Framing the Immigration Debate

The Rockridge Institute has an interesting article on how to frame the immigration debate. It makes the point that the Conservatives have succeeded in framing the debate in the most racially-polarizing way possible. The costs associated with immigration (by which we mean hispanic immigration, of course) are considered, but the benefits are not. More importantly we don't think about the complex interrelationship of issues that drive the debate. The Institute's report makes for thought-provoking reading.

Fission vs Coal

Consider this page by the Virtual Nuclear Tourist. It shows the costs associated with fission generation as being about the same as for coal.

This does not take into account the costs associated with the environmental damage from mining the coal, let alone the costs associated with the increased level of mercury in the ecosystem. While the nuclear fission plant produces concentrated waste products, the coal plant spews them throughout the environment.

This Scitizen article argues that renewable sources are enough to avoid using either coal or nuclear fission. My feeling is that this may have been true had we gotten started earlier, but that we don't have the time left to implement these alternatives. I think that we have to proceed with a buildout of fission plants to help us replace oil and coal power generation.

--SCC

A Few Global Warming Links

Conservatives frequently claim that there is no evidence to support the global warming hypothesis. I thought it would be useful to post a few links related to global warming related research.

"A guide to facts and fictions about climate change" by the Royal Society. This document seeks to debunk the most common arguments raised by the skeptics.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on "The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change."

Guardian report: Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study

Beyond any Global Warming-related issues, we need to move away from the oil/coal economy due to the hidden costs of keeping that economy going. We end up paying military, economic, and political costs to keep the oil economy rolling.

In addition, it seems very likely that we are at or near the global peak production levels for petroleum. Given the rapid growth in demand for oil from India and China, we can expect to see oil costs spike upwards over the next few years. We should prepare for this change by moving as quickly as possible to other fuel sources, especially wind, solar, geothermal, and nuclear fission.

--SCC

Georgia and Imperial Overstretch

Russia's intervention in Georgia has effectively called the Western bluff in the Caucasus. As a practical matter, it is hard to imagine a scenario where we would deploy combat troops to defend Georgia. Humanitarian aid, perhaps coupled with overheated rhetoric, seems a more likely response.

The overheated rhetoric from the West is a classic example of imperial overstretch. In a time when large structural deficits limit the activities of the US, it is likely that other countries will see fit to call the West's bluff.

--SCC

Thoughts on the Democratic Convention

What in the world were the Democrats thinking on Monday night? Using that dry-as-dirt "town hall" meeting with the talking heads just before Pelosi? Even Jim Lehrer was making fun of how boring the meeting was. "The audience does not appear to be very attentive," he said, while snickering with his guests.

Pelosi, of course, is not exactly a stem-winder herself. Sure, she hit all the traditional Democratic themes. And it is important for Team Obama to get a woman out front and center to try to smooth over feathers ruffled by the primary race against Hillary. But maybe they could have warmed up the audience with somebody who knows how to give a speech. The audience started to warm up when Jackson, Jr spoke. Maybe they could have started with him. Or some music. Or something. I swear I was hearing crickets chirp while Pelosi spoke.

Hillary's speech Tuesday night hit all the "party unity" points she needed to hit to keep her name around for a few more years. She didn't seem at all bitter about not getting the Veep spot. It's not clear to me how that would have worked out anyway. Hillary is about the only person who can put a muzzle on Bill, and Obama would have just come out of it looking weak.

The Republicans seem to be having a good time. Good for them. Romney was a good choice for front man, since he is able to state their position without coming off as nasty. McCain could certainly do worse than him as a Veep choice, though there is the not-so-hidden anti-Mormon sentiment among his evangelical supporters.

--SCC

The Russian Land Grab Continues

With the Russians stating their intention to continue to occupy the Black Sea port of Goti, it is becoming ever clearer that this has less to do with "peacekeeping," and more to do with resurgent Russian imperialism.

Russia interprets the cease-fire accord as allowing it to keep a substantial military presence in Georgia because of earlier peacekeeping agreements that ended fighting in the separatist areas of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in the 1990s.

But even though Poti is completely outside the buffer zone for Abkhazia, Nogovitsyn said Russian troops are not leaving and will patrol the city.

"Poti is not in the security zone, but that doesn't mean that we will sit behind the fence and watch as they drive around in Hummers," Nogovitsyn said, making an acid reference to four U.S. Humvees the Russians seized in Poti this week. The vehicles were used in previous joint U.S.-Georgian military exercises.

The comment about the Hummers is clearly intended to tweak the Bush administration, whose overheated rhetoric has done nothing to ease the situation.

The US should not cower before the Russian bear, but it should treat the Russians with respect. For years, we have failed to take into account Russian sensibilities on a range of issues. Diplomacy and tact could have been used to secure much better results than the Bush administration's policy of arrogance and neglect.

--SCC

Biden: A Conventional Choice

A Vice Presidential choice is one of the earliest substantial windows into a presidential candidate's decision-making process. By choosing Biden, Obama has made a conventional choice.

Conventional wisdom stated that Obama needed someone with lots of foreign policy expertise. Conventional wisdom also suggested that the chairman of the foreign relations committee would be the person with such expertise.

Unfortunately, experience does not always lead to expertise. Don't get me wrong; Biden did some good work in the Balkans. And he was right to label Milosevic as a "war criminal." (Things should be called what they are.)

On the other hand, Biden has a long history of popping off in ways and times that are not appropriate. His face-to-face indictment of Milosevic, while true, was not the most useful way to improve the situation in the Balkans. A frequent criticism of Biden is that his mouth shifts into overdrive while his brain is still in neutral.

But even more important than Biden's infamous mouth is his tendency towards conventional thinking. A big part of his self-assuredness comes from his inability to consider solutions that are not part of the mainstream conversation. More than any other aspect of the Presidency, foreign policy requires an imaginative, original approach. Conventional thinking allows other countries to steal a march on the US, since our reactions will be predictable and relatively unimaginative.

In the runup to the Iraq War, Biden demonstrated this inability to think outside the box by throwing his support behind the administration. The Bush administration set up a false dicotomy (either "cave in to Saddam" or "invade and occupy"). Biden was in a position to lead more substantive criticism of the Bush approach. QuickOverview has a pretty good summary of Biden's position on Iraq:

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Biden was supportive of the Bush administration efforts, calling for additional ground troops in Afghanistan and agreeing with the administration's assertion that Saddam Hussein needed to be eliminated. The Bush administration rejected an effort Biden undertook with Senator Richard Lugar to pass a resolution authorizing military action only after the exhaustion of diplomatic efforts. In October 2002, Biden supported the final resolution of support for war in Iraq. He continues to support the Bush Administration's war effort and appropriations to pay for it, but has argued repeatedly that more soldiers are needed, the war should be internationalized, and the Bush administration should "level with the American people" about the cost and length of the conflict.

In addition to being in conflict with Obama's longstanding opposition to the war, it is hard to see any original thinking in this position.

Obama has repeatedly stated that McCain has demonstrated a lack of judgment, based on his support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. How can he defend his running mate's support for the same conflict? If McCain's support is such a fatal flaw, what are we to make of Obama's willingness to put this fatal flaw within a heartbeat of the presidency?

Moreover, McCain's early and courageous support for the surge demonstrated a willingness to think outside the box. He took on a sitting Defense Secretary, and he worked tirelessly to pull together a behind-the-scenes coalition to force Bush to change his approach towards the war and shift towards the approach supported by General Petraeus. More important than the "surge" has been the change in approach in Iraq, as exemplified by Petraeus' battle to capture the hearts and minds of the Iraqi public.

--SCC