Morning Fog

Broken Government

Among serious pundits and analysts, it's become commonplace in recent weeks to talk about the need to "fix" our "dysfunctional" government.   The political struggle over health care and other elements of the program that voters approved by a wide margin in November 2008 has focused most of the attention on an ineffectual Congress and on the Senate filibuster.  I agree those are problems, but there are many, many others that add to the accumulating evidence of dysfunction in our democratic legislative process.

Here's one: The appointment and confirmation of senior government officials.  With each new administration, this process appears to take longer and longer.  The failure of the Senate to confirm a nominee to lead the Transportation Security Administration, at a time when the TSA's performance in the Nigerian bomber incident has been called into question, has focused some much needed attention on the problem.  But it's far larger than one or two key positions.  Currently, scores of nominations remain stalled in the Senate, either from simple inefficiency and sloth, or (as in the TSA case) because some solo Senator with an ax to grind has decided to "hold" action on the nomination.  

The stallers and blockers this year are mainly, if not entirely, Republicans, but Democrats engage in the same kind of petty obstructionism when the shoe is on the other foot.   Whichever party they belong to, the bottleneckers usually complain (as the GOP is doing now) that the Administration has been too slow in making its nominations, or has made them at a time when the Senate is too preoccupied with important legislative business to act on mere government appointments.  (Haven't you noticed how the minority party has demonstrated its desire to pass legislation rapidly, by using every conceivable device to delay certain initiatives, including blocking funding for our troops at war?)  

Yes, it's undeniable that incoming Administrations could be quicker about making their nominations, but of course one of the reasons they aren't is the need to vet every detail of the nominee's life against the pet peeves of 100 Senators, peeves often unrelated to the candidate's ability to serve effectively.   And the fact remains that even nominations submitted very early can languish for months in the Senate without being acted upon.

The need for change is evident.  The solutions are pretty evident, too:  Quicker - much quicker! - processing times for Senate approval.  Fifteen (working) days from the date of formal submission to the Senate ought to be plenty.  A realistic approach would help, too:  The fact that a Presidential nominee might have made a mistake on his taxes, or taken a stand against apple pie when she was 15, or got a speeding ticket 10 years ago, or parts his hair on the wrong side, has little to do with fitness for office.  Let the Senator who is blameless cast the first stone; for those who can't (don't want to) dinstinguish truly disqualifying missteps from the vagaries that occur in all our lives, maybe the answer is to provide a specific list of acts that could be disqualifying. 

George Will has written a bizarre column today that will convince many people he's finally lost it.  Asteroids, cataclysms, dinosaurs, and the U.S. Constitution?  If I can make any sense of it at all, I think he's suggesting that the Constitution (about 225 years of age) is as enduring as the universe and doesn't need change.  There are a lot of holes in that argument, and I personally have suggested that there are areas where the Constitution itself needs to be changed.  But luckily for us and for George, the most glaring dysfunctions in how the Senate works (or fails to) -- such as the filibuster and the appointment process -- reside not in the Constitution, but in mere Senate rules.  To use Will's geological frame of reference, the problems are not tectonic plates, but merely one hard winter, albeit a winter of man's devising.  What man has wrought, man can put asunder, and we need to get on with it. 

Balancing Act

I recommend today's column by Steven Pearlstein, "Big Business vs. Big Government," as a brief must-read item.  Basically, it reminds us that our political/social/economic philosophies tend to seesaw back and forth, emphasizing at one stage the power of capitalism, and at another, the power of government. 

Pearlstein's column derives from, and comments on, an article in National Affairs, "Keeping America's Edge," by James Manzi.  Both writers argue the need for "balance," but Pearlstein correctly points out the fallacy of assuming, as Manzi does, that the extreme pro-business stance of the Bush administration was the neutral, "balanced" position and any shift away from that moves toward imbalance. 

In fact, current Obama policies seek to restore balance to a system that had sadly lacked it.  One fact seems clear: the swings between the two poles have gotten wider of late.  

And Now, Rethinking Security

After a few days of everyone reflexively shooting off their mouths about the Nigerian Christmas terrorist, it seems thinking is now becoming a little more reflective, focusing more on finding solutions that might be effective, rather than knee-jerk measures that solve nothing.

On December 29, for example, the Washington Post stepped back a bit from its overwrought editorial the previous day, and came out in favor of equipping the TSA on an urgent basis with the scanning equipment that could detect liquid explosives or other foreign objects under clothing.   Today, they plumped in favor of better communication and coordination among intelligence agencies, an idea that's also been the centerpiece of Pres. Obama's statements about "systemic failure."  Both these are sensible suggestions, and both have far more potential to be effective than superficial measures like keeping everyone in their seats for the last hour of a flight.

Both ideas are eminently practical but let's keep in mind a few things as we go about devising a response:

• Improved scanners, better intel cooperation: the concepts are all the more sensible since they were promised -- but not delivered -- by the Bush administration more than 8 years ago. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't implement them now, though, if we can - it seems Republican politicians might even in favor of doing so (but will they still, when they realize it costs money?). The point here is not to bash Republicans (though those now accusing negligence might wish to recall they dwell in the same glass house), but to highlight that politics, inertia, and conflicting priorities do tend to intervene in the best-laid plans; what can we put in place to ensure that there will be enough follow-through (by both parties, in the national interest) to implement whatever we decide to do now?
• It was only by chance that Abdulmutallab happened to be on any list at all. He might just as easily have been someone whose history and activities had not attracted any intelligence attention. This means that who-shot-John recriminations about why he wasn't on this list or that list are unhelpful, and take our eye off the target. Terrorists will soon learn to recruit complete unknowns, so while streamlining watchlists may be helpful, it's only a short-run tactic.
• So let's not put all our eggs in that one basket - or any other one basket, because what we're really doing is fighting the last battle. We should recall that 9/11 became possible only because flight crews were trained to acceed to terrorist attempts to take over an airplane. We had failed to think outside the box as well as the terrorists did, failed to consider that a plane full of people could be a very effective bomb. We can ill afford to make the same mistake again.

Misunderstanding Security

I hate to beat a dead horse, but some of the reactions I'm hearing to the Christmas bomber incident in the 12 hours since my last post drive me to revisit the issue of how we should react to such news. 

First, I'd suggest that the "balanced" approach being attributed to President Obama in the press -- ordering some immediate measures (even if the efficacy of some of them is dubious); considering stepping up the use of better screening technology despite the resistance of "privacy" advocates; and generally refusing to make a huge fuss over the whole affair -- is a reasonable one.  

Terrorism is a bit like bank robbery; banks have been seeking ways to prevent robberies for - what, maybe a century and a half? - but people are still finding ways to rob banks, sometimes getting caught by preventive measures, sometimes by their own mistakes, and sometimes not getting caught at all.  We don't generally blame the bank managers or the CEO; we don't declare the entire banking system to be in crisis; and we don't strip search the bank customers.  A similarly measured response is called for in the case of a terrorist act.

One Congressman, Peter Hoekstra, doesn't seem to understand that point; he is being quoted heavily in the press today as follows:

Michigan's Peter Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said that the Obama administration should be held accountable for the near-catastrophe aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 253. Hoekstra said that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's presence on the flight was part of a pattern of administration neglect on preparedness questions, stemming from a failure to recognize essential dangers. "The threat to the United States is real. I think this administration has downplayed it," he said on Fox News.

(Incidentally, I assume from this that Hoekstra also holds the Bush administration "accountable" for September 11; did he argue for impeachment back then?)

Now, as a senior member of the House Intel Committee, Hoekstra ought to understand the bank-robber nature of the threat that we face, and he ought to know, better than he appears to, how intelligence works (i.e., no single report like that which Abdulmatallab's father made can ever be a basis for action).   So either Hoekstra is ignorant of some basic facts about intelligence or (my guess) he's just using the recent incident for political advantage.   Neither explanation of his motive reflects well on him; either he has not taken his duties on the committee seriously enough to learn the subject matter, or he has chosen to play politics with national security (as have other Republicans this year).  Either way, he seems to be acting out of fear when none is justified.

Fear also underlies the Washington Post's editorial today, "Unconnected Dots."  This overreactive piece seems to have been dashed off in a hurry - a frightened hurry - and it takes the same unrealistic approach to terrorism and counterterrorism as Hoekstra.  The Post talks about failures of the screening system (yet it goes without saying any such system - especially one dependent on human inspectors -- will have flaws that terrorists will eventually learn to exploit); it suggests the single report from the terrorist's father should have "catapulted" Abdulmutallab to a higher level of scrutiny (yet there may be 500, or 5000 such reports a day, and only one in six months that really means anything); and it calls the administration response "defensive" (yet it's entirely appropriate to the bank-robber model). 

So many talking heads, so little understanding. 

Terrified

The would-be Christmas bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, might have been successful in blowing up a plane over Detroit* if his equipment had not malfunctioned.  Terribly, terrifically, terrifying terrorism?  Well yes, in one respect certainly: Had he succeeded (and even when he didn't), the incident brings home to us again the reality of terrorism in today's world, the frightening thought (if we bother to think about it) that lives - possibly including our own - could be snuffed out unexpectedly. 

(* Why Detroit? I hope investigators will look closely for clues as to Abdulmutallab's choice of target.  Had he bought a Chevy in the past couple of years?  Was he a Lions fan?) 

But that's not what terrifies me. My philosophy on terrorism is that it exists; incidents will inevitably occur, including here in the U.S., in spite of anything Bush, Obama, or even Oprah may have done or failed to do; and we can't provide absolute security against it.

That being the case, let's not completely alter our everyday lives (which means the terrorists win), nor react stupidly, in the hopes of preventing the unpreventable.  Of course with appropriate measures we can and should try to minimize the risks of terrorist attack.  Certainly we don't want to make it so easy that we end up with every third plane being blown out of the sky.  

But too often, the preventive steps we take seem to be lowest-denominator steps with limited effectiveness.  After the Twin Towers attack, we forbade travelers from carrying anything sharp or pointy, even a toothpick or a knitting needle.  After several years of that silliness, some of the more ridiculous rerstrictions were finally lifted, and with good reason -- not only were some of the banned items basically harmless, but after the example of 9/11, did anyone really believe an airline steward or pilot would allow him/herself to be threatened into giving up control of the plane when confronted by a penknife?   Now we all take off our shoes before boarding an airplane, and we have to give up most liquids even when they're "declared" and carried in plain sight.

No, it's not the prospect of being blown out of the sky that is most frightening to me; it's the prospect of still more un-thought-out, ineffective countermeasures that will only serve to weigh us down psychologically, commercially, and in other ways.  Within hours of the failed Detroit attack, journalists and security officials had begun to preach the new gospel of the ridiculous:  passengers would be forbidden to have blankets (Abdulmutallab hid his device under his blanket), or would be required to stay in their seats during the last hour of a flight before landing (because Mr. A. went to the toilet to rig himself up during that last hour).  But if restrictions forbid movement during the last hour, wouldn't even the dumbest terrorist just figure out a way to go "live" sooner than that?

So let's exercise some common sense in our approach to counterterrorism.  We could begin by not publishing the complete details of the TSA's exact screening procedures and specifications on the internet, for example.  Let's be more analytical about what may be effective, and what's just window dressing.  I don't have a lot of confidence that we're operating that way now, or at any time in the past 8 years.

2009, The Fun Year

I'm sure readers in the U.S. are familiar with the work of humorist Dave Barry, and particularly his annual summation of the "lighter side" of the year's events.  For the past two or three years, I hadn't even bothered to read Barry's review -- it had got to the point where it seemed stale and un-funny. 

But I've just read the 2009 version, and recommend it highly.  Maybe it's just because Barry has some new targets this year, after eight years of the same old Bush jokes, but "Lowlights of a Downer Year" provides some good chuckles and is especially to be recommended to Democrats and Obamaniacs, who tend to take themselves far too seriously anyway.

That said, I did note one odd omission from Barry's summation of the past 360+ days.  With the exception of one sentence on Sarah Palin's resignation as governor of Alaska, and a mention of Joe LastnameAlreadyForgotten's shout of "You Lie," our comedic columnist offers nothing regarding any other Republican politicians.   Is it possible that Barry is a dyed-in-the-wool Republican?  I suppose so.  Or, could it be that except for some deMinted and repetitious raving, Republicans just haven't done anything this year that anybody would notice?  I leave to readers to make their own determination. 

Solstice Day - A Christmas For Everybody

Is Christmas obsolete?  No, but it's certainly changing.  Even the staid old Washington Post recognized, in an editorial a couple of days ago, that "Christmas" has increasingly become an ecumenical, even secular, holiday, one that's observed in some fashion or other by far more Americans than are card-carrying, practicing Christians.  According to the Post, we might want to blame or praise Irving Berlin for this trend.  His song White Christmas, appearing in 1942, got us all thinking about the holiday in a different way. 

More accurately, of course, Berlin simply put into music and feeling that was already a part of our collective consciouslness.  At its best, Christmas these days is a spirit of goodwill and giving in which many non-Christians, and even the areligious, get caught up.   Christian religions should be pleased to take credit for this aspect.  At its worst, the holiday is an exercise in mass-crass commercialism, and orgy of buying each other stuff we often don't need.  People of all beliefs get caught up in that, too; and our fundamentally commerce-oriented culture can (and does) take credit for that aspect. 

Some time ago, a not-so-famous blogger suggested that we need to redefine and re-calendar some of our official holidays to better adapt them to our changing multicultural society.  Specifically on Christmas, he wrote this:

....Christmas.  Although it's a Christian holiday, it is commonly observed in various ways by people of many faiths and persuasions.  I have known Hindus and Muslims in this country who put up a tree and exchange gifts as a secular tradition of the season.  To non-Christians and even many Christians, it has become more about gift-giving than anything else, and of course for retailers, it's lifeblood.  The date is arbitrary -- we celebrate Christ's birth at this time of year because it roughly coincided with pagan rites accompanying the winter solstice.  My suggestion:  December 22, Solstice Day, a time of rejoicing, a festival of cheer and light that chases away winter doldrums; a time, too, of gift-giving and of the all-important end-of-year extravanganza of buying that drives our economy. Maybe the change would also help move some of the commercialism away from the "real" Christmas on December 25.

It's still a great suggestion.  The time is nigh.

The Senate's Milestone On Health Care

The Senate reached an important milestone by passing its version of health care reform this morning before its members went home for Christmas.  It's not the "real deal" yet, since the different features of the House and Senate versions remain to be reconciled, but the broad outlines of what might result are now pretty clear. 

Could "reform" still unravel?  Might Republican efforts to strangle the baby in its crib yet succeed, or could it prove impossible for committees to reconcile the two versions of the bill into something enough Democrats can accept? 

I'm optimistic that Congress will pass a joint bill in the new year.  It will be a typical product of reconciliation, certainly.  Neither beautiful nor elegant, it won't provide every feature that its most extreme advocates would like, nor by definition will it give the opposition what they want (which is no bill at all).  It will have unintended consequences that might need patching in future years.  It won't control costs sufficiently, but it may offer enough room for experimentation in different cost-control approaches (by different states and local networks) that would point the way to the most practical, workable models. 

Meanwhile, it will provide significant improvements in the basic fairness of our health care system, and that, for now, is good and sufficient cause for holiday rejoicing.

Thinking "What If" - A November Surprise

Republican reaction to the Senate's first official thumbs-up on its health care bill provided still more evidence (if any were needed) of the GOP's determination to maintain a cynical grumpy-grandpa stance, refusing to engage in solving the country's problems so long as it appears there's a partisan political gain to be had.  Sour grapes were abundant today, after a second vote moved the bill closer to passage.

Maybe that kind of cynicism is always the unattractive core of politics.  However, so is the practice that Republicans now complain of so loudly:  special earmarks and other deals to garner support for legislation. Should we suppose that Sen. Coburn, who says this isn't legislation, but "corruption," is ignorant of the practice, or has never supported it himself? 

Maybe some do.  You can fool some of the people some of the time...  and that's why the GOP believes it stands to benefit from stonewalling.  Typically, the party that takes control of Congress in a Presidential election year will lose seats two years later.  It's almost certain that will be the result in 2010, particularly as Democrats in this Congress have done nothing to foster confidence in their ability to unite and get a job done even when they have a majority.  This time around, by standing on the sidelines, criticizing, and feeding voters' fears, Republicans hope to bring about a greater-than-normal surge in their favor.  Perhaps that will happen too, especially if the economy fails to improve soon.

Yet I harbor a residual faith in the common sense of the American voter.  You can't fool all of the people all the time...and that leaves open the possibility of a November surprise in 2010.  What if voters looked analytically at yesterday's remark by Republican National Chairman Michael Steele, who said the Democrats are "thumbing their nose and flipping the bird to the American people," and realized, "wait -- that's just what the Republicans have done"?  What if they recognized the GOP ploy for what it is, resented that party's evident disdain for problem-solving, rejected its determination to persuade American voters that they don't want what they said they wanted, and went for Democratic candidates in large numbers, thus creating an even greater Democratic majority? 

It's a slim chance, I admit, but it would definitely be a wakeup call for the likes of Steele, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. 

Obsessed With Safety

The Washington, D.C. area got a huge snowstorm Saturday -- the same one that affected much of the east coast from Virginia north, except that in a somewhat unusual twist of fate, we actually got more snow than many areas farther north - about 18 inches where I live, and more in some areas.

It's true that this much snow is no big deal in more northerly climes.  Here in the mid-Atlantic, however, cities and counties don't find it cost-effective to buy immense amounts of snow removal equipment that will be used only once every ten years. In addition, our snow tends to be wetter than that nice, dry crunchy stuff they get in Pres. Obama's Chicago; ours mats down into ice as soon as it's driven over (I've driven in both types; this is harder).  And finally, we have hills here.  So yes, snow is more of a problem, and we take longer to clear it.

That explains why, two full days after the snow stopped, we're still waiting, in my little residential street in Arlington, for a plow or a bit of melting chemical.  Previous experience with this much snow suggests we'll wait at least another day, possibly longer.  We're at the top of short but steep little hill that ices up quickly and becomes impassible for "regular" vehicles but seems manageable for anybody with four-wheel drive.  OK with me.  I don't have 4WD, but I'm retired, I don't have anywhere I desperately need to go. 

Nevertheless, when my neighbors CAN come and go without evident strain, I'm astounded at the many things that are brought to a halt.  On Saturday, the day the snow fell, the postman didn't bother to come around.  Hmm...possibly understandable, but today, two days later, he didn't show again.  What ever happened to that "rain or sleet or snow" stuff, or to the idea the mail must go through?  We used to assume that mail trucks had snow tires or chains - don't they now?

The same namby-pambyness applies to newspaper delivery.  No paper Sunday, none Monday.  My delivery man has a huge Ford pickup with four-wheel drive.  So is it possible he can't get up the hill, when my neighbors can?  

If physical newspapers and snail mail seem too hopelessly old-fashioned to worry about, consider garbage collection, which most folks still find useful.  Pickup has been  canceled for today, tomorrow, and Wednesday even though these large, heavy trucks have little problem getting around in snow.  Again, not a big tragedy, but also seemingly a question of taking the easy way out when keeping to the normal schedule would not be impossible, just perhaps a little less convenient than usual.

In earlier days, it seems to me, people took a greater pride in getting things done -- ordinary tasks as well as special ones -- pushing through a difficulty rather than just succumbing to it.   I joined a neighbor today, helping him clear part of the street in front of our houses (since it won't be done soon by the county).  He told me of another neighbor some years back, before 4WD was so common (a gent who has since moved away) who in a similar case, just took his own shovel and started clearing that treacherous hill by hand; his example inspired others; much of the neighborhood joined in, and before long, the hill (about 75 yards, I estimate) was completely cleared. 

That can-do spirit is rarer, if not extinct, these days, on the individual level.  On the institutional level we all understand the concern that drives the closing of schools, where kids are being delivered in those high-set, unsteady buses without seat belts.  But where adults are concerned, going about their normal work (the mail, the garbage, the newspaper), it's disappearing too. 

I suspect it has something to do with our crazy concern for safety at all costs, the foolish idea that all accidents are avoidable if we just take enough precaution.