Small talk

America’s defense plans suddenly look a lot less cowardly than they did last year when it was announced that the anti-missile plans in Poland and the Czech Republic would not go through after all. It seems Obama was serious when he stressed his rejection of the choice between ideals and safety, as plans have been announced to place anti-missile defense shields in Poland and Romania, with a possible additional spot in Bulgaria. More strain, then, on the already plagued relation between Russia and the US, despite the fact that the official aim is guarding Europe for the Iranian and North-Korean threats.

It was clear that the global heavyweight had no intention of leaving its NATO allies completely unprotected, as plans on the drawing boards involved defense systems relying on ships in the Baltic Sea. Not many expected a program extension, however, that would ensure the building of additional anti-missile bases in Poland and Romania by 2015. The latter might get one on a smaller scale, involving two short-to-medium-range interceptors, but the agreement -propelled by US Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Ellen Tauscher- probably surprised the Americans as much as the rest of the world. Not because everyone was convinced that Romania’s loyalty was reserved for the Kremlin, but because their willingness for swift cooperation was such that matters were settled within weeks. Parliamentary approval is now the last step that could block this deal, but few expected this to cause problems.

After Bush, with his annoying way of practicing international politics, Obama was a relief with his more relativistic and pragmatic approaches. Accusations of ‘going too soft’ seemed to have reached him now too, as he clearly steers into a bumpy road by getting the US closer to Russia in a way that no one in the Kremlin can appreciate. In a futile attempt to do undo some public relation damage, Romania’s president Traian Basescu’s made it actually even more obvious with his words of wisdom:

“The new system is not against Russia. I want to categorically stress this, Romani does not host a system against Russia, but against other threats” (Source: Al-Jazeera).

The question is not whether or not he is sincere; the question is whether anyone in the former communist command centre will see this is as words of comfort or words of confirmation. The old American defense plans lead to a lot of Russian resistance by imposing serious limits to Russia’s policy of ‘nuclear deterrence’, or indeed they just didn’t like the thought of having America’s fists so close to home-land.

In practice Russian reasons are misguided, both politically and maybe historically. As we’re talking about defense anti-missile shields, aimed at securing NATO-members from mainly Iran’s potential weaponry, there is no threat to the state itself. The only thing it potentially cannot do is attack Europe. The Bulgarian anti-missiles at least would not be able to intercept Russian missiles crossing the Arctic, as they are both slower and have lesser reach than those proposed by Bush. Even if the same could not be said of those to be stationed in Poland, America still has anti-missile defense systems waiting to do their masters biding on their own soil.

The political game is obvious: A cold-war relic, they just do not want this -what they see as sign of-American influences anywhere near their borderlines. Partly because they claim to have an historical agreement on their side, dating back to and making possible the German reunification, that forbids stationing bases in ex-communist states in Eastern Europe.  If true, it turns this policy into a clear violation. The Americans vehemently keep denying ever such an agreement was made.

To make matters worse, Bulgaria seems disappointed to have been passed: They too, seemed hopeful for a deal. And why shouldn’t they? No one buys the shocks of politicians, as they at least could have seen it coming. A missile base might display the American flag, but it will surely be a magnificent stimulus to local economies by demand for labor, supplies, services and, maybe, enduring profitable knowledge?

There is another, not yet here mentioned, possible reason as to why America decided to go into talks with Romania. It is actually a persuasive one as well. For quite some time the West has patiently been negotiating with Iran to try and get it to open up their agenda by letting in foreign officials who could check and report about Iran’s nuclear facilities and goals. It has been a pain; that much is obvious. If it weren’t for Russia and China, economic sanctions would have happened long ago. The latter is a stubborn on: China turns a blind eye to any misdoings, preferring not to interfere with any country’s internal affairs, thereby enabling it to usurp as much financial profit as it can. Russia, however, does care about foreign politics and its sphere of influence. By starting talks with Romania, something of which the Kremlin was well aware, the Americans hoped to drag Russia along in imposing sanctions on Iran, thereby making the anti-missile policy superfluous for its current purpose. That has failed. Russia did not take the bite, if it even was one.

It won’t make any difference anymore, however. The arguments from Russia’s side speak with the voice of pride more than of that of reason. With  a changing political and military scene worldwide, it might even be a prudent decision to take some precautions on safety, though it does strike as odd that it is again the US carrying the burden, not the ‘self baptized new world leaders from Europe’.

Another round of fighting between China, Taiwan and the USA.  Weapons sales made the Chinese furious, again.

By law America is obliged to deliver enough military supplies in order for Taiwan to be able to defend itself in an unstable region. Even so, the latest deal, worth about 6,4 billion dollars, was bound to create new problems, just like a similar one did in 2008, when the then still Bush-administration planned on selling arms.

In comparison to 2008 there are three advantages. First is that there now is Obama. He is less likely and willing to step on politician’s toes, as he has clearly and sometimes even elegantly, such as in Japan, demonstrated. Two other, less admirable, examples  of this would be his choices not to talk with the Dalai Lama before visiting China and not openly going into debate with high ranked Chinese officials during his visit to their country.

The second is a more important advantage: Ma Ying-jeou. The Taiwanese president isn’t all pro-China, but his promise spoke of ‘no reunification, independence and war’ during his time in office, and that has improved relations as long as you compare them with how the situation had been for decades.

The last advantage, in my eyes nearly negligible, is that Congress (the US Senate and House of Representatives) has 30 days to respond to the weapon sale plan. This is negligible, because they have shown a strong tendency to support such sales. Nevertheless, you never know (not that I would support withdrawing or cancelling sales).

I do honestly think the strain is starting to count, however, as Taiwanese officials underline simply by staging things along the lines that America does take China’s temperament seriously. Most of the arms will be defensive, rather than offensive. No F16 fighters, no diesel powered submarines will be included. Offensive weapons won’t threaten a country that takes little interest in the well-being of its citizens in the first place, especially not when it has about 1000 missiles aimed at Taiwan just as a precaution, but for China all is about image. Speaking about image, anyone that even slightly remembers China’s weapon parade in October 2009 will estimate Taiwan’s survival, if ever a military clash occurs, at zero.

On some occasions it is wise and pragmatic to give in to developing nation’s demands. To that rule China is no exception. But whereas countries such as India and Brazil can be called decent democracies, China is the underdeveloped child in the class. This leads to complications, and these lead to conclusions that do not carry a sense of compromise.  It is utterly senseless to give in to Chinese demands on weapon and war related issues, for the sole reason that its leaders cannot be taken seriously when it comes to these matters. They’re arming themselves like madmen, they are at best reluctant to solve international disputes, they don’t care about human rights and their ties with some nations have the potential to reach boiling point in mere seconds.

Just look at the way in which China reacts. Not a hint of solving the dispute by words; threats lead the way.  Some examples: Cooperation on Iran and North-Korea will be a lot harder to get it the deal goes through – as will for that matter anything that needs Chinese assistance-, military cooperation between the two superpowers is in jeopardy and plans to visit each other’s bases are on hold (which means it is of yet unclear whether U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates will go to China, and whether a visit to America by Gen Chen Bingde, a Chinese military chief, will happen).  The visits might be classified as unimportant, yet what about Iran and North-Korea? Is it possible to justify endangering these hugely complex and dangerous topics because China does not want to see Taiwan armed? It is, after all, a willingness to be able to defend your land and life that is the driving force behind this arms deal, unless you can seriously convince yourself Taiwan is the one about to infiltrate.

For China the answer seems clear, so I’m glad America arms Taiwan and I’m also glad that Obama will speak with the Dalai Lama. On points they might have lost some territory, as for instance on the already mentioned defensive character of the deal, on other points this just fits into the whole picture of Obama’s administration. That is not, as any republican would like to tell you, an administration of compromise. It is one that tries to be practical in reaching solutions by taking one step at a time, without losing sight of ideals. And that inevitably leads to paradoxical situations in which the president doesn’t ever want to slam a door, in case he wants to go back later. Remember also, that some doors should never have been opened.

You just cannot be happy with the way in which the West handles China. In philosophy you will often hear the phrase ‘rights trump utilities’. While I do not always agree with that saying, it should unnerve a lot more of our politicians. The large Asian country itself mightn’t be bothered how others solve their internal disputes, we should be (and many of us are). Not because it is good to interfere with businesses that are not your own, only because some systems are not based on consent or voluntary assent of the majority living under its rule.

Google’s (probable) upcoming withdrawal out of China shows just how real this is and to how many obstacles you can run into, even as an internet giant. Imagine how difficult matters are for individual dissidents: Need we say or know more?  As argued before here, China is not yet a match to the US, we definitely shouldn’t make them feel like they are. Our sounds should be louder, the messages tougher and the results better.

Not much news in the things Obama’s spoke about in his ‘State of the Union’ speech.  It was good to hear; he has not lost his demagoguism which made him the president of hope. This president of hope has got some pretty harsh punches though, which he carefully but honestly admitted. Not that he had any choice.

Some things were bound to come up, such as health-care and the financial crisis. His tone was at least pleasing to those who felt wronged in the last twelve months. As Obama spoke about the bank bail-outs, he made it clear that he hated them as much as McCain’s ‘Joe the plumber’: Helping out Wall Street without helping those working on Main Street was and is not the White House’s aim.

I expected him to come up with a little bit more on health-care. There are not many difficulties to overcome, even if the fact to the matter is that those which do remain will be hard to take. A clear message to his own democratic party to back him in his plans, packed in a message to all congressmen to ‘not walk away from reform’. After all, America hasn’t been so close to reform for many, many years. And he is right, although current proposals aren’t good enough. He spoke of the millions that will lose their insurance in the coming year. If that is a correct prediction, it might open republican eyes. The next couple of weeks might tell us more, and I’ll do my best to keep development in plain view.

There was also a slight reassuring message. Without having had the time to plunge the depths of finances, even I was glad to hear Obama backed a plan to cut the deficit. “Specific steps” will be taken to pay for the trillions of dollars, and these steps will start moving in 2011. It’ll be a freeze of government spending for three years. Too late according to republicans, but I doubt that. I’m not at all sure whether the American, or world economy at large, is able to stand on its own feet after depending on government spending for such a long time. Governments have grown huge, so cutting will inevitably have to happen, but carefully, not driven by saving-lunacy. They’ve not done that for years, why over-hurry when the stakes are so high?

This brings us to the next point of Obama’s speech: The workforce. America’s unemployment rate is still rising. That is both bound to create a sense of unease, as well as a negative mood among US citizens. Start making cuts in government too quickly, and even more workers will lose their jobs. A market driven by innovative minds and processes might be much better able to create new jobs; it does need a sense of security in which investment is rule rather than exception. To my knowledge then, Obama does wait long, but it is better than acting too early and slump the economy back into recession (or long term miniscule growth).

I lied earlier on. He did surprise me in his speech on one topic: The Supreme Court. I believe it was last week (?) when the Supreme Court decided spending could be unlimited in electoral campaigns. The president did not agree, and neither do I. The runs for public functions are already too often a pig circus, where budgets and mud throwing competitions decide much too much. Don’t let that get out hand.

The American nation has to come together, and carry the burden. Republicans and democrats working along each other’s side, instead of blindfolding themselves with their ideologies, is the only thing that can bring improvement. Obama knows this, reaffirmed that his first year wasn’t easy and all didn’t go according to plan: He also broadcast a new message of trust and hope. Don’t switch sides too quickly; if he acts decisively his presidency is all but lost.

We’ve all heard the apocalypse that approaches Obama’s democratic administration. Massachusetts has elected a new senator: Scott Brown. Suddenly all you hear is the word ‘filibuster’.

Exaggeration is not good in politics or journalism. It creates irrationality. Just how quickly this is relevant here, I cannot tell. I am inclined to say it is a serious signal for a traditional democratic state to elect a republican senator. Then again, Obama was never expected to have an easy second year, so does it matter?

It just might, for what is at stake here is health-care reform. Many republicans would love to stop the president dead in his tracks here. That’d be like a bomb going off right in his face, damaging his image on his own soil, more than anywhere else. In other countries this is much less important. Only those who are trying to make up the balance of Obama’s first year, or who are reviewing his general path, present their views in direct relation to his performance.

Much of Obama’s campaigning focused on health-reform, however. So he’ll be desperate to get at least something through. He has several options here. At this moment both the House and the Senate have passed a bill. This means that, if one of these accepts the other’s proposal, the essential foundation for reform has been completed. There is only one route that has any potential for success here: The House of Representatives must accept the Senate’s version. The other way around is virtually impossible.

Even seeing the House adopt the Senate’s version, in order to get something implemented, seems unlikely though. Several reasons will take care of that. Most important is that the Senate has not included a government run insurance-scheme. Pelosi once said that “she would not accept anything that didn’t’ include a government-run scheme”. It does provide the option for states to adopt such a scheme, but add to that the unpopularity of the current direction in which things are heading, and it’ll make many representatives very reluctant to accept anything at all at this stage, fearing for their next elections.

Obama could also opt for another route. In order to do so he will have to come up with ideas and plans that cure wounds in the current system. Thinking in financial terms will do much good here: Eradicating rules and policies that waste valuable dollars, but which are nevertheless being overlooked or ignored by many democrats, will please at least some republicans.

“Cost control” will be the magic word. If he manages to cover distance that way, he might be able to reform health-care step by step, instead of drastically, though insufficiently, changing all at once. Most democrats might still be on the president’s side; it would still be a good thing if they kept, or started, looking at some of the republican’s better arguments.

Thanks to the many marvelous Christmas editions of newspapers and magazines, you sort of get the feeling the world stops for a few days. Only cleaning the dishes, after lovely extravagant feasts, reminds of the build-up wherein people were nervously and frantically working on preparations.

Things are almost back to normal. Last obstacle is a smooth transition of time from our old year, into the new one. Luckily, this process will take care of itself. Unlike politics; here politicians keep forcing the people to keep a close eye on practices. After months of watching the process of a new health-care bill for Americans, I missed out on the Senate’s highly anticipated vote.

The Economist dubbed it ‘Obama’s Christmas present’. I don’t know what kind of presents the author normally finds under his or her tree, but I hardly believe it is malfunctioning, unfinished and highly debated. Of course that was not what the author was aiming for. It is a great collective achievement to get health-care this far, something unseen since the 60’s. We’re not quite there yet though.

Not that proposals by the Senate and the House of Representatives are that far apart. They should, in theory, make Congress well able to reconcile them, so that one combined proposal may be sent to the White House for a presidential signature. I do not have the intention to repeat the arguments I have made before here. If ever a bill passes, then I will, especially if it does not solve those things that I and many others think need solving.

At this moment we’ll ignore our rearview mirror, and wait a little longer.  Since no combination of Senate and House has so far been drafted things could still go horribly wrong, though admittedly I think this is unlikely. Margins of error are very small, but as long as the House recognizes this by leaning towards the proposal of their legislature-counterpart, something positive should come out.

Ironically, it is very doubtful whether this will go down well with Americans. Obama’s reputation has declined, something not altogether justified, but so has the reputation of health-care reform. People are sometimes said to be unsatisfied. Whether they are unsatisfied enough to see this reform as a potential boost for Obama’s popularity we can’t tell yet.

As the first black president of the United States, Obama stirred the hearts and minds of the majority and minorities alike. An American dream, the power of democracy, an event unforeseen and only dreamed of.  Now, with 2009 coming to an end, optimism has fallen, enthusiasm has been tempered and the all too familiar grave political mood has returned, as ubiquitous as ever?

To give you some examples, people now say of him that ‘he is easy to push around’ and ‘is politically too correct’. He did little to pull down expectations during his electoral campaign, for obvious reasons. Now he’ll have to take the dubious credit of not being able to live up to those promises, or so it seems. Stabilizing his image to Native Americans by showing he is a global heavy-weight, without being so only as the result of a long tradition, will be quite hard, which is quite awkward. For Obama’s first year was troublesome, though no failure. What can we say about his performance so far, as an intermediate conclusion and judgment on his time in office?

Domestic affairs: Finances
This question is easiest to answer if we look at some of the major problems the world is facing today. Partly as a result of recent economic crisis, but more due to economic misbehavior in America’s past it is best to start with fiscal debt.  At this moment it is about 70% of GDP, making it no small feat.  Little consensus on policies makes matters complicated, which is like saying, in more pragmatic terms: When and how to act?

It is beyond reasonable doubt that America will have to cut spending or raise income. It is beyond all doubt that no one can come up with a plan supported by Congress. From the bright side, at least for Obama, we can say that acting now will be foolish. Cuts in spending could in principle stop the economy dead in its tracks, making any image-revival of Obama virtually impossible. What he and his team should do is provide the country, and the world for that matter, with a scheme on how America will act, given the chance in the near future. If America’s fiscal policy is sound in the eyes of economists, journalists and businesses this will boost morale and confidence. One clear reason why this is so important is the fuel that drives America’s economy: Research and development, or in another word just ‘innovation’. In many areas vast amounts of money are involved. Seeing these flee to find luck elsewhere would do great harm, not just to an economic revival, to future growth as well.

As the White House is supported by several Think-Tanks, I have little doubt that sooner or later they will propose ways to tackle the problem. Of all sides they will be most likely to walk at a slow pace, possibly reassured by Japan. This Asian country has a debt to GDP ratio much higher than America (about 200%), and it has not resulted in a collapse of either economy or currency. In fact, the Yen has only risen in value. Only don’t be fooled by staring at similarities. It is to the credit of Japanese companies that their efficiency and quality – as well as their monopoly in the production of basic elements for electronics assembly-lines – that they are still going strong. Most countries would probably have seen their export go down rapidly, especially with a currency going strong, making their products expensive. America needs to learn from this. It could prove a near fatal blow to growth if the dollar would suddenly go strong in comparison to the Euro, Yen, Yuan and Pound (..if only China would de-couple the Yuan from the dollar).

A good way to achieve this would be by making sure spending is kept on level, if necessary by more government market-intervention or quantitative easing (it would be lethal to abuse this option however: Too much money would mean higher interest rates, resulting in financial burdens that would bend any knee). All the same, it is better to spend too much, than to cut too early.  More money circulating is likely to hold the dollar back, improving prospects for exporting firms. A shift from consuming products to exporting them is desired in any case, just as it is the other way around for ‘counterweight’ China. Good hopes tell us that this will stimulate economies worldwide, providing a much better balance.

Fiscal policies hang tightly together with currency control, albeit not China style. Another discussed topic this year was the so called ‘demise of the dollar’. In particular as a trusted reserve currency, in more general terms as a total eclipse. With America’s image falling and economies taking hard punches, this only seemed to be the next logical step, but it isn’t. It is a far-fetched scenario, an unwanted scenario.  First of all Japan has already shown that fiscal debt does not mean a weak currency, so there is as yet no reason to come up with doom-predictions. Second, the American state has a habit of doing pay-backs in time, which is good for mutual trust and bonds. Thirdly the dollar simply does not have any real competitors. No currency is as well trusted, known and liked as the dollar, which is the simple truth of the matter. Adding a fourth will not be necessary, since it is entailed by the third: By having bought huge amounts of American State obligations, China and Japan hold its fate in their hands. But it also means that, if the dollar collapses, nearly all Chinese and Japanese reserves evaporate. The dollar stronghold goes deep to the hearts of many economies. It might not be essential, but it sure as hell is important.

All this might make you think America cleverly held a firm grip on the world. This is not exactly the case. China and Japan are perhaps in theory able to wreck the dollar, America is only to a certain extent able to steer it where it wants it to go. If they let their currency fall too steeply, interest rates will increase rapidly, making loans too expensive and risky in light of future, possibly higher, values of the dollar. So Obama will need to get out of his office again and take firm steps. Controlling the deficit comes in as a first priority in the years to come. When the government will not face the deficit it will probably amount to about 4% of GDP in 2014, whereas European standards allow no more than 2 or 3% as acceptable. Furthermore, it would postpone the burden of a higher debt to future generations.

Raising income is at this point his only option. Obama needs to be cunning to get this to work, for this generally means more or higher taxes. And taxes, especially with republicans keen on pointing to Obama’s campaign promises (no income under $250.000 would see its taxes rise), are notoriously difficult to get through Congress. Our only hope focuses itself on Congress’ and public’s realizations of how large the problem is.  A good number of proposals have so far been made (no, not by government institutions. They are still reluctant to burn their hands). Best of these would be a value-added tax, meaning taxing products in every state of production. Actually, America is the only OECD-country not yet to have implemented this system. Normally this would be a good argument in favour of the hypothesis that it is a decent way to go. Not in this case: In European countries VAT’s are quite normal, however in America no one is used to the idea, so a complete new tax will have to be introduced, arguably being more problematic than raising old ones. How and when that is going to be shoved down people’s throats is no light-issue. As politicians who oppose this system have also pointed out, VAT’s are handy in creating ‘small’ changes in tax-revenues by increasing percentages via a slippery slope.

Domestic affairs 2: Health-care
Drawing the discussion on domestic finances to an end, we see that it is still quite neutral. Almost all will depend on decisions that have yet to be made, or even worse: drafted. When it comes to health-care we land in a wholly different landscape. Everything has been discussed many times over already, details rather than general economic ‘laws’ count. Discussed several times previously on this site, health-care is all that is American politics: Sensitive, detailed, riddled with tradition and full of principles.

At this moment it is no longer just a battle between leftish Democrats and right-winged Republicans. The House of Representatives already passed a bill, it is now up to the Senate in order to come up with their own version, and then to combine both into one law for the president to sign. In many ways the two versions are already quite similar. One big difference is the fact that the Senate included an opt-out to each-state for government-run insurance schemes. This is a clever way to work around demand such as the one by Nancy Pelosi who stated that “no bill would be accepted without a government-run scheme”.  On the whole, the Senate’s proposal is slightly favourable because it also cures a disease that goes deeper beneath the surface of America’s health-care problems:  Subsidies given to employer-provided insurance, resulting in over-insurance. This is not done, as the House would have it, by just taxing the rich. Rather the Senate chose to cut taxes on the most expensive health-policies, which will, in the most positive case, bring more private- and less company-insurance, therefore less tinkering with payrolls in order to get the subsidies, hence higher loans.

Don’t worry, there are still negative issues left to write about. Obama’s magical budget of $900 billion dollars for instance. It is not at all clear if it will be met or thrown aside. Yes, all the numbers tell us it will cost less so that it will not add to America’s deficit. However, those numbers pre-suppose magical cuts in, to name an example, doctors’ salaries. No small cuts: About a fifth. Failed attempts in the past are numerous, no one knows why and if they will succeed in getting a decent ‘pay for quality’ instead of ‘pay for service’ this time. Whatever happens in the near future, we have arrived at the president’s first (modest?) success: Health-care reform. And let’s be honest, no one managed to get as far as he did for decades.

Afghan reinforcements and allies
Earlier it was pointed out that Obama’s image changed for the worse. Up till now, we saw finances as a relatively neutral area, where not much blame or praise can be ascribed to Obama, and health-care, where he seems to head at modest success, at least and last. We will now start looking at some more controversial aspects, starting with Afghanistan, a bit on Iraq, then Guantanamo, Palestine and Israel, China and Japan and ending with climate change.

Last week we finally got a look into Obama’s aims in Afghanistan. More troops, not the requested 45.000, but about 30.000. This shows no lack of rigor. Obviously no government would send as many troops when it did not back it. In a speech in which he announced and explained his thoughts, Obama also pointed towards a (tentative) deadline of retreat: 2011. My first impression was one of hopeless presidential optimism. Reasons provided afterwards, by drawing on the need for Afghanistan to stand on its own legs and that America had no long term interest in staying there, nuanced my opinion for the better. Recalling memories of the war in Iraq, it is not very hard to see why Obama’s deadline is a clever move. It spreads a clear message of Afghan-independence, but it has also barricaded or delayed large American protests, lethal to public opinion. American people are bound to realize they are the only one putting up a real fight anyway. On the other side, coming up with even a further removed deadline will always create possibilities to manipulate the message, and it is not hard for the Taliban to claim that America ‘is not capable, willing and strong enough to put up a lasting fight’. A retreat by the Taliban is not necessary, since they’re on home grounds. Success then will depend on how much Afghan people believe that there is enough time to eradicate evil to secure the future.

Particularly important is that Afghanistan will go on without foreign interventions and aid. America realizes this, shown by the official request of Mrs Clinton earlier this week to the Dutch government. The Netherlands, stationed in Uruzgan and partly occupied with training troops, are due to leave Afghanistan in August 2010, a very dubious step. The Dutch have been there since 2006 and are not just familiar with Afghan grounds, also with its people. This was later underlined by Hadam, governor of Uruzgan. He requested van Middelkoop, Dutch minister of Defense, to prolong their stay, concluding that if they were to leave now, they would have done only half a job. In the unlikely event of Hadam influencing opinions in The Hague, we still have Mrs Clinton’s request. And though no Dutch politician will admit it, they all glow when high officials ask for a ‘small favour’. Perhaps Obama and Clinton should pay closer attention to such potential snow-ball effects. When more European countries are dragged into this war, opposition or opts-out will be under pressure. How ironic is it that there has been hardly any attention, from America’ side, to Britain’s gesture of sending more troops? The number wasn’t very high; nevertheless it was an increase, not a discussion about withdrawal.

On Afghanistan our conclusions are slightly positive then. Obama has shown a willingness to make decisive steps while keeping objectives in clear-sight, realizing a withdrawal cannot be postponed indefinitely. By doing so, he chose side not with his own nation, but with the people of Afghanistan. And that is of major importance. I argued something similar on Iraq several weeks ago, by stating that leaving should not be taken as the only option if a small lengthening of the stay improves security. Unlikely as that might seem he has at least shown to be not as quick on jumping to conclusions as his voters: Anyone not supporting the war would have withdrawn quicker. Some credit goes to the political situation as well, as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are in a sense much less likely to create problems in Congress than issues like health-care. Republicans didn’t want to leave Iraq nor Afghanistan. They are unwilling to lose face, so they’ll support Obama in his plans for more troops. His own party, the Democrats, supports the wars much less; luckily for Obama they want to back their president.

Problems: Israel & Palestine and Iran
Hot and fierce as always: The unpolished, double faced coin of Israel and Palestine. Obama’s administration has done little more than wasting energy, and it is sometimes doubted whether America took the issue seriously enough this year.  Building settlements is a thorn in the eyes of Palestinians, but America did not dare to openly condemn it, resulting in indignation after Clinton’s infamous and bizarre words of praise. That was before Netanyahu, on November 25^th, announced that Israel would stop building settlements on the West Bank for ten months. Naturally this was not nearly enough according to Abbas, leader of secular Fatah which is in control of the West Bank. Their demand is a complete halt to any new and old settlements building, for which they have good reasons. America doesn’t recognize the legitimacy of the settlements either. Israel on the other hand speaks of “far-reaching and painful steps”.  Concessions are inevitable. Both sides have seen more than enough bloodshed to know what is in their best interests, and both sides are also held back by a relatively small number of extremists and fundamentalists, ruining relations.

What interests us here is what Obama should do. Which route to take? Not one of unconditional friendship of the Israeli’s. Support their existence and security by any means you want, but learn to condemn any practices you deem immoral or illegitimate, of which war-crimes and settlements are two. Full blown attention will be a prerequisite. At this moment, with Copenhagen, Afghanistan and health-care consuming his time, it is unrealistic to think he will be able to help achieving peace. There are reasons why all his predecessors failed: Complexity, emotions and a history of presumptuous prejudices. To ask of a president who hasn’t even visited the country to solve its problems is lunacy.

Things get even messier when this year comes to an end. December will be the last month in which Iran gets friendly options to stop enriching uranium. Officials vehemently state that they’re only doing it to produce energy, though even sceptics  are now unable to buy this story. Especially after discovering a new secret military base where more uranium is probably being enriched. With Ahmadinejad walking the provocative route, we’ll do best to prepare our sanctions in writing, so that they’ll get into effect from the 1^st of January. Not that this will happen, Russia and China are still reluctant to impose sanctions as economic interests will be endangered. China depends on the country for oil supplies for instance. Saudi-Arabia probably wouldn’t mind though, if Iran blocks supplies to China because of sanctions, they will have one big, extra client.

All the same, we should hurry. Terrorism is one thing that worries, a corrupt, anti-Western state with nuclear arms is another, much bigger worry. The best route to take is imposing sanctions that will make proceeding economically so devastating, that it is just too expensive to continue enriching uranium and preventing checks by western-officials.  Some sketch an even gloomier prospect in which, by Israel’s hands, we’ll end up with another war. No one wants another war, and how probable it is remains unclear. Israel is a powerful state and they will be weary to see Iran becoming a nuclear power. Remind yourself of the 80’s: Bombing nuclear power plants is no science-fiction. That they’ll succeed without America’s help is unlikely, but no success without an attempt. If it ever gets as far as that, we can suspect Israel having America’s backing in any case. Best to prevent such, at this moment still far-fetched, calamities by other means.

Human rights and cultures

Guantanamo-Bay is another issue making people regard Obama as a president that is way too soft. Human-right watchers were among those who got their hopes up last year, awed by wonderful one-liners such as “We reject as false the choice between our safety and ideals.” He might still believe in that, only he does not live up to it.  As expected, Guantanamo Bay is now by official words deemed unlikely, political words for impossible, to close in January next year. It proved incredible hard to transfer prisoners elsewhere, because no state or country wants to the prisoners under their roof. Another pain-staking question is if trials should be held according to public law, or to military law. If it’s going to be public law, then the master-mind behind the 9/11 attacks will be judged before a court in New York, and many seriously doubt if a panel of citizens can remain objective. Besides, many prisoners that are held in Guantanamo are held for reasons ‘worthy’ of a military trial. You can spot the difficulties, not in the least sense ethical ones. Anyway, holding people without a trial under dubious conditions cannot be justified by their own, or any, standards.

China too becomes interesting again from this perspective. Ethicists will have plenty of work to do there. The vast country was honored by a visit of Obama and a part of his administration in November. They probably spoke about climate change and economic ties. What was likely to escape their attention is summed up as human-rights. No questions were allowed during a press-conference, something quite different than from the time of Bill Clinton. Possibly the Chinese government is afraid of their people getting into touch with freedom-thoughts. Westerners don’t seem particularly bothered with this, underlined by the way in which contacts with the Dalai-Lama were handled. Dutch prime-minister Balkenende decided not to speak with him prior to the Olympic Games in Beijing, and now Obama has done the same. Why, so as not to hurt China’s feelings or because economic interests are more important than ethical-norms?

Another noteworthy event in his visit to Asia was his meeting with the Japanese Emperor. Obama once again showed more respect and political sensibility than any of his predecessors.  When meeting Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko at the Imperial Palace, Obama bowed. Not just a tiny flick of the back, but a courteous, near 90 degrees bow. Critics surged at him for defying ‘state department protocol’: Presidents bow to no one! Even L.A. times writer Andrew Malcolm went as far as suggesting that his bow was undignified and showed a lack of understanding of the history between the two countries.

Well not at all. It was Malcolm who showed a lack of understanding of Japanese history, and Obama, who apparently took notice of Japanese values and traditions, implicitly put to rest a lot of tensions, of which many were the result of haunted, 20^th century memories. It’s of no use to dwell in past misgivings, especially not if it gets in the way of a better future. What has happened will not be undone, and important is that everyone realizes it must never happen again. The foolhardy, unimaginative idealists miss the point of bowing; it was not an act of inferiority. It was a courteous act, one that showed respect and willingness to cooperate on equal footing.

The importance of that should not be underestimated. America has had a treaty with Japan for decades, known as the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan. The USA will be obliged to defend Japan when this becomes necessary in light of disasters or war, albeit in close cooperation with the Japan Self-Defence Forces. America in return has military bases stationed on Japan, currently holding about 33.000 soldiers.  With North-Korea as a (potential) nuclear power and China holding an arms-race it is of strategic importance for all free societies if America stays in Japan. Many Japanese used to be fond of the pact, although several deaths and a case of rape have damaged the army’s status. Aircraft noise, pollution and crimes by US service personnel only make a turn of public opinion go faster, as recent protests indicated. This especially relates to the base on Okinawa Island, called Futenma, because it is located in the middle of a densely populated area. That island’s geography is too good to leave behind however, since the US can reach China, Taiwan and North-Korea without moving. This is another one of those difficult matters in which Obama needs to convince other governments that it is not just in America’s interest to extend further cooperation.

These are hard issues. Not because the solutions are vague, most of them are not. What they do show us is that it is easy for two fields of human activity to clash: Economic activities as opposed to issues of justice.  Of course Obama knows this. He has shown know-how on sensitive cultural issues. But whereas he did a good job on this in Japan, he failed to do so in China, where he should clearly have taken a firmer stand on human-rights. Guantanamo is probably different. It is not a question of being unwilling, it is more the fact of the task’s difficulties, something  that was previously underestimated.

The concept of cooperation gets more important as days pass by. Military and economic arguments are ready at hand to prove it. Climate change is another one of these highly prestigious projects. I am not a skeptic when it comes to climate change, even if I don’t think the proof is conclusive. Actually, proof is never conclusive. Not acting and turning out to be wrong would be much worse than acting and turning out to be wrong however, and we only have one planet so we better not take the risk. Obama seems to think along these lines too, as his decision to visit Copenhagen in person indicates. It would have become a joke if he hadn’t, since his country is one of the world’s biggest polluters.

Copenhagen
The last international troubling thing we will discuss is the summit in Copenhagen. The aim is a replacement for the Kyoto protocol, which was never ratified by the Senate. America’s Congress, mainly the Senate, is hardly filled with enthusiasm to counter climate change. Activists have put their faith in Obama, who seems keen to prevent his image from sliding into one that neglects milieu.  Copenhagen offers the last meeting on government level before the climate agreement will be renewed, but sadly general expectations are low.

The White House might have words with a nice sound to them; so far no notable goals have been achieved.  Passing a cap and trade bill would be an enormous boost, yet no one reasonable believes this will happen before or during the Copenhagen meeting. This means damage to America’s image. Mainly developing countries stress the responsibility of wealthy, industrialized nations: They have been able to pluck the fruits of pollution, now they should pay the price. It’s an odd fact that China will not have to change course to reach its goals. America has used this as a critique by saying standards are too low. This is unjustified: They have already taken measures. Sure, they could do more, only not before America acts. Cooperation is a key word here: No treaty will work if neither the US nor China is involved (Obama’s goal of 80% reduction by 2050 will certainly not). In the times of Bush Sr. the cuts that would have to be made seemed too severe and unworthy. These days the messages are different, as Mrs. Clinton’s acknowledgment of past climate emissions makes clear: “The US is no longer absent without leave”.  Hoping for Obama to loosen the tongues and turn the tie by assuring other nations that America will cut emissions in the near future is not very realistic, as his visit to Denmark will probably be of short notice.

Not this year, maybe next year
Now we can start summing up some of what has been said. Financial times are getting better. And as long as hot heads are overruled by good hearts they will hopefully remain doing so. No cuts, perhaps some more economic stimulation and a good plan for the years to come are pillars that should be kept in mind. Change in health-care is on its way. Wars and human-rights are the most obscure of all. Afghanistan has now seen some of what goes on in his head, but Israel and Palestine are still on the waiting-list. Boosting his image by putting Iran back into place will make him a stronger person in the eyes of many, and it might also win him favors on the side of Israel, making future demands taking off from higher grounds.

You might, as I do, spot a trend in all these things: We cannot see how Obama will be received in history. We don’t know what his grand schemes will do, whether these roads are strong enough to carry a country’s weight.  A judgement on his presidency only on first year arguments will not be fair. Maybe we can now say: 2009 was the year of inauguration, press and glamour, decline and criticism? And then, maybe next year: This was the year of president Obama, where he did not finish the roads he started building on, but where he showed us at least that they lead somewhere?

Finally some light at the end of the tunnel for Barack Obama. Only hours after I made my previous post, which for other reasons didn’t end up here sooner, America has made another step towards reforming its miserable health-care system. The House of Representatives passed a reform-bill, which will account for near- universal health-insurance. Some senators have still to make their own proposals, but if all works out the next step will be comparing the wishes of the House and the Senate. How and if they will be able to skip over the difficult bits is not yet clear, but things are at least moving.

Taking the events of the past months into account it is not altogether surprising that the government will have its share in the new policy. The way in which some aspects are put into writing reminds, at least in theory, of the Dutch system. First of all: Everyone must have health-insurance. The poorer- and middle incomes are eligible for subsidies however. The old system, leaning heavily on pillars such as Medicaid and Medicare, will fall apart, though Medicaid will be reintegrated into the new system. This form of integration also means expansion, since we know the numbers of uninsured are huge. The States will have to accept 15 million new applicants into Medicaid in an attempt to reduce this. Unlike in the Netherlands, where health-care is no free choice, the government will itself participate in the market as well (that is, if the bill is passed). Firms are appointed a share in the play too. Each company with a payroll larger than $500.000 will have to provide its workers with health-care. By my knowledge nothing is yet known on the level of the fines involved, but I dare say they will not make a balance sheet look brighter.

Not all is good however. We might first point to some issues that have been given their place in the bill as part of a compromise. Abortion-rights are neglected; apparently the freedom of choice does not go to such lengths as to allow surpassing old, religious doctrines or convictions. It was necessary however, because the bill would otherwise not have been able to get the support it needed in order to be passed. Another thing is the costs the new system will bring along. It will be cheaper than it is now. Families will see fees decline, which is a good thing. According to latest figures savings will amount to a maximum of $1260 a year (for a family of four). Less popular will be the costs for the public wallet. Estimates vary, but $1.05 trillion is the number mentioned by the Economist in its article “Claiming a Victory”, to be printed in this week’s edition (online release 9^th of November and to be found on http://economist.com , though for subscribers only). That is more than the maximum amount of 900 billion dollars Obama had been rhetorically preaching about earlier. I am delighted by the prospect that revenues will most likely be raised by taxing the rich, rather than middle-incomes this time round though.

Up to this even the more negative things are only minor blows. It could have been much worse.  Some things remain doubtful, for instance whether Medicaid will not waste huge amounts of money and whether government-run policies will actually be able to compete on the market without falling into the all too familiar traps. But, once again, nothing or in any case too less has been said and written about those things that actually tyrannize the American system: Bureaucracy, pay for services rather than quality, too less digitalization and too much wasting of medicines among other things. Whether cross-border competition will get going remains unclear, but we can hope the republicans will at least do some good by stressing the importance of that. Let’s also hope states will not be granted an option to opt-out, so that the system truly strives towards a distribution of this valuable good for all its society’s members.

And on the bright-side, things can hardly get any worse.  The system isn’t implemented yet of course, we don’t even know whether it will be, but the American citizens have at least gained some right again in hoping that this dauntingly long-term project will be tackled. Our attention can now be diverted towards the Senate.

Health care is complicated business that’s for sure. Even the Swiss now admit that health-insurance scheme does not and will not work without government support. In many western countries medical care is seen not as an option, but as a human-right, nearly as important and basic to a democratic society as food, clothes and proper shelter.

America seems to be the major exception on this area. Not only do many people create havoc when a government-run policy is proposed, they are also quite reluctant to accept any scheme that forces people into buying insurance. With pro-choice and freedom in the back of their mind’s this might be no surprise, but it is foolhardy to the extreme; idealism can be blinding.

Sadly most of their attempts to solve straighten their affairs are off-target. Rather than asking themselves what it is that makes American health-care so utterly, incomprehensible expensive, they keep tripping over their own feet. And if these feet normally walk on conservative grounds, then the ideals most likely held will involve freedom of choice and as less government interference as possible. If ideals are more ‘modern’ your position will probably be located somewhere in the middle, with good intentions that get your country nowhere. For that is in a very crude sense what is now happening.

It has long been clear that health-insurance is not a choice between either more or less government, for a very simple reason: More government is not an option. The USA already spends about 16,2% of its total budget on it, whereas other developed countries such as Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland spend 10,8%, 9,1% and 11,6% respectively. If everyone got coverage, this wouldn’t be such a big deal: Cuts would have to be made, but at least the system would be where it is ‘supposed to be’. As widely known, this is not the case. America has nearly 50 million people uninsured. More money does not mean better quality.

Its many problems in combination with faithful adherence to old principles creates more than enough pressure on the public image of politicians, so much that losing sight might mean losing your next election. A first thing that might raise some eyebrows is the wondrous question why an obligation to participate is such a bad thing. Those who can afford health-care rarely decide not to buy it. In general only those who cannot pay the price opt-out, lowering demand which in turn drives prices up. You can see where that is going, and why the burden has become 16,2%. National participation would, at least in theory, lower the costs for the whole. And with an eye towards Europe, there is enough reason to think it actually works as well.

But much will have to be done to make a decent system out of this mess. Government- and private sector should cooperate more on strategic points. Politicians should take a firm step by agreeing unanimously that insurance ought to be available for everyone, with no difference in quality, and above all for a fair price.  Experience has to a certain extent taught us that privatized businesses are more profitable, innovative and efficient than those run by the government, as any republican will kindly remind you of. So the emphasis needs to be put on transparent competition by firms, as this probably will not only please the republicans but the treasury as well. They might also have a point when it comes to government insurance-schemes, albeit for the wrong reasons, which might best be forgotten or postponed completely. Subsidies might take their place, for this sector is hard to make profitable without them. Especially if people may no longer be turned down by companies as a result of prior-known medical conditions, many will be persuaded to think that the treatment costs will outweigh incomes quite quickly.

And there are other reasons to think why government run policy is not the answer, as the Economist has also argued in the past. First is that it is both cheap and secure, without lacking the rigor of companies that seek profit. That makes it an easy option when you’re in a tight spot, but it also undermines market-functioning. In other words: Companies will suffer because of losing customers. And in any case, federal solutions can be activated if it became evident that businesses are or will not be able to regulate the market in a satisfactory way. Second is that it will probably be tied to a ‘state option’, meaning that each state can chose to adopt a government run scheme or not, thereby again undermining the system and making sure that at least not everyone will be covered. To that we will have to add a republican claim that to this date has been greatly ignored by democrats, namely the virtually non-existing cross-border competition on health-care, something definitely useful.

So far though, we still have not touched the issues that are of most vital importance if Obama wants to make the new system work: The big, gaping holes in which so much money disappears. That comes in the form of money for service instead of quality. Remarkable as it is, there is nearly no relationship at all between spending and quality. In areas where there are more hospital beds, doctors and equipment available, people will make more use of them. This pushes prices upwards. The differences in prices between hospitals are also huge. McAllen, Texas, is an excellent example of this: Each Medicare enrollee costs about $15.000, which is about twice as high as the national average. Treating people in other clinics could save millions therefore and no doubt privatized businesses with a high-number of clients would make sure this happened. Likewise with the enormous bureaucratic costs, which are said to consume as much as up to 40% of some practices’ revenues (compare this with about 5-6% in Switzerland, and you will realize that innovation and clever solutions can be found in all situations).  The way in which drugs are ordered is another feature that should be digitalized, with the use of electronic health records. This would also provide better ways for distributing the correct doses, which in turn might have a positive effect on the 17 billion dollars that are wasted every year.

The Senate, leaning towards the political right, and the House of Representatives, leaning to the left, will be busy indeed. They’re not making it easy, lest they come together and join forces. We must not get our hopes up however; for at this moment it is unlikely that anything will be delivered that are not weak compromises between private business-insurances and government-run back-up options.  You might be as surprised as I am, that two (or three, if you include the president and his support staff) collective bodies of such great political influence and stature cannot come up with a better solution, as the problems that make up the core of this crisis remain intact. More drastic measures are needed. we can only wait for enlightenment.

Over the past year there have been many attempts and proposals aimed at policy making that in some sense or another have mocked the strong beliefs so many countries proudly held up high. Now, after the hardest blows seem to have passed, traces of national protectionism have popped up everywhere. The most infamous known is probably Barack Obama’s import tariffs on Chinese tires, though the uproar this caused in China hasn’t lead to serious counter strikes yet.

But there are other ways than tariffs to regulate the market or, in a less ambitious sense, try to influence its direction. Here the big car companies might come to mind.  And rightly so: The money involved with the bail-out of General Motors (GM) was high. Recently, with the involvement of the German government in order to speed up and secure the sale of car-manufacturer Opel, the tale has got a new twist.

Herein GM at least showed us last week that they still know what it is to do business. The company has since 1929 been the owner of Opel, a German car-brand. But the crisis hasn’t loosened its grip completely, wherefore the sale of Opel was thought to be a necessary or wise step to cure the company of its many illnesses. But American GM had not so much a change of heart, as a change of opportunities. And opportunities are taken, not handed out is what they seem to think. Germans in any case didn’t see this coming, judging by their calls of outrage. Because now we know GM will not be selling the brand Opel to Magna. The reasons are clear.

It started because Germany was reluctant to turn a blind eye to the laying off of too large a share of its workforce, since they think it is important to keep as many people working as possible. So to prevent GM from drowning they offered 1,5 billion Euros in order to close the financial gap, which was aimed at securing possibilities for an Opel-sale. And they took it to be as such. But another offer by German politicians of 4,5 billion Euros, eventually changed the whole scene. At first this provisional loan was aimed at Magna (a Canadian company) and Sherbank (a Russian company), to make sure that after the take-over German Opel factories would remain operational. Before we go over the whole issue why GM is not selling, several points should be noted.

The first is the fact that European institutions do not seem to put free market reign on an untouchable pedestal anymore. Help provided in this manner is something which cannot be compared to bank bail-outs, which were necessary from a more general point of view. Second is that the Germans might feel betrayed by their American car-colleagues, but they have absolutely no reason to. A more tentative note might be stated as a question: What would have happened when neither GM nor Opel would have made it? It’s clear; survival without help can be summarized as ‘unlikely’. But Germany’s help towards both GM and Opel came on top of everything the White house had already done. It is hard to get rid of the impression that the two companies would have walked straight into death’s outreaching arms without it. But maybe we should be glad that they have not. Many people depend on their jobs, and so do quite a lot of businesses that can only work because they are so intimately tied to the car-makers. A rich history and an excellent body of knowledge can hopefully only be helpful in the future as a driving force for innovation.

The story continues with Neelie Kroes, the European Commissioner for Competition. She demanded that the money reserved for securing Opel’s future would have to be available for any (potential) owner, not just for a set of two buyers who were willing to meet German demands. The strongest argument to support her claim runs on government partiality, which shouldn’t put competitors at a disadvantage by their free-market meddling. And indeed, with an aid-kit of money it seems likely that even General Motors would have acted swiftly in deciding not to sell the company.

In any case the process greatly slowed down the process of an Opel-sale, and eventually killed it. The economy, though far from total recovery, can at least leave the intensive care. And GM states more or less to be thinking along those lines when they explained why Opel will not be sold:

[because of] “an improving business environment for GM over the past few months, and the importance of Opel/Vauxhall to GM’s global strategy.”

Businesses are not founded in order to please politicians, and that is something well understood by GM. They took the 1,5 billion euro stimulus gladly. Bu if Opel were in sound health it wouldn’t have to be sold in the first place. So it’s reasonable to think that GM was or is unwilling to sell such a company if it has no financial reasons to do so. Some billion Euros of aid would do the trick for potential buyers, but its actual owner thought so too.

What counts is the result, clear as it may be that Germany did not like being outwitted by the American company. But why wouldn’t GM be entitled to the same help as all of the others? Whether the stimulus package is a good thing remains in the open, but Kroes is right in insisting that if the money is available to one buyer, than likewise to its competitors. And now with the market making a slight bend towards more promising grounds, GM is hardly to blame for this clever move.

Mr. Perry, governor of Texas, has given a splendid example of trying to prevent political upheaval on sensitive issues. Only by causing raised eyebrows after several journalists pointed to the strange timing of events. If only those journalists could stop sticking their noses into ‘his’ business.

Because sensitive it is: The full penalty of law has long been contested, actually it still is. Many seem to regard the issue as some inherent moral principle or form of justice, as a right of retaliation for those that have suffered by the hands of criminals. But once again, the incontrovertible effects of capital punishment seem to send our limited perspectives ‘on guilty beyond reasonable doubt’ back to its proper hide-out.

I am of course, referring to the case of Cameron Todd Willingham, which resulted in his execution in 2004. He was found guilty of setting fire to the house, where his three daughters died in a sea of flames back in 1991. The reliability of the evidence has been brought in for questioning many times, with as many contradictory twists tied to it.

More recently, Mr. Beyler was assigned the task of a renewed investigation by an oversight board called the ‘Texas Forensic Science Board’. He was scheduled to report on 30^th of September. Two days before this event was to take place however, Mr. Perry decided to replace three of the four commission board members. In normal circumstances his reply and justification for this would seem to be acceptable, because “…their terms had expired”. And indeed they had, but the timing was, to say the least, peculiar and significant.

Because there can be no question Mr. Beyler condemned crucial evidence, and any judgment that was based upon it. Among other things he points to in his report is a testimony by Manual Vasquez, who was a deputy state fire marshal at the time. The “numerous indicators found in the debris”, that were taken to be proof of Willingham having deliberately set fire to the house, seem quite without force and painfully dogmatic when one takes a glimpse at the conclusions:

“Each and every one of the `indicators’ listed by Mr. Vasquez means absolutely nothing”.

“[The fire marshal]…had limited understand of fire science…. and seems to be whole without any realistic understanding of fires and how fire injuries are created”.

Embarrassing and hurtful are two words that seem to cover a wide array of cases, though not the conviction of a man that is by no means proven to be guilty as charged, in one of the world’s most powerful democracies. But Mr. Perry does not seem to think this should bear any influence in the upcoming elections of 2010, even though his state might have brought an innocent person to death. As quoted in the Economist, the stance of Bailey Hutchison explains it all: The business with the commission “was just giving liberals an argument to discredit the death penalty”.

No Mr. Hutchison, not entirely. The whole business of the death penalty does not need discrediting, because it is a procedure that fails any standard of justification that is taken to be reasonable in a western-value shaped society. If even most Jews have forsaken  to take an eye for an eye, then why not those who aren’t even committed to its truth in the first place? We should realize by now that an eye for an eye would leave us all blind.