Why we are in Afghanistan

We are in Afghanistan because Al-Qaeda took responsibility for 9-11 attacks and at that time was in Afghanistan with all operational leadership and its training camps. And the then President and commander-in-chief, George W Bush, has vowed solemnly to go after those who caused us harm. And he was not un-serious.

"When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive."

By all accounts we mounted an effective campaign. None of the "experts" imagined such a swift campaign. We drove both Taliban and Al-qaeda into Pakistan, but out of the civilized parts of Afghanistan (yes, they ended up in some of the caves).

And then president Bush did something else that the "experts" claimed must be done. We outsourced the war efforts to our allies in the NATO. And the situation gotten worse since then. This was the most tragic error.

Contrast this with President Bush's Iraq campaign - the so called "Bush's War". Although we had difficult times, we stayed the course. And through Gen. Petraeus's surge, we came through an otherwise difficult situation. But President Bush did not weaver in his commitment to the people of Iraq and to our troops. By the end of his term in office, he has successfully concluded the campaign - sure, we still have some troops, but the campaign is largely over and Iraqis are firmly in control. But if President Bush had listened to the "experts" - who are mostly his detractors, like he did in the Afghan campaign, Iraq would be in the same mess that we find now in Afghanistan.

Now, we have the most un-serious President in a lifetime. He finds it more important to pitch for Olympics than talk to his General. He wants to tackle "texting while driving" as opposed to war. He is singularly unfit to be the commander-in-chief.

Oh, wait. He just was awarded the Noble Peace prize. He joins the company of the most un-serious Americans before him - Jimmy Carter and Al Gore.

Drunk Driving

Found out that a co-worker was killed in a head-on collision by a drunk driver over this weekend.

I drink. I drive. But never together in that order - because I know why I drink and that would not go well with the driving part. And for that reason, I limit my drinking to one of 2 places: at home (I do not have to drive at all) or at a restaurant with my family, when I have someone who could drive me home, safely.

May be I am a bit anti-social. I stay out of all after-work drink parties co-workers arrange, primarily because I would have to drive after that and would not want to drink - that would defeat the purpose of the whole party to begin with.

Why this much is not clear to vast majority of the folks out there is a mystery to me. A lot of folks that I know do this as well as speeding - I guess it is the culture.

Ironic that in a liberal state such as Massachusetts, there are no harsh penalties for drunk driving - if it all enforced by the cops. This is not the first such tragedy in the state. Nor is it likely to be the last.

By the way, that drunk driver (in the case of my co-worker) was also high on drugs - survived. And he will live on and drink and drive to kill a few more innocent folks. What a travesty?

Smart Choice

I have been wondering about the explosion of small cars on American roads and started wondering if all these wonderful folks who think they are "green" simply because they are driving these small cars are being taken for a ride. Now I am convinced they are. Look at the chart below: (apologize for the format)

City Highway Length Height Width Weight HP

Honda

Civic 25 36 177 56 69 2630 140

Fit 28 35 162 60 68 2489 117

Civic Hybrid 40 45 177 56 69 2877 110

Toyota

Corolla 26 34 179 58 69 2822 132

Yaris 29 36 151 60 68 2295 106

Prius 51 48 176 59 69 3042 98

Smart 33 41 106 61 61 1808 70

Mini Cooper 28 37 146 55 66 2546 118

Given a choice between Civic and Fit, there is no "green" reason to choose Fit. It is kind-a attractive compared to very plain look of a Civic. But then again I have seen not so hip people driving 'Fit'.

Likewise, in the Toyota space, Yaris is not that much better than Corolla, but that much smaller.

Mini Cooper is cute, but that is not that much "greener".

Smart simply isn't smart choice for American roads - not practical as you sometime or the other have to get on a highway alongside those 18-wheelers. And for that big trade off, what do you get - almost a pittance.

Civic Hybrid is 1st generation hybrid technology. It is obvious that it delivers similar gas mileage pattern as a gas engine.

Prius is the most sensible "green" car. I do not own one, although I considered buying one. And then my cousin drove me 45 miles on a highway - in the greenbelt (I was in the backseat) and it felt terrible. And it is not very clear of the environmental impact when one has to dispose off the battery in 10 years.

So, I think the Smart Choice would be to pick a gas powered mid-sized car like Civic or Corolla and still feel "green".

And ultimately your driving pattern helps with mileage.

Talking heads, including our President, talk about Small Fuel Efficient cars. Shouldn't it simply be Fuel Efficient Cars? As the above data shows small did not provide fuel efficiency. Small cars are practical for those tiny European nations with cramped cities - makes parking easier, getting around tight spots easier. In our fast expansive continent, we drive long distances on open roads and share those roads with massive trucks. I for one don't really like to be roadkill.

I am all for fuel efficient cars, not small cars.

He kept us safe

I still vividly remember that fateful morning. South Station in Boston was packed with thousands of commuters heading back home - midday. And once on the train, hundreds packed into the cars, scared, pained and unable to fathom what just happened - each with their own silent thoughts and prayers. And then 10 days later, coming out of South Station on the way to work, thousands of heads looked up at the airplane taking off from Logan for the first time in all those days. I have never seen so many grown men look up at a plane taking off from Logan. And bumper stickers that said "We Stand United". This is what defined the last 7+ years. And it sure defined his Presidency.

On Nov. 4, 1999, in an interview with Andy Hiller, candidate Bush was asked to name the leaders of four current world hot spots: Chechnya, Taiwan, India and Pakistan. And he failed to answer 3 of the 4. He was going to be a domestic issues president - running at the tail end of the largest peacetime expansion. He had no intent to be a foreign policy President - despite his father's foreign policy credentials.

Country was still divided over the disputed elections and his first months were lackluster. And then 9/11 happened. The hero of that day and ensuing weeks was Mayor Giuliani, not President Bush.

And since then, President Bush upheld his constitutional duties and his pledge. Due to its very nature, useful intelligence is never released until the statute of limitations runs out. So, it would be a long time before we know what might have been prevented. But it is pretty clear that around the world, terrorists have been very active. It is reasonable to assume that we have been safe largely because of the efforts of our government.

People argue that anyone would have done as good a job. But that is unfair. You can not add or subtract from a President's record. Presidents do not shape events. Rather, events shape the Presidents. Just as Mr. Clinton richly deserves the praise for the largest peacetime expansion, so does Mr. Bush for this 'safety'. Mr. Bush was not prepared for 9/11 - same way as Mr. Lincoln was not prepared for the Civil War. But those events propelled their presidencies to prominence.

Love him or hate him, this much is clear: "He kept us safe". And for that I am grateful to him. And I am proud of his service. God Bless him and everyone who stood by him.

Secretary "Fraud"

The revelations about Mr. Geithner's tax problems is astonishing. Rest of us would be in serious trouble, if not in jail.

Of course, Obama thinks it is a minor issue. Not so fast. I sure hope Senate republicans will hold his feet to the fire.

Not only should this guy not get the Treasury Secretary post, he should also be removed from his NY Fed post as well.

Blago's impeachment

Blago's impeachment this week is the most unlawful thing in this scandal to-date. How could the legislature impeach him when the prosecutor himself has not completed his investigation - which means the legislature does not have the evidence on hand.

Next, there is the case of the prosecutor himself. Mr. Fitzerald is one of those ambitious prosecutors who has shown great disrespect for the law. As we have seen in Mr. Libby's case he has hidden evidence and prosecuted for the most frivolous "crimes" of not remembering the exact words used in a conversation more than 2 years before.

And now in Blago's case, he went before the media very early in his investigation. And the media loved it. And many, many bloggers jumped on the bandwagon. But where is the evidence of the crime. As far as I know, it is under wraps. And the prosecutor himself has requested more time to finish his investigation.

So, how could the Illinois legislature impeach him? Don't you need evidence. I think in order to "appear" to be doing something, the politicians are performing the most "unlawful" act.

And then there is Harry Reid. The man has no shame. If the appointment of Mr. Burris is tainted, then why not go for a special election. But of course, they are scared that Republicans would win that seat.

Is Blago the only one 'lawful' in this scandal so far?

Is Dis-Union Possible?

This post is in response to this article in WSJ. According to this article, a Russian Academic, Igor Panarin is predicting American dis-union by 2010 - similar to Soviet dis-union. According to him, by the end of June 2010, America will breakup into 6 smaller regions. He says he has mountains of Russian and Soviet intelligence to back his claim.

It happened once before. So, can it happen again? Let's examine the arguments.

After the 2000 elections, some folks on the extreme left talked about moving to Canada or Europe to get away from the illegitimate (in their eyes) and draconian Bush administration. Other than being a fringe thought, no such event took place. Why? Despite MSM repeated claims, America is still a center-right country.

If the elections of 2000 did not cause such a scenario, why would the election of 2008 have such an effect? It was not a landslide victory for Barak - just 52% voted for him. But it was a landslide victory for Democrats in the House and a very tenuous hold for Republicans in the Senate. But Americans in general feel good about this election.

Are there any similarities to 1860?

Back then, the slave-holding southerners misread the election of Abraham Lincoln as a radical abolitionist and seceded from the Union. They incorrectly (at first, Lincoln had no such policy position, but as war wore on, he was convinced) assumed that he would abolish slavery. And that would directly violate their way of life (albeit morally wrong).

No such situation exists today. Bush administration had been the most spend-thrift even by Democratic standards. And this infuriates Conservatives. And Obama proposes to spend even more - much to the thrill of the Democrats. This could galvanize Conservatives. But the American conservative movement is in a disarray. This precludes any popular appeal to large sections of the population - like Reagan once did.

Mr. Panarin argues that rich states will stop paying their dues to the federal government. It is an interesting argument on 2 counts - the definition of rich states and the flow of money. Back in 1787, states certainly did not like 'Assumption' - i.e., the assumption of state debt by the Federal government as proposed by Alexander Hamilton. Because states liked their independence and were fearful of tyrannical federal government with the power of the purse. But with Jefferson's help, the Assumption was adopted and the union survived its first crisis. However, in 2009, most states would love the federal government to come to their rescue. And especially the 'rich' ones as Mr. Panarin would define - Calfornia and New York. Today, states eagerly lobby for and spend federal dollars. California and New York both have a combined $25B dollar budget shortfall for fiscal 2010.

Question of states dues: For nearly 150 years, the federal government survived with states dues. But everything changed with the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment initiating Income tax. "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Today, federal government taps right into a paycheck. While it is theoretically possible for say California to instruct employers in its state not to forward federal income tax withholdings to IRS and instead send it to state treasury, it is practically not feasible in this globalized economy. Many employers cross state and country boundaries.

Collapse of the dollar: How low should dollar have to go to trigger such a run? It is said that if America sneezes, the rest of the world catches cold. Right now, American economy is in trouble. It is pretty sick. But due to the global nature of the economy, rest of the world economy is awfully sick too. And this alone has lately strengthened dollar. While there could still be a run on the dollar, there isn't a reserve currency to run to. And yes, they can demand gold in return. And the current price of gold certainly indicates a trend. But even Gold has come off its peak lately. While this is the most plausible scenario, none of the market indicators point to that. And June 2010 is not that far away.

Let's see if anything that threatens our way of life (similar to 1860) that would lead to dis-union. Massive budget cuts required by the states would threaten the spend thrift way of life of most of the states. Environmental regulations (or lack there of) threatens Californian thought (not their way of life - which is inversely proportional to their environmental rhetoric). California is frustrated at Bush EPA for a lax environmental regulation. But that is all going to change with the incoming Obama administration. That leaves the Judicial gauntlet. Recent appointees to Federal bench has been skeptical about the environment claims. And Roberts court has not been that consistent in its approach to environmental issues. And Mr. Obama is likely to get one or two Supreme court nominations that would swing the balance, not to mention several nominations to the lower courts. So, I do not see much there.

And of course the timing is suspect. It is almost a year and half into the new administration. And the congressional mid-term elections are not due for another 5 months - not withstanding the fact that GOP might not make much headway in that election either.

That leaves us with the only 'unknown' in this election. Is this the change the 'Change' candidate have in mind? It sounds too cynical. But we never know. None of us ever questioned him what 'change' he has in mind. 

The other possibility, the left has talked about, is for Mr. Bush (or Mr. Cheney) to declare himself President for life and suspend the constitution. Either men are too principled for such a thing.

Of course, Mr. Panarin has classified intelligence to back up his prediction. I am just an average Joe analyzing the hypothesis with the most logical thought.

What do you think?