Polis – The Adult in the Room

08 Aug
by John, posted in energy, environment, leadership, President, West   |  No Comments

shutterstock_183707495

Attending various events for Congressman Jared Polis over the last three years is an interesting contrast to watching President Obama.  At every event regardless of the crowd Polis makes a point of discussing legislation that is bipartisan.  He is often at pains to describe Republicans as either someone he can work with or someone he disagrees with on a particular issue.

He never calls them names.  He is often the adult in the room. And at his town hall on Tuesday that was certainly the case.

There were way too many activists pushing dubious science and even worse dubious politics. In contrast to the reporting in the Colorado Weekly and various other media outlets my count of the protesters out front of the town hall yielded about fifty people with another ten or so people trying to get past them into the library or the town hall.  It was a passionate group that was completely unwilling to listen to Polis.

As I have written before, oil & gas production in greater densities now seen in the bountiful natural gas fields of Colorado causes air quality problems.  There are also non-hysterical public health issues under study here in a state wide bipartisan science driven project that is  examining every aspect of the oil & gas industry in Colorado.  Anyone can participate in the study’s public phase (Fracking Sense) at CU through the Center for the American West in person or via podcast.

There is yet no evidence of a new public water crisis in Colorado.  There are spills and casing failures, but they merit clean up and monitoring not industry bans.  That is no different than Colorado’s steel, refinery, printing, and other heavy industries.  There are air quality issues and testing will reveal over time whether Colorado’s new and aggressive rules are strong enough or require more action.  There are local impact issues around traffic, noise, sight obstruction, and basic disruption in populated areas from oil & gas.

The protesters wanted to waste time on the first two issues.  Polis is laser focused on local impact. He took a lot of abuse from emotional activists.  The same people who failed to produce enough signatures on Initiative 89 to get it on the ballot.

That was the most important news in the town hall.  Despite one protester verbally confronting Polis’s mother that she, “should be ashamed of your son,” Polis defended the protesters’ passion for local control.  But he also diplomatically explained that when standard signature verification modelling was done on Initiative 89 there were not enough John Hancocks to make the ballot.

That would have left the industry with two strong pro-industry initiatives on the ballot and only Initiative 88 on the ballot for the activist community.  Clearly Polis had decided that if the activist community could not deliver signatures even with his financial backing, they could not deliver the votes in the face of a huge oil and gas campaign backed with perhaps twenty million dollars.  He was express in saying that he had stepped into a void this time, but next time such a campaign would have to be a grassroots one.

Polis was under enormous pressure from the state Democratic Party to not inadvertently maintain a fight that would energize Republicans more than Democrats.  He pledged to keep the possibility of a renewed 2016 campaign in a more favorable presidential election year in the forefront of the commission charged with recommending a solution to oil and gas development in Colorado.

But Polis is growing year by year in his political skills.  He knew losing was not only bad policy, but bad for his influence on a wide range of Progressive issues.  Losers do not have leverage.

And for the activist community you have to wonder what are they thinking? If you are going to attack Polis, villify him, insult his mother, is he going to stand with you in the future?  Maybe, just maybe, you might want to remember he is the best deep pocket friend you have.  Or perhaps, had.

A New Policy on Israel and Palestine

23 Jul
by John, posted in Israel/Palestine, Policy   |  No Comments

shutterstock_133648124

The United States has now spent my entire lifetime focused on bringing peace to Israel and the lands around it.  The effort has failed.  You can write endlessly on why.  You can write endlessly on fault.  But the time has come to stop writing endlessly on denying reality.

There has never been peace in Israel and its surrounding lands in the Western sense with respect for all religions and peoples.  Read the Old Testament, Medieval history, and modern history.  At best, an occupier would bring a few years of the absence of war.

There will be no peace.  It is a liberating realization, because it creates the possibility for new public policy in the United States.  Policy based on reality.

First and foremost, the United States must stop sending envoys into the region pursuing a “solution”.  Secretary Kerry’s current visit should be the last from a senior US official seeking peace. The Israelis, the Palestinians and their backers, do not respect US politicians.  The proof of this is the complete absence of interest in a settlement after forty years of effort.  And the naive US intervention allows the parties to publicly avoid responsibility while privately pursuing respectively occupation or genocide.

Second,  the United States must stop lecturing Israel on defense measures.  Only the Israeli people and their democratically elected representatives can decide what defense is necessary for Israel.  When the United States interferes in that judgment it assumes at least partial responsibility for Israeli defense.  It is easy to forestall Israeli airstrikes on Iranian nukes, but politically impossible for us to defend Israel from them.

Although not a new policy, the United States must continue to sell/provide arms and funding to Israel for self-defense.  Unlike most US allies, Israel has at least proven it can protect itself if properly armed.  This third policy provides Israel the ability to forestall a second Holocaust that Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, and others openly call for in their public statements, schools, and governing charters.

Fourth, the United States should continue to utilize its veto power at the United Nations to prevent condemnation of Israel unilaterally or in defense operations.  The United States should abstain from any Security Council action that condemns Israeli actions that seize new territory for more than thirty days.  This would be an unambiguous public pronouncement that the world would understand before every UN meeting.

The benefits of these changes are straightforward:

  1. Israel freed from American second guessing would also have sole responsibility for its actions;
  2. The Sunni/Shiite world freed from the expectation of American shuttle diplomacy would have to choose war or confront the facts on the ground; and
  3. If there is a chance for the absence of war, the parties must have the opportunity to fight to exhaustion.  As we have seen in Northern Ireland, Bosnia, and countless other war zones once war begins the absence of war is only possible when the parties are exhausted or one side is finally defeated.  Constantly rushing in to cut off fighting prevents this essential condition.

The traditional discussion of Israeli and Palestinian problems involves picking a side and arguing about Israel’s founding and relentless injustice against one side or the other.  Israel is a UN recognized state with an unambiguous right to exist and defend its sovereignty.   The Palestinians have been dealt a terrible hand, but they have chosen war and delegitimization of Israel as their method of resolving that injustice.  This is a discussion with no end.

The twin goals of US policy must be the prevention of genocide in Israel and divorcing its diplomacy from parties that have very little respect for American peace efforts.  In the unlikely event that the parties divert from three thousand years of history and create a peace conference we could always attend.

Smart public policy decisions require concentrating your efforts.  The United States needs to focus on disintegrating conditions in Eastern Europe, the South China Sea, and reverse its perennial neglect of Latin America.  All places where the US has influence on some of the parties.  A new permanent policy in Israel and Palestine would provide the opportunity for that focus.

Being Hispanic and Immigration Reform

12 Jul
by John, posted in immigration, Life, Policy, Poverty   |  No Comments

 

shutterstock_164500820

In my early forties I discovered that under US law I was Hispanic.  Even though my father was white and my mother a white immigrant from the UK I could self-identify as Hispanic on the US Census.  How?  Because Dad and Mom spent almost five years in Venezuela in the early 1960s working in the oil fields.  Since I was born there and lived there longer than two years, US law allowed me to claim I was Hispanic.

And for over a decade I have checked that box on every form.  I joined the Colorado Hispanic Bar Association and try and follow issues relevant to the community.  Why?  Because growing up in Dallas, vacationing throughout Latin America, working with Hispanics in the oil fields while in college, working in a Latin American law firm in graduate school,  and working with Hispanic colleagues throughout my corporate career, it was a group I was proud to claim as my own.   The Hispanics in my life are great friends and colleagues – culturally fascinating, hard working, family oriented, and anxious to become American.

And being Hispanic is actually an interesting way for me to have a conversation with the immigrant community.  When I tell immigrants that I am originally from Venezuela it actually opens up the conversation.  It is not so much this light skinned six foot four guy is one of us, as much as here is someone who I can talk to with some chance he will understand my perspective.

Because unlike the current political discourse, which claims Hispanics will all vote Democratic because of immigration reform my experience is Hispanics vary widely in political, economic, and social views. A fairly recent Pew Study on The 10 Largest Hispanic Origin Groups: Characteristics, Rankings, Top Counties  backs up this experience.  The Hispanic community in the United States is as rich and diverse as the United States.

Although Mexico remains the overwhelming single source of Hispanics in America, the Pew Study traces nine other countries as significant contributors:  Puerto Rico, Cuba, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Colombia, Honduras, Ecuador, and Peru.  This is an incredibly diverse set of countries that too many Americans tend to view as a block.

Even Mexico, which accounts for 65% of US Hispanic origin is as diverse as our own country. Thinking about Hispanics from Monterey, Mexico City, Leon, Merida, and Cozumel (all cities I have visited) as the same is the equivalent of thinking about US native born from New York City, Birmingham,  Minneapolis, Denver, and Los Angeles as the same.  When our country is so strongly divided trying to think about Hispanics and their attitudes toward immigration reform in one way is in itself discriminatory.

I spoke with one of my friends who came into the US in the early 1980s from Nicaragua.  He clearly wants the US government to treat migrants respectfully.  But he also wants to send them back as quickly as possible unless they qualify for refugee status.  He views holding out a false promise of citizenship or residency as cruel.  The best way to prevent that outcome is to separate genuine victims of trafficking from those fleeing the endemic poverty and violence of many parts of Latin America.

One of our other friends from El Salvador wants to take in all the children.  As a mother she sees in the kids in the detention center, her children.  But she also returned to El Salvador this weekend for a vacation.  Although El Salvador is riven with poverty, not all of it is overrun with gangs and human traffickers.

Hispanics are neither a group to take for granted nor one to pander to for political purposes.

What we need to do on the border in South Texas is treat every migrant as an individual. Get them a good immigration lawyer, a very quick hearing and ruling, then process them into the US or send them back.  That will require not just appropriations, but changes to existing law.  It will require compromise.

Ultimately, dignity is the only thing I have learned unites Hispanics.  Treat me with dignity.  Treat me as an individual, not a voting bloc.

“Yes, Sir” And Moved Out Toward The Enemy

05 Jul
by John, posted in leadership, Liberty, Life, Policy, Public Service Volunteerism, Veterans   |  No Comments

As I wrote about on Facebook on July 4th, I had a very tough conversation with a combat veteran earlier in the week.  He had served in Bosnia, in the initial invasion in Iraq, and in Afghanistan.  For him the fall of the Sunni areas of Iraq to the ISIS group raised all sorts of complex emotions.

What did his service mean in Iraq and increasingly in Afghanistan?  If these two countries fall back into chaos, why did his friends die?  Was their sacrifice a waste?

It was easy for me to say  your service was “for your country and the men/women next to you, thanks for your service and don’t worry about the politicians messing it up. You didn’t.”   Easy because the men and women in the enlisted ranks at the point of the spear have no policy agenda.  Whether you believe President Bush was a disaster or President Obama abandoned a “success”, a sergeant  had nothing to do with either.

He or she just said “yes, sir,” saluted, and moved out toward the enemy.

DCF 1.0

But I also remember being in Lot 60 at Arlington National Cemetery in 2007 during the “Surge” in Iraq.  We were moving back home to Colorado and I wanted the boys to see the sacrifice.  Lot 60 is where all the recent dead from Iraq and Afghanistan are laid to rest. There are not a lot of high level officers – it’s mostly enlisted and lower ranking officers.  When we were there on a typical weekend day, this area of Arlington was flooded with people.  They were all the survivors: spouses, children, friends, wounded unit members from Walter Read.

They were all there to visit their dead, our dead.

The most striking moment for us was a very young woman with her baby at the headstone of her husband – a specialist killed in Iraq at age 20.  She was having a formal picture taken.  Once it was over a reporter approached her and began to ask her questions, which she calmly answered.

What she said hurt the most was that some of her fellow citizens did not support the mission in Iraq.  That without that support an eventual victory in Iraq would not happen and her husband’s sacrifice was in vain.  After she left the boys and I were able to pray at her husband’s gravesite, not just for his soul, but for her to find peace.

But of course, she was wrong.  In a democracy we cannot allow the sacrifice of the armed forces to set policy or to justify a flawed policy.  And any politician’s use of that sacrifice for any political purpose is disgusting.

Elected politicians set policy and reap the electoral judgement of those policies.  Perhaps the highest level generals and admirals serve in a policy position and are due the praise or approbation of the politicians.  But the enlisted men and women, the mid-level officers are free of that burden.

So regardless of whether you are a Republican, a Democrat, or an independent seek out a vet or a veterans organization.  Tell them how much you appreciate their sacrifice for you and your family.  And leave the policy disagreements for the next time you vote or donate to a campaign.

Because, they saluted, said “yes, sir”, and moved out toward the enemy.

 

 

Incompetence, Crony Capitalism, & Elitism

09 Jun
by John, posted in election, leadership, Pursuit of Happiness   |  5 Comments

shutterstock_196244051 When I voted for Barack Obama in 2008 I believed that he would do what he said.  That he would govern as President Clinton had governed from the middle.  That the era of big government was over.

As I have written before the reason I have been a Democrat my entire adult life was it was the party that advocated for the working and middle classes.  My assumption was the upper classes, which I aspired to join, could take care of themselves.  But I never counted on a President who believed helping the working class was telling it what was good for it, who believed big government should pick and choose what industries should survive, and who had no negotiating skills.

Incompetence How can you be a lawyer and not understand in a negotiation to get something you have to give the other side something they want?  Since 2012 what single thing precious to Republicans has he offered?  Negotiations are not you decide what is best, tell the other side what they should want, then belittle them publicly.

Crony Capitalism During the last few years I have sat on the board of directors of two energy related companies.  Without revealing any non-public information I can say unequivocally that President Obama wasted thirty-five million dollars in direct taxpayer cash on one “clean energy” company putting hundreds of working class and middle class Americans into the unemployment lines.  And now he has said to the dirty old coal burning power plant and its several hundred working and middle class employees you too join the unemployment lines.  In neither case did his programs include any job training, relocation plans, or any other path forward for those employees.  He just distorted the market, killed the businesses, and left those employees holding the bag.

If you have ever watched several hundred workers leaving a plant after you have announced a shutdown for market reasons, you know the real agony rippling across those workers, their families, and their communities.  Imagine if your elected President did that, not the market.

Elitism We Democrats are about to lose the Senate majority in November.  Unless the Republicans repeat their Todd Aiken or Richard Mourdock moments, the Senate is going Republican.  How can that be?  How can working and middle class people turn to a party who are as Mitt Romney declared about “job creators”?  In other words a party primarily concerned with the causes of the upper classes and the wealthy.

As I travel around the country I hear the same basic frustration from people – there are no good jobs for me and my family.  The President and his allies spend a lot of time talking about climate change, shutting down coal related businesses (mines, power plants, distributors, suppliers, equipment manufacturers), but what about the workers?  Is there a plan to retrain these workers?  Is there a plan to move them to Texas or North Dakota where the economy is booming?

The President and his allies spend a lot of time talking about women and girls and the need to promote their interests.  I have 5 nieces and I am glad to hear that their futures are bright.  But I also have two sons and more nephews than I can count – do they count?  Why are we not concerned for the future of all our children?  Boys are the ones that statistically are having the hardest time graduating from college.

Working men and women are not stupid.  When the party in power pursues CEO jobs for rich women, climate change, and every other pet project of the rich Left other than jobs, the working and middle classes vote Republican.  If you do not believe me, read the political campaign histories of 1980 to 1992.

In the 1930s when millions of Americans were out of work, Franklin Delano Roosevelt put men and women to work in an alphabet soup of federal agencies, including both my paternal grandparents.  This President turned to fifty dollar tax cuts, food stamps, and an alphabet soup of handouts.

Mr. President we want an exploding capitalist economy.  We want jobs for the working and middle classes.  Leave the egghead, incompetent, crony capitalism behind.  Be a Democrat.