New York Times Editorial, "A New Start for Libya": Road Apples

Those desk jockeys over at the New York Times editorial board are at it again, telling us from New York in "A New Start for Libya" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/10/opinion/a-new-start-for-libya.html?_r=1&hp) that in post-Qaddafi Libya, there are encouraging "signs of progress on military, diplomatic, economic and political fronts." Of course, they do happen to mention:

"Nonetheless, the new regime faces many challenges. Among the most troubling developments is the brutal treatment of dark-skinned Africans rounded up by vigilantes and the regime’s security forces.

The overwhelming majority of sub-Saharan Africans in Libya are migrant workers. Two and a half million worked there before the rebellion. Roughly two million remain. Colonel Qaddafi is thought to have hired several thousand Africans to fight for him in February. How many stuck with him to the end is unclear. But Western journalists saw no evidence of mercenaries in Tripoli when the city fell.

What they have seen is Africans being rounded up and treated differently from Libyans who fought for the dictator, many of whom have already been set free. Some Africans accused of being mercenaries were lynched after the rebels captured Benghazi in February. To maintain its international credibility, the transitional government must release innocent Africans and make sure that those who fought for Colonel Qaddafi are treated fairly."

Imprisonment, torture and murder of dark-skinned Africans by the Libyan rebels? Why should that interfere with the determination by the New York Times editorial board that progress is being made?

However, as observed in a Washington Post article entitled "In Libya, the peril of being black" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/in-libya-the-peril-of-being-black/2011/09/09/gIQAY2FoFK_story.html?hpid=z3), written by Leila Fadel from Tripoli (Fadel grew up in Saudi Arabia and of course speaks Arabic), a somewhat different picture is being painted:

"More than 1.5 million sub-Saharan Africans are thought to work in Libya, a country of 6.5 million, according to Refugees International, most of them as day laborers in low-paid jobs. The International Organization for Migration said that it has evacuated about 1,400 migrants from the capital and that about 800 others have taken refuge in the fishing port of Janzour, just west of the city.

. . . .

At a makeshift camp in the port, the migrants sleep under decrepit boats hung with blankets and cook in tin pots over fires. Some said they were forced out of their homes at gunpoint. Others said they ran when they lost family members or heard of friends being killed. With no money, they say, they don’t want to go home but feel that they cannot stay in Libya.

Peter Bouckaert, the emergencies director for Human Rights Watch, said there was violence throughout the uprising against black Libyans and sub-Saharan Africans in the capital, adding that his group had confirmed Gaddafi’s use of foreign mercenaries there. The persecution, he added, was still going on.

'It really is racist violence against all dark-skinned people,' Bouckaert said. 'This situation for Africans in Tripoli is dire.'”

Also, there is no mention by the editorial board of The New York Times of past links between Libyan rebel commander Abdel Hakim Belhaj and al-Qaeda and the Taliban, or of the heat-seeking missiles, which can be used to down airliners, that have gone missing from Qaddafi's warehouses.

But why should any of this darken the Manhattan skyline?

Paul Krugman's "Setting Their Hair on Fire": Obama Goes "Bigger and Bolder"?

In his New York Times op-ed "Setting Their Hair on Fire" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/opinion/setting-their-hair-on-fire.html?_r=1), Paul Krugman would have us believe that there was something new in Obama's "jobs plan," which has yet to be fleshed out on paper. According to "The Conscience of a Liberal":

"The good news in all this is that by going bigger and bolder than expected, Mr. Obama may finally have set the stage for a political debate about job creation."

Bigger and bolder? Yeah, right. Have a look at Glenn Kessler's "Obama’s jobs speech: deja vu all over again?" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-jobs-speech-deja-vu-all-over-again/2011/09/08/gIQA9amvDK_blog.html) in The Washington Post. As aptly illustrated by Mr. Kessler, it is extremely difficult to find the differences between Obama's latest "job plan" and "the $800 billion stimulus plan passed shortly after he took office."

Although Krugman waxed eloquent over Obama's treacle, world financial markets obviously had a different opinion.

David Brooks, "Stimulus for Skeptics": Actually, More Like Pouring Gasoline on a Dying Fire

Do you like camping? I don't. I've spent more nights in the field, sleeping in the rain without a tent and with rocks jutting into my ribs, than I care to remember. But never mind that. I'm sure you all have experience with campfires. Imagine pouring gasoline on a dying fire with no wood to sustain it. Yes, for an instant there is a brilliant flash as the gasoline goes up in flames, but ultimately the fire dies that much faster. This is the problem with Obama's $447 billion stimulus plan: It doesn't address the lack of wood.

Listen to the president's speech again -- it's the "planes, trains and cars with a few teachers temporarily thrown into the bargain" solution that I feared (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/09/paul-krugmans-fatal-distraction-nobel.html).

Where is the candid discussion in Obama's speech concerning the problems that have gotten us into our current mess? No mention of American reliance upon expensive foreign oil, which is destroying the US balance of trade. No mention that America is being forced to compete with countries, e.g. China and Pakistan, whose products are manufactured and subsidized by slave labor. No mention of the predatory financial practices, e.g., share manipulation via unrestricted short sales, that are destroying investment in innovative businesses.

David Brooks, whom I respect, has responded enthusiastically to Obama's speech in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Stimulus for Skeptics" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/opinion/brooks-stimulus-for-skeptics.html?_r=1&ref=opinion). Brooks writes:

"Suppose in the middle of the winter of recuperation the economy stops recuperating? Suppose instead of grinding forward, the economy starts sliding back? In these circumstances, do you still have the luxury of thinking about the long term? Don’t you have to try to reverse things here and now?

This is the problem the Obama administration is facing. Like everybody else, it has seen a sluggish economy come grinding to a halt. There is clearly now a significant risk of a double-dip recession. That would be terrible for America’s workers, fiscal situation and psyche. This prospect is enough to shock even us stimulus skeptics out of our long-term focus. It’s enough to force us to contemplate the possibility of another stimulus package."

Brooks in essence is responding out of fear. Sorry, but I try not to respond to fear with a panic-stricken response catering to short-term concerns. Rather, I would be turning to industry and America's educational system with a long-term carrot and stick approach.

In his speech, Obama says:

"If Americans can buy Kias and Hyundais, I want to see folks in South Korea driving Fords and Chevys and Chryslers."

Well, no one is going to buy Fords and Chevys and Chryslers in South Korea unless these American cars offer competitive advantages, e.g., price, safety and fuel economy, over their foreign competition. The question then is how to induce American industry to build a better car that is going to drive the competition off the side of the road. Answer: Reward those US companies which are able to obtain better fleet mileage with tax credits. Moreover, the prospect of heightened sales will also bring hiring, first the engineers needed to design these cars, then the assembly line workers.

Education? Reward those schools that are better able to motivate their students with grants. Sure, there will be cheating in order to obtain better results on standardized tests, but employment benefits will also be realized, as schools hire teachers, particularly talented ones.

Higher education? Subsidize advanced degrees in fields, e.g. engineering, which are apt to promote long-term growth. Keeping students in school and temporarily out of the work force is a better alternative to reducing working hours to maintain jobs.

And it's also high time to bring back the uptick rule to prevent predatory hedge funds from destroying promising hi-tech firms in their infancy (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/08/paul-krugman-hijacked-crisis-paul-heres.html).

Sorry to be a naysayer, David, but Obama's latest $447 billion stimulus plan is just a boodoggle, born out of panic, which does not address the roots of the problem.

Nicholas Kristof, "Finding Hope in Libya": What Kristof Is Not Telling You

Nicholas Kristof, having wandered about Libya, tells us in his latest New York Times op-ed, "Finding Hope in Libya" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/opinion/finding-hope-in-libya.html?_r=1&hp), of his "sense" that Libya is "muddling along toward a future far better than its oppressive past." He observes that while passing through rebel checkpoints, he "was never once asked for a [sic] 'baksheesh,' meaning bribe or gift." He also tells us that we should not be worried by the background of the Libyan rebel leadership:

"Some Americans have fretted that Islamic extremists will take over Libya, but very few of the rebel leaders have been associated with Islamic fundamentalism. One exception is Abdel Hakim Belhaj, a military commander in Tripoli, who says he was tortured by the C.I.A. in 2004. Yet he told my Times colleague Rod Nordland that all is forgiven and that he appreciates the American role in the Libyan revolution.

Frankly, any representative Libyan government needs to include fundamentalists like Mr. Belhaj, who were particularly brave in standing up to the Qaddafi regime."

What is Kristof not telling you? From a very recent BBC article entitled "Profile: Libyan rebel commander Abdel Hakim Belhaj" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14786753):

"Mr Belhaj - known in the jihadi world as Abu Abdullah al-Sadiq - commanded the now defunct Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG).

The group was formed in 1990 by Mr Belhaj and other Islamist Libyans who had fought in Afghanistan against the Soviets in the 1980s.

. . . .

By 1998, the group was crushed. Most of its leaders fled to Afghanistan and joined forces with the Taliban. There, Mr Belhaj is alleged to have developed 'close relationships' with al-Qaeda leaders and Taliban chief Mullah Omar, according to an arrest warrant issued by the Libyan government in 2002.

The warrant says that he was based in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, from where he ran and financed training camps for Arab mujahideen fighters.

. . . .

The warrant says Mr Belhaj travelled widely, spending time in Sudan, Pakistan, Syria and Iran. He is also said to have visited Turkey, London and Denmark.

After the 11 September attacks and the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, he and most of the LIFG leaders fled that country as well, only for Mr Belhaj to be arrested in 2004 in Thailand by the CIA and then handed over to Col Gaddafi's government."

Captured by the CIA and flown back to Libya, Belhaj was allegedly tortured in the presence of CIA agents:

"'What happened to me was illegal and deserves an apology,' he told the BBC's Jeremy Bowen in Tripoli.

. . . .

For his part, Mr Belhaj has said that the revelations would not stop Libya's new rebel leadership - the National Transitional Council - from having 'orderly relations' with the US and Britain.

. . . .

According to Arabic press reports, Mr Belhaj has two wives, one Moroccan and one Sudanese."

So which is it? According to Kristof's account, Belhaj has no score to settle with the CIA, whereas the BBC tells us that he is waiting for an apology. Note also how the sanguine Kristof account never once mentions Belhaj's past ties to the Taliban or his two wives.

What exactly does Belhaj mean when he says that he is willing to have "orderly relations" with the US and Britian? Excuse me, but there is a wide gulf separating "orderly" and "friendly."

What else does Kristof fail to observe? No mention in his jolly rendition that advanced Russian-made heat-seeking missiles are now missing from Libyan warehouses (see, from Kristof's own newspaper: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/world/africa/08missile.html?_r=1&hp). Some of these missiles, which can be used to down airliners, will reappear soon enough in Gaza and along Afghanistan's border with Pakistan. Sorry to spoil the party, but this amounts to a security lapse by the Obama administration.

"Any representative Libyan government needs to include fundamentalists"? Yeah, right, and maybe there should also be radical Islamists in the US Congress. But never mind any of this: We wouldn't want to ruin Nicholas's perfect storybook ending.

Paul Krugman's "The Fatal Distraction": A Nobel Solution to America's Economic Woes

A Nobel solution to the nation's economic woes? Sorry, but I'm being cynical again.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Fatal Distraction" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/05/opinion/the-fatal-distraction.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), Paul Krugman fantasizes over Obama's forthcoming speech on the economy:

"I find it useful to think in terms of three questions: What should we be doing to create jobs? What will Republicans in Congress agree to? And given that political reality, what should the president propose?

The answer to the first question is that we should have a lot of job-creating spending on the part of the federal government, largely in the form of much-needed spending to repair and upgrade the nation’s infrastructure. Oh, and we need more aid to state and local governments, so that they can stop laying off schoolteachers.

But what will Republicans agree to? That’s easy: nothing. They will oppose anything Mr. Obama proposes, even if it would clearly help the economy — or maybe I should say, especially if it would help the economy, since high unemployment helps them politically.

This reality makes the third question — what the president should propose — hard to answer, since nothing he proposes will actually happen anytime soon. So I’m personally prepared to cut Mr. Obama a lot of slack on the specifics of his proposal, as long as it’s big and bold. For what he mostly needs to do now is to change the conversation — to get Washington talking again about jobs and how the government can help create them."

Now unlike Krugman (and Obama), I have never won a Nobel prize nor will I, but Paul's three questions have set me wondering:

We need a lot of job-creating spending by the federal government? On what -- roads, bridges, railroads, airports and teachers? We've seen and heard this before, but notwithstanding China's grand infrastructure projects undertaken with slave labor, a new bullet train between New York and Washington is not going to cure the nation's ills. Ultimately, someone will have to pay the bill after it is discovered that fares alone do not cover the costs of such a boondoggle. Potholes? Sure, they can be filled, but they're not going to fire up today's economy. Money for teachers? This might win over the teachers' unions, but bankrupt states will tear through the money in less than a year and will not be able to sustain these programs on their own.

Will the Republicans try to torpedo anything the president proffers? I don't think so. Not if Republican legislators hope to retain their seats in Congress. Unlike Paul, I don't think Americans are stupid, and if Obama comes up with a sensible plan to reignite the economy, they're not going to tolerate such negativism.

Obama should propose something "big and bold"? Fabulous! While he was playing golf in Martha's Vineyard before the hurricane, I'm certain the president's White House elves were busy hammering together a proposal that will knock our socks off. I can hardly contain my excitement . . . not.

You see, I still believe in the productivity and power of American corporations. Sure, they can be mean and greedy, but they are also capable of startling innovation capable of changing lives, e.g., Apple, Intel, Microsoft and thousands more. Washington can't create by itself a sustainable recovery, whereas American corporations, if properly motivated by Washington, are capable of doing this.

Motivation? Use taxes as a carrot and a stick to allow American industry to foment growth. Obama should be meeting with the likes of Steve Jobs -- I'm confident he'll have answers that the bureaucrats and financial wizards from predatory financial institutions have yet to imagine.

Think about it: Jobs for jobs, or better still, Jobs for president. He's head and shoulders above anything else out there . . . .

Indeed, it's all about imagination, something in short supply in Washington, something that takes us far beyond a "cars, trains and planes" solution with a few teachers temporarily thrown into the bargain.

Maureen Dowd, "One and Done?": Livid With Obama

Maureen Dowd is livid with Obama. In her latest, most derogatory New York Times op-ed to date, entitled "One and Done?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/opinion/dowd-one-and-done.html?_r=1&ref=opinion), she doesn't trouble to disguise her scorn for the president:

"Obama is still suffering from the Speech Illusion, the idea that he can come down from the mountain, read from a Teleprompter, cast a magic spell with his words and climb back up the mountain, while we scurry around and do what he proclaimed.

. . . .

The White House team is flailing — reacting, regrouping, retrenching. It’s repugnant.

After pushing and shoving and caving to get on TV, the president’s advisers immediately began warning that the long-yearned-for jobs speech wasn’t going to be that awe-inspiring.

'The issue isn’t the size or the newness of the ideas,' one said. 'It’s less the substance than how he says it, whether he seizes the moment.'

The arc of justice is stuck at the top of a mountain. Maybe Obama was not even the person he was waiting for."

Dowd has seized upon an important point: Obama didn't buckle to Boehner out of diffidence and reschedule his speech. Rather, the speech was political, and there was nothing within its text that could alter the downward trajectory of the US economy. Moreover, Obama's seasoned political advisors realized that an anguished American electorate is seeking answers to unemployment, not canned inspiration read from teleprompters, which could only lead to a further decline in his Gallup presidential approval rating.

On the other hand, Obama's faintheartedness is indeed the hallmark of his presidency, and it is peculiar that this character flaw is only now being discovered by those who once adulated him. His diffidence was on display across the world stage long before House Republicans made a mockery of the man.

Recall the bow to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.

Of greater significance, remember Obama's outreach program to the world's vilest tyrannies, including Iran, Syria and Burma.

It has taken Obama months to call upon Assad to step down, and notwithstanding the thousands butchered by Syria's leader, Obama refuses to bring Ambassador Ford home from Damascus.

Far more frightening was Obama's willingness to tolerate Iran's thinly disguised nuclear weapons program. How many times has Obama drawn a line in the sand, only to watch the Iranians ignore his toothless warnings? Today, Iran is burrowing into the mountains astride the "holy" city of Qom in order to protect its centrifuges from aerial assault. The centrifuges are producing quantities of enriched uranium far in excess of any justifiable medical research requirement, yet Obama remains silent.

Obama's timidity has created a power vacuum in the Middle East, avidly being explored by both Iran and Turkey, which could ultimately lead to a disruption of the world economy far greater than the financial tumult experienced in 2008.

It will not be long before Iran's longstanding rival, Saudi Arabia, whose leadership was appalled by the manner in which Obama discarded Egypt's Mubarek, unveils its own atomic weapons initiative.

"Maybe Obama was not even the person he was waiting for"? Sorry, Maureen, but not much chance of that. This narcissistic procrastinator-in-chief is incapable of seeing, no less remedying, his own character flaws.

David Brooks, "The Vigorous Virtues": The Ongoing Need for an Instigator State

In his most recent New York Times op-ed entitled "The Vigorous Virtues" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/opinion/brooks-the-vigorous-virtues.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), David Brooks tells us that streamlining and reforming government are insufficient to restore America's "vigorous virtues" and that government still must play a role in instigating renewal by addressing educational, structural and social deficiencies. Of particular interest is Brooks's claim regarding economic stagnation:

"There’s strong evidence to suggest that the rate of technological innovation has been slowing down. In addition, America is producing fewer business start-ups. Job creation was dismal even in the seven years before the recession, when taxes were low and Republicans ran the regulatory agencies. As economist Michael Spence has argued, nearly all of the job growth over the past 20 years has been in sectors where American workers don’t have to compete with workers overseas."

From my own limited subjective perspective, I don't see any slowdown in technological innovation. My aging head spins from the new ideas which I confront almost daily in the fields of medicine, medical devices, communications and defense. Also, a day does not go by when I am not asked to opine upon the prospects of a start-up seeking capital for expansion.

However, innovation and resultant efficiency can cost jobs. Moreover, my belief is that advanced computing and communications capabilities have enabled the elite few to do the work once performed by thousands of persons who together cannot achieve at the same lofty level.

How do we nevertheless jumpstart the economy? We often see suggestions that the US needs to renovate its infrastructure and provide bullet train service of the kind available in China, but given the past decade's advances in communications, much of my work, for example, does not require my physical presence in a client's office. Again on a personal level, my time is better spent avoiding travel.

I agree with Brooks that there is a need for government and that an "instigator state will have to be built up." Yet, I think more time needs to be devoted to defining the challenges to be presented by government to corporations and society as a whole in order to foster renewal and growth in fields offering sustainable employment opportunities. I think taxation must also be regarded as a carrot and stick mechanism intended to stimulate economic revival, as opposed to a mere burdensome encumbrance.

Most important of all, there is no one route back to recovery, and there has to be a confident experienced guide, in whom those being led place their trust, at the head of the convoy. This is sorely lacking.