You're Either Stupid or a Liar, Jonathan Alter

Or else this column was intended as a joke:

"President Barack Obama goes into the 2012 with a weak economy that may doom his reelection. But he has one asset that hasn’t received much attention: He’s honest."

Alter then goes on to lavish praise on the most honest, transparent administration in history. Apparently, Alter has been in a coma for the past three years, or he lives in an alternate universe where the Obama administration is the exact opposite of the way it is in this universe. In either case, here is a partial list of what would have been considered huge scandals under any other administration:

• HHS nominee Tom Daschle withdraws after it is revealed that he is a tax cheat.
• Tim Geithner is confirmed as Treasury Secretary, even though he is also a tax cheat. Obama stands behind his choice of a tax evader to lead the department that administers the tax code.
• Following the Obama administration's takeover of GM and Chrysler, a round of dealership closures was announced as part of a cost-savings initiative. It was later shown that these closures targeted Republican donors, and their dealerships were targeted for closure even when they outperformed other dealerships in the same geographic area. Congress eventually blocked Obama's punitive scheme.
• In 2009, as part of his extra-Constitutional cadre of 'Czars,' Obama appointed Van Jones to be the new 'green jobs' adviser to the president. It was later revealed that Jones was a Communist with a criminal record, and believed that the U.S. government was behind the 9/11 attacks. He was forced to resign in disgrace.
• Prior to special elections in 2009 to fill empty House and Senate seats, the Obama administration attempted to bribe two different candidates to withdraw from races by offering them executive-department positions, in direct violation of federal law.
• Administration officials have been seen in Washington-area coffee shops having 'off the record' meetings with lobbyists (the same lobbyists Obama promised would be unwelcome in his administration). Since these meetings aren't on government property, they are not subject to the normal record-keeping rules. Lobbyists also report they routinely get e-mails from executive staff member's personal e-mail accounts, which aren't subject to FOIA requests. 
• The administration used National Endowment of the Arts funds to 'encourage' artists to produce pro-Obama propaganda. 
• Only press considered pro-Obama are allowed in the White House press pool. Anyone considered even the slightest bit critical of the President is blacklisted.
• Obama's Department of Housing and Urban Development has funneled tens of thousands of dollars to corrupt voter fraud perpetrator (and former Obama employer) ACORN, in direct violation of a 2009 law.
• The National Labor Relations Board, under the control of Obama recess-appointee Craig Becker, has attempted to block Boeing from building its much-anticipated 787 Dreamliner in its South Carolina facility, because SC is a right to work state, and Obama is owned in part by the unions.
• In an attempt to create a market for green energy where no such market exists, the Obama administration made a $500 million loan guarantee to solar-panel manufacturer Solyndra; an investment that anyone in the market could see was a bad idea. Solyndra then went bankrupt, taking half a billion taxpayer dollars with them. The following week, the Administration made another $1 billion in loan guarantees to two other solar panel manufacturers.
• Air Force General William Shelton was pressured by White House officials to alter testimony (otherwise known as perjury, a felony) in order to make a large Democratic donor look better.
• Attorney General Eric Holder is currently embroiled in a scandal related to a foolish ATF gunrunning program that resulted in the deaths of at least two federal agents. Holder has been caught lying about his knowledge of the program, and may be involved not only in the program itself, but its cover-up.

That's what I came up with in an hour, using nothing but Google. Apparently Mr. Alter doesn't have access to such high-tech wizardry. Either that, or he's part of the cadre of Obama sycophants who will do anything to whitewash this corrupt, incompetent administration. 

Occupy Wall Street

There basically seem to be two schools of thought on the carnival of the great unwashed going on in Zucotti Park this past month. There are those on the left, who are celebrating the group for speaking truth to power regarding the excesses of capitalistic greed, and those on the right who claim that the protesters should be lined up along the Capitol building, because our problems are the result of government corruption, not corporate greed.

Not surprisingly, both sides are half right, and, more importantly, half wrong. The fact is that we should be blaming both Wall Street and Washington for the mess we are in, because it is the corporatist system we are in that is causing the problem. We do not live in a democracy or a capitalist economic system; we live under a plutocracy, where the wealthy elite both in politics and business conspire to rob the everyman of liberty and wealth in order to enrich themselves. Big business and Big government have been in bed together for decades.

Perhaps worst of all, they have tricked half of the population that all of the woes of the nation are business' fault, and the other half that it is the politicians' fault. The left in this country blame everything on business and see government as the solution, and the right blame everything on government, and see business as the solution. Meanwhile, both business and government sit back and allow both sides to tear each other apart, all the while robbing both sides blind. And the OWS protesters are nothing more than useful idiots, perpetuating the fake conflict.

So here's the thing: I agree with OWS in one respect: Wall Street has too much power and influence. But the solution is not more government, it is less. Less government means less favoritism toward big business, and more free market competition. And in such a system, it is the individual who wins.

Was Anwar al-Awlaki's Killing Legal? - UPDATED

al-Awlaki, if you are unaware, was responsible for planning (or participated in the planning) of two known attempted airplane bombings; the first was the infamous 'panty bomber' attempt on Christmas Day 2009, while the other was an attempt to down cargo planes in 2010. Additionally, he served as spiritual inspiration for two additional terrorist actions; the attempted car-bombing of Times Square in 2010 and the murders of 13 Americans by Maj. Nadal Hassan at Fort Hood, also in 2010.

On Friday, it was reported that al-Awlaki was killed by a drone strike in Yemen. The operation was the result of a U.S.-Yemeni joint intelligence effort, and is considered to be the biggest blow to al-Qaida since the killing of Osama bin Laden in May of this year.

Although many are applauding the removal of this parasite from the planet, there are those that are questioning the legality, and even the morality, of this action. The major problem with Awlaki's killing is that he was, technically, an American citizen, born in New Mexico to Yemeni parents. Criticisms of the operation have come from Congressman Ron Paul, a libertarian-leaning Republican from Texas, as well as from the American Civil Liberties Union. The primary objection is that, by killing an American citizen in a military operation off of the battlefield, the Obama administration has effectively executed Awlaki without the due process an American citizen is entitled to. According to Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director for the ACLU:

"As we've seen today, this is a program under which American citizens far from any battlefield can be executed by their own government without judicial process, and on the basis of standards and evidence that are kept secret not just from the public but from the courts," Jaffer said. "The government's authority to use lethal force against its own citizens should be limited to circumstances in which the threat to life is concrete, specific and imminent. It is a mistake to invest the President - any President - with the unreviewable power to kill any American whom he deems to present a threat to the country."

While many conservatives will simply dismiss these arguments, I think that they are at least worth consideration. According to the Fifth Amendment:

"No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

As an American citizen, al-Awlaki would be entitled to Fifth Amendment protections, which specifically prohibit his targeted killing by the federal government. It's also important to reflect on whether or not liberty-minded citizens should endorse the idea that the President has the authority to authorize the killing of a citizen without the judicial process. These are, I think, troubling factors surrounding this incident.

I'll admit, I struggled over this one for a while. Awlaki was a dirtbag, and deserved what he got, but is it really good to set a precedent of allowing the President to order executions of American citizens without trial? One of the things I always try to do is think through the bigger issues and the long-term or big-picture ramifications. After quite a bit of reflection, I think that it is possible to condone Awlaki's killing and support constitutional liberty, and I'll explain why. On page 7 of my passport, there is a list of ways to lose your American citizenship abroad. These ways are as follows:

1. Being naturalized in a foreign state
2. Taking an oath or making a declaration to a foreign state
3. Serving in the armed forces of a foreign state
4. Accepting employment with a foreign government
5. Formally renouncing citizenship before a U.S. consular office

Now, take a look at point 3. While it is true that al-Awlaki did not serve in the armed forces of another state, he did serve in a foreign-based terrorist organization that had declared hostilities not only with the American government, but with the American people in general. So, while the argument could be made that he did not violate the letter of the law, he certainly violated the spirit of the law, and therefore I hold the opinion that his citizenship should be considered revoked, and his treatment should be the same as any foreign terrorist, and our reaction should be no different than what we felt when bin Laden was killed. My reaction to that news can be found here.

UPDATE - From my brother, in the comments section:

I agree with the concept, but I think that the administration should have had to go through the courts to have his citizenship remanded before they took action. Since current law doesn't allow this without him being present, they should have taken in a Special Forces team and brought him back to the states for trial. The precedent is too dangerous, and there appears to have been a viable alternative.

I have thought some more about this, and think that my brother is right. While my initial analysis has merit, the fact is that I don't trust this administration to do the right thing, and even though Awlaki's killing may have been defensible, it sets a precedent that requires an executive who isn't a narcissistic asshole who thinks he is above the law. Since that's exactly the kind of president we have, I'm going to slide back onto the other side of the fence on this issue.

The Problem With 9-9-9

Now that Herman Cain is gaining some ground in the GOP race, it's probably time to take a look at his proposals. Now, Cain seems like a good guy, full of positive energy and intellect. There are, however, two big problems with him as a presidential candidate.

First, he has no record to examine, or public policy experience to rate. A lot of people see this as a plus, but as I've argued before, being good at business does not necessarily qualify you to lead the executive branch. I want a candidate who has put their money where their mouth is when it comes to public policy positions. The truth is, like Obama before him, we have no real way of knowing where Cain stands on issues, other than just taking his word for it. I don't care what party the person belongs to, I don't trust anyone running for office, especially when they have no record to look at.

Second, Cain's big public policy proposal to date has been '9-9-9,' a tax proposal that would impose a 9% corporate tax rate, a 9% income tax rate, and a 9% federal sales tax. I think that a lot of people look at the first two 9's and see a reduction in relation to what they are currently paying, but the devil is in that third 9. There are a lot of reasons why a national sales tax is a bad idea; here are just a couple:

• Cain has not made it clear if this is to be an end-use tax, or if all sales transactions would be subject to the sales tax. If it is the latter, we would be implementing a VAT, which would considerably raise the cost of consumer goods nationwide. The multiplier effect of this kind of tax goes significantly beyond just the 9% that would be paid at end-use by the consumer.
• Implementing a new form of tax while the income tax still exists just adds another route for Congress to collect taxes at whatever rate they wish. The likely outcome of 9-9-9 would be that in a few years, we'd be paying 11-11-11, or 13-13-13, or whatever Congress decides to increase it to. The 9% income tax may seem nice now, but how will that national sales tax feel when your income tax rate is back to where it is today?

The bottom line is that 9-9-9 is just a gimmick. Our tax code needs to be fixed, but the only way to do that is to reduce the amount of power the government has to tax us, not add yet another route. And Republicans need to learn to really think through the proposals that their candidates are proposing.

Dear '99%'

Here's the thing: I really want to feel bad for you, but I can't bring myself to do it. Maybe you had a really lousy high school guidance counselor, or you bought into the Hollywood view of the world where everyone is an architect or a writer or an artist, or something equally artistic and fabulous, but what did you really think was going to happen when you finished your Classical Studies degree? In the real world, job prospects come from having marketable skills, which is why so many of your schoolmates decided to study business, or accounting, or engineering, or science, or economics, or something that actually prepares the student to provide a benefit to their employer. Whether you realize it or not, the world operates on producing things that others are willing to pay for. Working hard in and of itself is not useful; working hard on something that someone wants is what counts. I'm sorry that everyone in your life was too cowardly to teach you this hard truth, but now you know. The faster you and your compatriots learn this, the faster the nightmare will be over.

Sincerely,
The 1%