance*) -- and Reid himself. It is ridiculous to assume that the only people who would vote for a public option in the Senate are those who signed a letter -- kind of like assuming the only people who support a bill are the co-sponsors. Since a number of elected Senators -- people who, unlike you, have faced the voters many times -- believe the public option has 52 or 53 votes in the Senate, where do you get YOUR math? [NOTE: This estimate was made again today by Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who among other things comes from the "middle of the country," the region Chris keeps insisting liberals know nothing about.)
Second, when it comes to math, the most important math is the math of the health care bill. There is a very important objection to the bill -- that if forces people to buy insurance that they cannot afford, without making sure it is affordable. You brag repeatedly about your economics training yet consistently refuse to let the substance of this criticism be played out. Several pragmatic politicians (eg Anthony Weiner) and journalists (eg Margaret Carlson) have said on your show that they would support getting "half a loaf" but that this bill might be WORSE than nothing. Why don't you focus on the substance of the argument a bit instead of just the process?
Here are the objections in a nuthsell, that a former econ grad student should understand: 1. Ceteris paribus, the insurance reforms will raise insurers' costs and therefore raise average premiums; 2. the main countervailing measure in the bill, insurance exchanges, are designed to allow the individual and small business markets to access health insurance at the same rates as large groups so they would NOT, ceteris paribus, rates below those available to large groups; 3. most people participating in large insurance groups have most of their premium payed by their employer so that even now, those premiums would be unaffordable to individuals even if they could get access to them (as they can when they have COBRA); 4. the most generous subsidies in the bills would still require families with moderate incomes to pay around 12% of GROSS income in insurance premiums, which would amount to about 20% of take-home pay, and above that threshold of 400% below FPL there would be no real ceiling.
Maybe the math you need to look into is the math of an average family's budget. The liberals get it. You don't."
*Bingaman also said clearly he would vote for it again if it came up on the Senate floor but he did not sign the letter because he did not need to communicate with Reid by letter.
Dem officials set stage for corporate-backed health care campaign - Ben Smith and Kenneth P. Vogel - POLITICO.com
Is this corporatism American style -- no pun intended? Dem officials set stage for corporate-backed health care campaign - Ben Smith and Kenneth P. Vogel - POLITICO.com
Shared via AddThis
Shared via AddThis
Thursday, October 15, 2009
More Reasons to Question the Afghan War | Stephen M. Walt
An "offhsore balancing strategy" for Afghanistan? Is this any different from "counterterrorism"? It is recommended by Stephen Walt (next post) which is a reason to take it seriously. More Reasons to Question the Afghan War | Stephen M. Walt
Shared via AddThis
Shared via AddThis
The Safe Haven Myth | Foreign Policy
This piece calls for looking beyond the "counter=insurgency/counter-terrorism" dichotomy.The Safe Haven Myth | Foreign Policy
Shared via AddThis
Shared via AddThis
India snookered again?: US, Iran and India.
This piece describes the Indian government's recent efforts to distance itself from Iran and the potentially disastrous consequences of it. More Manmohan madness? The Hindu : Opinion / Lead : India must catch up with U.S.-Iran thaw
Shared via AddThis
Shared via AddThis
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
India's America Problem and (Liberal) America's India Problem
A very perceptive piece about the peculiar contradictions of American liberal internationalists' views of India by a leading Indian scholar who studied and taught in leading American universities. Biden is an extreme example of this. The liberal paradox
Shared via AddThis
Shared via AddThis
India-China Border Games Continue
Note that this comes just shortly after the Chinese ambassador to India wrote about the wonderful improvement in ties between the two. BBC NEWS | South Asia | China ire over India border visit
Shared via AddThis
Shared via AddThis
Rahm: Finance health bill no more important than other bills - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
I wonder if he means it. Of course he also says there is not much difference among them. Rahm: Finance health bill no more important than other bills - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
Shared via AddThis
Shared via AddThis
The Wyden Factor
Interesting inside baseball about the Senate Finance Committee vote on healthcare that may have real consequences. My favorite line: "it's always easier to bargain with a dealmaker than a policy wonk." Go policy wonks. But the real bottom line: there was a "colloquy" -- scripted dialogue for the record -- between Baucus and Wyden which might mean more choices in the final bill in the form of a modified expansion of the exchange beyond the uninsured -- Wyden's pet issue. Ezra Klein - How the Senate Finance Committee Got Ron Wyden's Vote
Shared via AddThis
Shared via AddThis
A truly delusional "middle path" for Afghanistan
The best part of this is the opening sentence below. It also has a nice thumbnail description of counterinsurgency: "The principle of counterinsurgency is to focus much more on protecting
the population than on chasing and killing terrorist-insur...gents. The
theory is that if NATO and Afghan forces can provide security (and thus
facilitate the supply of basic services), the Afghan people will shift
their loyalty to their government and thus dry up the Taliban's base of
support." The problem is the purported "middle course" it is reporting on and, implicitly recommending: limiting counterinsurgency to a few major cities. The problem is made obvious by the name its proponents give it: an "enclave strategy." Enclaves are isolated outposts surrounded by hostile territory and are inherently vulnerable. And how would an "enclave" win over the population? The idea is that the enclave would have a "demonstration effect" -- ie show Afghans the virtues of the American way of life. But if the idea is to abandon the countryside, then who is going to maintain order in those areas, where the Taliban recruits? The Taliban, of course! And why would a Pushtun living in a village controlled by the Taliban care about how good life was in an American outpost in Kabul? Obama can solve the Afghanistan mess without sending a lot more troops or leaving the country entirely. - By Fred Kaplan - Slate Magazine
Shared via AddThis
the population than on chasing and killing terrorist-insur...gents. The
theory is that if NATO and Afghan forces can provide security (and thus
facilitate the supply of basic services), the Afghan people will shift
their loyalty to their government and thus dry up the Taliban's base of
support." The problem is the purported "middle course" it is reporting on and, implicitly recommending: limiting counterinsurgency to a few major cities. The problem is made obvious by the name its proponents give it: an "enclave strategy." Enclaves are isolated outposts surrounded by hostile territory and are inherently vulnerable. And how would an "enclave" win over the population? The idea is that the enclave would have a "demonstration effect" -- ie show Afghans the virtues of the American way of life. But if the idea is to abandon the countryside, then who is going to maintain order in those areas, where the Taliban recruits? The Taliban, of course! And why would a Pushtun living in a village controlled by the Taliban care about how good life was in an American outpost in Kabul? Obama can solve the Afghanistan mess without sending a lot more troops or leaving the country entirely. - By Fred Kaplan - Slate Magazine
Shared via AddThis
Monday, October 12, 2009
Sunday, October 11, 2009
The Hindu : Opinion / Op-Ed : The exit debate
India's stimulus spending and fiscal deficit. The Hindu : Opinion / Op-Ed : The ?exit? debate
Shared via AddThis
Shared via AddThis
Obama Wanted a Petraeus. Buyer Beware. - washingtonpost.com
An interesting piece that outlines Petraeus' career and McChrystal's and where they diverge. Obama Wanted a Petraeus. Buyer Beware. - washingtonpost.com
Shared via AddThis
Shared via AddThis
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Friday, October 09, 2009
Anti-nuke Obama won't allow India to expand weapons program - US - World - The Times of India
The headline maybe more sensationalist than the story deserves. As they report, the certification is required under the US-India nuclear deal. But the wording can be read different ways. Anti-nuke Obama won't allow India to expand weapons program - US - World - The Times of India
Shared via AddThis
Shared via AddThis
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
What Bush Wrought - The Conversation Blog - NYTimes.com
David Brooks sums up the Afghan war brilliantly in this piece:
"When we first invaded the country, it seemed like this gigantic victory for high-tech warfare. We had a few special forces types sneaking around the country pointing lasers at targets and then F-18s would blow them up. That seemed to vindicate the Donald Rumsfeld high-tech war doctrine, which in turn shaped the way we fought in Afghanistan and Iraq for years to come.
"The success of the surge in Iraq made politicians think the same strategy could work in Afghanistan.
"I don't recall anybody, Democrat or Republican, questioning that strategy five years ago. I don't recall anybody saying we needed a classic COIN strategy of lots of boots on the ground.
"Then two things happened. Iraq went to pieces, which reminded military strategists of COIN doctrine. The success of the surge made that doctrine mainstream in military circles.
"As the election approached, Democrats needed to find a war they could support so they could be against Iraq without being called doves. They were willing to send soldiers and Marines into harm’s way so long as it would help them get elected in November 2008.
"After the election and the success of the surge in Iraq, many military people decided it was time to implement the COIN doctrine in Afghanistan. At the same time many Democrats decided they no longer needed to be for that war, since the election had been won and their Congressional majorities had been secured.
"So here we are today, with some Democrats now supporting the light footprint approach that Donald Rumsfeld had championed when this whole thing started. If this isn’t an absurd turn of events, I don’t know what is.
"The reality remains, though, that the light footprint approach didn't work under Bush and it wouldn't work under Obama. It would lead to a Taliban reconquest...."
What he doesn't really address is the question of whether that matters enough to engage in a long war.
What Bush Wrought - The Conversation Blog - NYTimes.com
Shared via AddThis
"When we first invaded the country, it seemed like this gigantic victory for high-tech warfare. We had a few special forces types sneaking around the country pointing lasers at targets and then F-18s would blow them up. That seemed to vindicate the Donald Rumsfeld high-tech war doctrine, which in turn shaped the way we fought in Afghanistan and Iraq for years to come.
"The success of the surge in Iraq made politicians think the same strategy could work in Afghanistan.
"I don't recall anybody, Democrat or Republican, questioning that strategy five years ago. I don't recall anybody saying we needed a classic COIN strategy of lots of boots on the ground.
"Then two things happened. Iraq went to pieces, which reminded military strategists of COIN doctrine. The success of the surge made that doctrine mainstream in military circles.
"As the election approached, Democrats needed to find a war they could support so they could be against Iraq without being called doves. They were willing to send soldiers and Marines into harm’s way so long as it would help them get elected in November 2008.
"After the election and the success of the surge in Iraq, many military people decided it was time to implement the COIN doctrine in Afghanistan. At the same time many Democrats decided they no longer needed to be for that war, since the election had been won and their Congressional majorities had been secured.
"So here we are today, with some Democrats now supporting the light footprint approach that Donald Rumsfeld had championed when this whole thing started. If this isn’t an absurd turn of events, I don’t know what is.
"The reality remains, though, that the light footprint approach didn't work under Bush and it wouldn't work under Obama. It would lead to a Taliban reconquest...."
What he doesn't really address is the question of whether that matters enough to engage in a long war.
What Bush Wrought - The Conversation Blog - NYTimes.com
Shared via AddThis
Tax the sick: Obama?s new plan - The Hill's Pundits Blog
As I noted in a comment on the blog, the one problem with this piece's argument is that the deduction is currently available only to those who itemize which for most middle class people is only true if they own a house. Not universal among the income range they describe and getting less so. Tax the sick: Obama?s new plan - The Hill's Pundits Blog
Shared via AddThis
Shared via AddThis
Obama Tells Lawmakers He Won?t Slash Troops in Afghanistan - NYTimes.com
As predicted Obama tries to split the difference -- no he won't reduce troops. But no he probably won't increase them either. And the Biden option? That apparently involves keeping 68,000 troops there will increasing the no. of drone strikes in Paksistan. So what will those troops be doing? Redeploying to protect cities -- with insufficient troops -- or stay deployed in fortresses or isolated outposts. And are they going to follow through on McChrystal's intention to start taking more care with Afghan lives? Can they -- without enough troops? Obama Tells Lawmakers He Won?t Slash Troops in Afghanistan - NYTimes.com
Shared via AddThis
Shared via AddThis
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Rahm shows his pragmatic ways in deal with prescription drug manufacturers - TheHill.com
This details the past positions of Obama and Emanuel and current opposition to the deals with the pharmaceutical industry. Rahm shows his pragmatic ways in deal with prescription drug manufacturers - TheHill.com
Shared via AddThis
Shared via AddThis
Monday, October 05, 2009
Bobby Jindal Offers "Some Republican Ideas for Health Care Reform"
Most of these ideas are in the bills in one way or another, except tort reform. What is missing is any attempt to guarantee either coverage or affordability - there isn't even anything in there about regulating the premiums insurers can charge different groups (ie no modified community rating). I seriously doubt this approach will be sufficient. But at least he is sticking his neck out and saying what he's for. Bobby Jindal - Some Republican Ideas for Health Care Reform - washingtonpost.com
Shared via AddThis
Shared via AddThis
Another commentator who has no idea what McChrystal said
The strange thing about this piece is that it shows no sign of having even the most rudimentary understanding of what McChrystal is arguing. According to this piece, which focuses exclusively on McChrystal's request for troops, all McChrystal is... doing is expressing standard military tunnel vision. But McChrystal's analysis of Afghanistan and the strategy he recommends are a radical departure from conventional military thinking in the United States, very much aimed at responding to the changing environment the country is facing. He says that the US has alienated the Afghan population by focusing more on killing Taliban and protecting themselves than on the safety of the Afghan civilians. McChrystal says American soldiers should not treat their own lives as more valuable than those of the Afghans and should take greater risks in order to save Afghan lives. He wants to use more troops in order to live closer to the population and protect them from the Taliban. You might disagree with the strategy. The American people might not support a strategy that risks American lives MORE. The military, which is used to arguing for overwhelming force to kill the enemy is deeply divided over the request precisely because they don't like the strategy and it departs from their normal way of operating. I don't Drucker would say about any of this but I do suspect that he would think the author should first acquaint himself with the issue before writing about it.Steven G. Brant: Why Obama Must Follow Drucker's (Not McChrystal's) Advice
Shared via AddThis
Shared via AddThis
Sunday, October 04, 2009
The Hindu : News / National : India, US hope to clinch agreement on reprocessing n-fuel
This piece illustrates the fact that the India-US nuclear deal was, for India, more a way of opening up nuclear trade with other countries in the Nuclear Suppliers Groups than with the U.S. While the U.S. and India are still negotiating how to implement the agreement, India has signed agreements with Russia, France and Kazakhstan and Russia is already building a reactor. The Hindu : News / National : India, US hope to clinch agreement on reprocessing n-fuel
Shared via AddThis
Shared via AddThis
Saturday, October 03, 2009
House leaders prepare to wrestle with question of taxes to pay for healthcare - TheHill.com
Note that the Blue Dogs want to limit the cost of the plan entirely to savings from Medicare -- but presumably, unlike Republicans, would keep the individual mandate. House leaders prepare to wrestle with question of taxes to pay for healthcare - TheHill.com
Shared via AddThis
Shared via AddThis
My letter on Obama's Health Care Plan
To The Editor: I am writing to explain why, although I supported Obama in the primaries and the general, am in imminent danger of losing health insurance myself and passionately support universal healthcare, I cannot support the President's approach. While President Obama has eloquently articulated all the reasons that we need health reform -- the tragedy of the uninsured, the rising rate of medical bankruptcy, the denial of care to the insured and the burden of healthcare on employers and on job creation, among others -- his solutions would do little to alleviate most of the problems he identifies and might make some worse. In embracing individual mandates he has increasingly adopted a line of argument that makes those without health care the scapegoats of health reform. In insisting on a $900 billion price tag he has ensured that subsidies will be too low to make individual mandates affordable. And in rejecting any measures that would challenge the current employer-based system he has ens ured that health care reform will not do anything about the dampening effect health insurance costs have on employment. All in all it appears, as Sen. Rockefeller intimated in the Senate Finance Committee, that his efforts are aimed more at claiming victory than in achieving any specific outcome. In conclusion, let me note that while this letter is stimulated by an outreach effort from Obama's Organizing For America network, it has NOT followed the script they provided because I disagree with the script. I am unemployed political science professor living in Los Angeles and I get to follow this issue pretty closely these days. Their claims don't hold water. Arun Swamy |
Civilian control of the military and the Afghanistan debate
This piece makes a lot of valid and important points about the need for civilian control over military decisions and the dangers of Republican obsession with deferring to the military, but misses the mark, I think, in applying this to the current Afg...hanistan debate. Civilian control means civilian authorities have the responsibility to decide what is worth fighting for -- war is ultimately an extension of politics by other means. But it should not mean that domestic political considerations make it impossible to hear the military commander's technical assessment of the ground situation because it is inconvenient. McChrystal's analysis is not simply a call for escalation as the author of this piece suggests -- though he is probably right that Republican support for more troops is. The McChrystal report is, instead, a remarkable moment in American history, a recognition if US troops occupy another country they have a responsibility for the lives and safety of the people of the country they are occupying and that NOT recognizing this (allowing a lot of civilian "collateral damage") is self-defeating as well as wrong. The analysis leads to the conclusion that the US should either invest in a strategy that puts the Afghan people first or leave; NOT pursue a "counter-terrorism" strategy of the type being pushed by Biden because that would simply result in more and more collateral damage and political backlash. Either accepting the strategy OR leaving is consistent with civilian control in the right sense of the term. Letting domestic politics lead us to the "counter-terrorism" option is an example of politics interfering in military decisions for the wrong reasons...Read More
Who are "the deciders"? | SalonWho are "the deciders"? | Salon
Shared via AddThis
Who are "the deciders"? | SalonWho are "the deciders"? | Salon
Shared via AddThis
President: Health reform hand-in-hand with lowering the unemployment rate - TheHill.com
A strange claim since even if the reforms would have the effect he claims, which is doubtful, this wouldn't happen until 2013. Is he expecting to wait until then for unemployment to go down? President: Health reform hand-in-hand with lowering the unemployment rate - TheHill.com
Shared via AddThis
Shared via AddThis
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
