Politics (Total Speculation Edition)

Marco Rubio and Robert Gates. Are they the GOP Dream Team for 2012's Presidential Election?

Total speculation, bonus round: I think Hilary Clinton will be running as the 2012 Democratic nominee for President. One deal might be that if she wins, she would nominate President Obama for the Supreme Court.

Review of SCU Broncos v. CSU Maritime (11/5/10)

I saw the SCU basketball team play an exhibition game against CSU Maritime on November 5, 2010. Here is my review/scouting report:

1. #24 (Julian Clarke) can shoot treys very well; however, like most gifted shooters, he seems too trigger-happy. He also needs to move more on offense instead of setting up in the same spot. Once opposing teams learn about him, his usual moves may not be enough to get him open.

2. #12 (Robert Smith) is an excellent PG, and we are lucky to have him. He is clearly the most talented player on the roster.

3. #3 (Chris Cunningham) is a great inside presence, but SCU's style of play is more up-tempo compared to recent years. As a result, the team had difficulty feeding the ball inside. The failure to utilize #3's skill set was very, very disappointing.

4. Unless #13 was injured or sick, the coach should think about reducing his minutes. He didn't seem comfortable on the floor, and #0 (Evan Roquemore) should be getting his minutes.

5. #10 (Ben Dowdell) hustles. His energetic play, including diving out of bounds for loose balls, seemed to turn things around for SCU.

6. #21 (Kevin Foster) will be the x-factor. He is blessed with an excellent wingspan and incredible athleticism, but seems a little raw.

Overall, we have a good chance of beating Gonzaga this year, as long as we learn to feed the ball inside to the big men, especially #3.

My preferred line-up:

PG Smith (sub: #0 Roquemore)
SG Foster (sub: #24 Clarke)
C Cunningham (sub: #25 McArthur)
PF Trasolini (sub: #10 Dowdell)
SF Troy Payne (sub: #44 Atanga)

California Post-Election Summary

The LA Times' Cathleen Decker writes an excellent post-election summary for California. I've been telling everyone that the GOP cannot appear to be anti-Latino and win any presidential election or any other election that counts California votes. Ms. Decker lays out why the GOP is doomed unless it changes its whitebread ways:

California in 1994 was more white and proportionately less Democratic than it is today, thus more similar to the country today. Nationally, non-whites made up only 22% of the Tuesday electorate; in California they made up 38%. Latinos nationally represented 8% of the national electorate, just shy of a third of their power in California. The California and national exit polls were conducted by Edison Research for a consortium of news organizations, including television news networks and the Associated Press.

Tellingly, Latinos in California had a far more negative view of the GOP than other voters — almost 3 in 4 had an unfavorable impression, to 22% favorable. Among all California voters the view of Republicans was negative, but at a closer 61% negative and 32% positive. Latinos had a strongly positive view of Democrats, 58% to 37%, whereas all voters were closely split, 49% to 45%.

The best part? State Republican Party Chairman Ron Nehring: "The reality is that Democrats have strong relationships with urban and immigration communities that Republicans have not had, and that must change," he said. "It is not only a matter of politics; it is a matter of mathematics." More here.

Bonus: Ken's take on the elections here. An excerpt:

On Russ Feingold: To paraphrase Homer Simpson, I like my beer cold, my TV loud, and my Democrats FLAMING. Democrats ought to distinguish themselves from Republicans by supporting the rights of the accused, opposing military adventurism, and resisting the encroachment of the post-9/11 security state. If they don’t, they are just sh*tty second-rate Republicans with less of a pretense of fiscal responsibility.

On Oklahoma's Sharia Law Stupidity: Oklahomans took a strong stand against having Sharia law imposed upon them. As far as I can figure, the only way you can have Sharia law imposed on you is if at some point you consented contractually to having it imposed on you. Meanwhile, my plaintiff-side clients still routinely get binding arbitration imposed on them, which makes Sharia law look like an appearance before Judge Harry of Night Court. Maybe the idea is you can contract away your right to anything resembling due process only if it’s in front of irritable retired judges in really expensive office suits, not if it involves weird robes and ululating and stuff.

High Unemployment Leads to Pogroms?

"Bear markets of sufficient size appear to bring about a desire to slaughter groups of successful people. In 1793-1794, radical Frenchmen guillotined countless members of high society. In the 1930s, Stalin slaughtered Ukrainians. In the 1940s, Nazis slaughtered Jews. In the 1970s, Communists in Cambodia and China slaughtered the affluent. In 1998, after their country's financial collapse, Indonesians went on a rampage and slaughtered Chinese merchants."

-- Bob Prechter, Wave Principle of Human Social Behavior, p. 270

Do Progressives Believe They are God-Like?

Many modern human beings do not believe in God or disagree with the idea of a higher power who has the ability to change the world. Once someone denies the existence of a higher power, s/he is left to rely on other human beings to implement change. Standing alone, an individual cannot produce wide-ranging, substantial change unless s/he is exceptional (e.g., founders of Google, etc.).

However, most of us are not exceptional. Therefore, most people who do not believe in a higher power rely on groups of people to create change. In practice, groups of people solicit their government to implement change via government programs. In short, modern human beings seem to have replaced God with man-made governments.

The idea of God required humans to be beneath a higher power and to accept certain limitations; in contrast, the idea of government as a change agent places human beings in a similar role as an omniscient or omnipotent God.

David Walker on Unnecessary Spending

David Walker, on the Pentagon's demands for unnecessary military programs:

[M]oney spent on items that represent wants rather than true needs is money robbed from systems that actually are needed.

Too many Americans can't differentiate between "wants" and "needs."

Mr. Walker has a book, Comeback America. The chapter on military spending is a must-read. More on the military here.

Simple Truths: Iran

Truth #1. Why are American troops still in Iraq and Afghanistan? Because if they leave, Iran will fill the vacuum.

The greatest beneficiary of America's war against Iraq has been Iran. We made a mistake attacking Iraq after 9/11, and in doing so, we did Iran a favor by removing Saddam Hussein. Sadly, the invasion did nothing to increase our own safety, because there has never been a substantial connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Thus, the short-term results of Bush II's Iraq war are that thousands of American soldiers have died while Iran's influence has increased; and we have spent trillions of dollars invading a country that did nothing against us. However, we can never admit such profound folly, so the U.S. is determined to ensure that our initial mistake--invading and occupying Iraq--does not compound itself. Allowing Iran to install its own power base in Iraq (or Afghanistan) would compound our initial mistake, and the U.S. is doing whatever it can to stunt Iran's influence. 

Why would Iran care about Iraq, and why would Iraqis care about Iran? Muslims are typically either Sunni or Shiite/Shia. Within Iran, almost all Muslims are Shiite--just like the majority of Iraq's Muslims. Outside of Iran, however, almost all Muslims are Sunni. In fact, Iran is surrounded by Sunni Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. If Iran is able to extend its influence into Iraq and make Iraq an ally, it would finally have a Shiite neighbor. From an American perspective, the more Iran's neighbors are friendly with Iran, the more difficult it will be to stunt Iran's influence. (Now might be a good time to remind everyone that Iran contains the world's second largest natural gas reserves and third largest petroleum reserves.) 

To minimize Iran's influence, the United States has been helping paint Iran as a rogue nation. Basically, the United States government has been releasing information to create support for an attack against Iran if Iran continues to extend its influence over Iraq. For example, at one point, Yahoo's homepage showed a picture of a new Iranian bomber drone almost the entire weekend. Despite the fact that Iranians are model citizens in the United States (look up who founded eBay), you will almost never see the word "Iranian" in a story without some negative connotation. The media's quest to dehumanize Iranians is in full effect. (One can't have a war without first making the enemy into "the Other.")  

The real issue is the extent to which Iran has the capacity or willingness to attack American soldiers or Americans. A country that has been around for 3000+ years probably doesn't have a death wish. Even if it did, and even if Iran managed to get nuclear weapons, it still needs to transport them effectively. As North Korea's failed missile tests demonstrate, it is much easier to make a weapon than it is to deliver it accurately. Overall, it is hard to believe that the Iranian government would be capable or stupid enough to directly attack any American soldier or civilian. Even when the Iranian government has captured American civilians or possible CIA assets, it tends to return them unharmed. (This pattern holds true in the capture of the American embassy in 1979 as well as the more recent American hikers, who were arrested when they entered Iran without proper authorization.) However, if the current Iranian government extends its influence over Iraq and Afghanistan, it may use sections of these countries as proxies or buffer zones. In other words, doing nothing would allow an extension of a government hostile to American interests, and therein lies the problem. 

Ironically, without Saddam Hussein to keep the Iranian government in check, the Middle East has managed to become more complicated. Under Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the Ba'ath Party dominated politics. The Ba'ath Party was secular, not Muslim. By killing a secular leader, we allowed more religiously-committed factions to spread their influence over Iraq. Any American who thought invading Iraq and toppling Saddam would show "those Muslim terrorists" is misguided. Maybe next time, we'll do more research and question our government when it tells us war is good. 

Bonus: most Americans don't remember the Iran-Iraq War, but back in the 1980's, Saddam Hussein waged a bloody war against Iran and used chemical weapons against Iranians. I bring this up to remind Americans that Saddam Hussein was once our friend--and Iran's worst enemy. By removing Saddam Hussein and not achieving broad consensus on a rebuilding plan (such as the Marshall Plan), we've managed to create more problems, and this time, war won't be quite as simple. Unlike Iran, Iraq was never a tightly-knit, sovereign state. In fact, modern-day Iraq is basically a post-WWI British creation. In contrast, Iran has been together for 3,000 years and has never been occupied by a foreign power. I doubt Bush II's White House properly considered the downsides of invading Iraq. The American people were stunned by 9/11 and needed a show of force. They got one, and we're still dealing with the consequences years later. 

Conclusion: the only way America can claim a victory against terrorists is if it eradicates the Taliban and al-Qaeda. The Taliban and al-Qaeda are in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and parts of Afghanistan. The Iranian spectacle is just a side-show of our own making.