Archive for January 27, 2011

Penny wise Pound Foolish

Posted: January 27, 2011 by datechguy in politics
Tags: ,

A lot of people on the left are upset that the filibuster rules in the senate:

They could have recently used the “Constitutional Option” at the start of this new Congress to rewrite the Senate rules to either eliminate the filibuster outright or at least make staging a filibuster more difficult. Yet, due to a combination of a greedy refusal to give up any individual power, and a pitiful cowardice about a potential future in which the voters reject them, Senate Democrats collectively chose to throw away this opportunity. By doing nothing, they effectively voted to give Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell total veto power over everything.

Byron York explains that’s its just not future minorities that are the issue

Why did Democrats give in? Two reasons. One, they know they might soon need the filibuster themselves — not in a few years, but in a few months. Republicans now have 47 votes in the Senate. If they can peel away four Democrats on any given piece of legislation — say, the repeal of a portion of Obamacare — they could be stopped only by a Democratic filibuster. The Democrats who are now denouncing the filibuster when it’s used by Republicans might soon be employing it themselves to fend off GOP challenges to Obamacare and other Obama initiatives.

I’ve already pointed out that Harry Reid needs to give democrats the ability to vote against Obamacare, is there is no filibuster then he can only give that ability to three of them. (With Biden breaking a tie)

If the Filibuster exists then he can give this to as many as 12. But lets not also forget that the Senate was designed to slow things down as this story states:

“Why,” said Washington, “did you just now pour that coffee into your saucer before drinking it?”

“To cool it,” said Jefferson; “my throat is not made of brass.”

“Even so,” said Washington, “we pour our legislation into the Senatorial saucer to cool it.”

I think the filibuster is a good thing, I think it should stay right where it is no matter who is in charge of the senate.

but Joy McCain aka Little Miss Attila read the entire grand jury transcript and will not forget:

Gosnell ran a pill mill alongside what he called an abortion clinic–but what was, in fact, a device for making money off of endangering women, causing them unnecessary pain, and killing babies. No, I don’t mean “killing fetuses’; that’s not where I’m going with this, although I’m hoping the Gosnell case provokes some soul-searching on both sides of the abortion debate, especially on the pro-choice bleachers (where I reside, very uneasily).

The Gosnell case involved the killing of fully delivered, breathing, moving babies. Gosnell saved time by having his unlicensed, ill-trained associates induce labor in his adult and adolescent victims, and then plying them with sedatives until he arrived on the clinic late at night. Often, the babies “fell out” of the women, who waited for him for hours, sometimes sitting on a toilet with their children in the toilet bowl. In such cases he–or one of his employees/partners in crime–would eventually cut the babies’ spinal columns with scissors to “ensure fetal demise,” which was Dr. Gosnell’s euphemism for murdering those without names. He killed people with names, too: at least two women died at his hands during the years he ran his “clinic.”

She stresses the political decisions made in this case:

it wasn’t poor people who approved this clinic, and allowed it to operate for three decades: it was officials at Philadelphia’s Department of Health, which oversees abortion clinics, and its Department of State, which is in charge of doctors’ licenses. Both had the power to stop him. Both pretended that their hands were tied. Both turned the other way.

Remember this is written by a person who sits “on the pro-choice bleachers”, but unlike others on that side, she is unwilling to whitewash both the acts and their direct connection to a political desire to “protect legal abortion” even as the media puts the story down the media hole. I suspect that like many she will eventually find herself standing up moving over to the other side of the Gym.

Things continue to get more and more volatile in Egypt. Egypt has had a long-term relationship with the US and has received Billions each year as a bribe to keep the peace with Israel US ally. Egypt has also been a dictatorship that Mubarek and his clan has ruled for 40 years and this rule has reflected poorly on the US.

There is no question that the Egyptian people deserve to be ruled by leaders of their own choice. There is also no question that repressive government is unjust. There have been plenty of strategic reasons to have a good relationship with Egypt (the Suez canal comes immediately to mind) no matter who rules it but the US will be making a large mistake if it backs a repressive regime vs the will of the people.

The big question remains unanswered. If Mubarek falls what replaces him? If it is another strong man then we are right back where we were waiting to see what bribe he wants to be friends and awaiting the next coup for his removal. That is actually the easy scenario.

If Egypt becomes an Islamic state than all bets are off and we can expect a new and exciting conventional war with Israel before the end of the decade.

The really interesting test is if he is removed by a popular revolt and an actual republic is created. How will a democratic Egypt act?

Will it open the border to Gaza? Will it keep the peace with Israel? With it cozy up to Iran? With it with information not controlled by the media find out the realities of Egyptian defeats at the hands of Israel and demand revenge? How will the Christians be treated? Will it be a place of sanctuary for jihadists?

It has been an axiom that democracies do not go to war with each other, but the Arab public has convinced itself that Israel is the center of all evil in the world. Arabs have been fed a steady stream of anti-Jewish propaganda and it would not it would not be a shock for a democratically elected Egypt to decide to “avenge the wrongs” they believe have been done against them and their brother Arabs. Remember the generation that was crushed by Israel in 72 is in their 60’s. Their grandchildren have been told stories of Egypt’s great victories. They do not know or understand what they would actually be getting into and likely wouldn’t believe us if we warned them.

That is the elephant in the room. Will an Egyptian democracy decide to wage a popular war against Israel and ignite the entire Middle East? Will they decide that the balance of power has changed enough for them to win? More importantly will Israel decide that Egypt is planning on doing such a thing and 1967 them to keep it from happening or even worse, will they with Iran about to go nuclear, Lebanon now under Hezbollah control and an unfriendly Egypt to the north finally decide that the Nuclear option’s time has now come?

This more than anything else is the big question. It is also why stopping Iran was so important. if Iran was neutralized and their nukes stopped then Israel would not have to fear an Egyptian attack as they could count on their traditional forces to crush them if they tried anything and an Egypt seeing a neutralized Iran would be less inclined to follow their example.

I hope and pray that this works out right in the end but I’m very afraid that our decision to play “kick the can” with Iranian nukes to avoid a small conflict may result in a larger, more deadly and more catastrophic war than we can dreamt of.

…it spoke like a man who know that he will still be in Washington after 2012 no matter how the election turns out and frankly doesn’t care if President Obama is.