During Great Depression, Economy Had Upticks

Paul Krugman (my favorite blogger) has an important post on the economy. You should check it out. It has an illustrative chart, too. It argues that we shouldn't get too happy by the recent uptick in the economy, because even the Great Depression saw brief periods of improved economic production.

As a side note, Obama seems to understand this. As reported by The WSJ, on Friday, Obama noted that we should be optimistic that the economy has briefly improved, but we should not be too enthusiastic, because the economic situation is still extremely dire. Thus, Obama is walking the fine line between realism and Motivator-in-Chief.

Obama Hurts America & American Ideals

The Washington Post notes that Obama's DOJ appealed a court order by District Court Judge Bates. The order requires that military detainees in an American-operated military base in Afghanistan receive access to the U.S. federal courts. For the following reasons, it is extremely disappointing that the Obama DOJ appealed this order.

Obama's decisions to close Gitmo and engage the world in diplomacy have made significant improvements to our reputation and moral status in the world. This recent headway is at least partly responsible for Obama's impressively convincing China & Russia to sign a joint statement condemning the North Korean missile launch. These facts are proof that a more humanitarian, diplomatic approach to governing is effective and makes us safe.

Nonetheless, by appealing this order, Obama has rejected the humanitarian approach. Instead, Obama has opted to run roughshod over foreign countries by ignoring their citizens' interest in freedom from non-substantiated and potentially capricious arrests. That is, Obama has opted to engage in the Bush-era tactics that are so unpopular and controversial abroad. Just as Bush made us less safe by angering the entire world with such actions, Obama has made us less safe. Thus, Obama should be condemned for appealing this order.

But leaving these practical arguments aside, there are moral and ethical reasons why Obama's decision is extremely disappointing.

Detainees' ability to access the federal court system should not be contingent upon their constitutional right -- if any -- to do so. Instead, America should recognize the importance of adherence to basic notions of justice, human dignity, and fair-play.

There is a reason that the drafters of the Bill of Rights created the Fourth Amendment and the Due Process Clause: Too often, those in power abuse their power, and innocent peoples can be swept up in the government's machinery. Such abuses violate America's core principles. America was created, in part, as a rebuke of Star Cambers (definition here), sham trials, and police abuses. When we created this country, we made the fundamental choice that interests in human dignity, such as the freedom from arbitrary seizures, are more important than whatever safety can be wrought from arrests without due process.

And Obama has violated these basic notions. He has endorsed actions where America can pick alleged terrorists off the street, place them in so-called Black Sites, and detain them indefinitely, without ever offering proof of their guilt, and without ever entertaining evidence of innocence. The potential for abuse is obvious and overwhelming. In fact, such tactics by Bush resulted in the detention of many, many innocent people -- dentions that robbed innocents of nearly a decade of their life!

By appealing this court order, Obama has opted to continue Bush's mistakes. He has decided that the above-referenced interests in human dignity do not apply to non-Americans. This sort of attitude -- which was pushed by Bush -- is precisely why Obama has taken it upon himself to make efforts to improve America's moral status in the world. Yet, Obama is now repeating the same mistakes!

Mr. Obama, America is better than this! Please, drop this appeal.

Karl Rove Lies Again!

In this WSJ op-ed, Karl Rove argues that Obama is the most divisive, polarizing President of all time. In the video below, Chuck Todd explains why that is objective and absolutely false.

Todd makes several points, but the two principal points are: (1) 1 in 4 Republicans approve of Obama, whereas only 1 in 20 approved of Bush a few months after 9/11; and (2) The GOP has shrunk, and thus only the most conservative of Americans are Republicans right now; thus, if 1 in 4 Republicans still approve of Obama, it is a significant testament to Obama's widespread and general popularity.

Here's the video, a must-watch:

Interesting Poll

Here is an interesting CNN poll (link is to the WSJ). It discusses Americans' view on Obama's recent overseas trip, including American's views of Muslim nations in general and Turkey in particular. It's worth a read.

Europe & Obama

A very intriguing op-ed in The Times:

T[he] feeling in Europe, and especially in France, about Barack Obama’s presidency is as clear as day: we are envious.

We are aware that the results of Mr. Obama’s economic policy are not good — not yet — and that there is little chance they will be wonderful any time soon. Here, too, the results of our leaders’ economic policies are not at all good. We know these things. Nonetheless, we are envious because Americans are so evidently proud of their president. What is worse, we feel that Americans have a kind of faith in Barack Obama. We would love to feel the same way about our presidents and our leaders.

I think this op-ed goes a bit too far. Many Americans ardently oppose Obama. Even liberals, like me, take issue with many of the President's actions (his handling of the economy, his refusal to appoint a special prosecutor to look into torture, etc). That said, I believe that the op-ed captures the basic positive attitude toward Obama, both domestically and internationally. In many ways, I am proud of our President.

Irresponsible Media

In The Washington Post, Jackson Diehl argues that we should be troubled by Obama's popularity in Europe. European leaders fawn over Obama, Diehl argues, because Obama is a push-over, conceding American goals and deferring to European aims.

Here is the meat of Diehl's argument:

While the Europeans didn't get all they wanted, they succeeded in setting a framework for responding to the economic crisis that will tilt the global economy toward continental norms. The NATO summit showcased France's return to the alliance's command structure . . . . [And] [l]ess than 2,000 trainers will join the 24,000 American reinforcements arriving in Afghanistan this year.

Obama's deferential approach was manifest in his public statements . . . .

. . . .

Other leaders were less humble; in fact, they appeared eager to exploit Obama's pliability. Sarkozy deemed his demands for more statism "nonnegotiable" and threatened a walkout if they weren't heeded. (They were.)

We can instantly discard Diehl's attack on Obama's "public statements." We should be happy to have a President that avoids alienating our allies with posturing. Obama speaks in terms of compromise, which is a good thing.

The Afghanistan argument is not much better. At the outset, it was obvious that we would not convince other nations to join us in Afghanistan. The world sees that war as a loser, and the world is tired of America's constant call for additional troops. Two thousand trainers should be considered a modest, realistic success.

Most significantly, Diehl's Sarkozy comment is simply disingenuous! In fact, Sarkozy got almost nothing that we wanted! Going into the Summit, Sarkozy threatened to walk out if the twenty countries failed to establish commanding international regulations and an international regulator possessing the power to enter participating countries and enforce the regulations. Instead, Sarkozy received a mere agreement to implement some light regulations. Further, the global regulator idea was abandoned early. Yet, the situation was handled such that Sarkozy left the Summit happy. Source.

In other words, each country gave a little to get a little, including America.

Diehl's thinking appears perfectly suited for the Bush administration: American will make no concessions, and everyone else must relegate their own agendas America's. That has been a disastrous approach to foreign policy, and I am happy that the President has opted to take a more reasoned, moderate approach to international relations.

LATE UPDATE: America and the EU issue a joint statement. It is not enough, but it is a good start.

What We Learned of Obama Via North Korea

As The Wall Street Journal reports, North Korea is expected to set off a long-range missile soon, perhaps today. Can we learn anything about Obama from this series of events?

Absolutely. Obama's actions, whatever they are, will indicate his approach to foreign policy disputes. Will he be a hawk? Will he be pushed around? Or will he take a moderate position?

It would have been easy for Obama to have used his bully pulpit in Europe to threaten North Korea. He could have used express threats -- "If you set this missile off, we will shoot it down" -- or more veiled threats -- "Shooting off this missile is an act of aggression against our country."

But he did neither. Instead, Mr. Obama made a firm, but tempered, announcement: "Should North Korea decide to take this action, we will work . . . to take appropriate steps to let North Korea know that it can't threaten the safety and security of other countries with impunity . . . ." As reported by the NYT, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs "said the launching would be a violation of Security Council resolutions, and [that] 'preparations' were being made if it went ahead."

This strikes the perfect tone, I think. The administration is not threatening immediate military action, which would undermine North Korea's sovereignty and threaten the six-way negotiations America seeks to re-engage. But, team-Obama has promised action and real consequences, which avoids appearing soft and asserts our power as part of the UN.

All in all, Obama has taken a tough tone without ratcheting the tension-level up more than is necessary. Of course, this is all subject to change if/when the missile launches.

LATE UPDATE: Chicago Tribune reports: "U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton this week defended Japan's [desire to shoot down falling debris], saying it 'has every right to protect and defend its territory from what is clearly a missile launch.'"

This is also good news, as it shows that the administration is talking to other countries -- more interested countries -- encouraging cooperation in handling the situation. We are not along in the world, we are not the world's police, and these actions show that Clinton, Obama, et al. understand this.

G-20 Summit

Generally, these summits aren't particularly fruitful. But this being Obama's first performance on the international stage, the event is under a microscope.

There were two looming issues going in: global regulation -- espoused by France and Germany -- and global stimulus -- espoused by America and Britain. A global regulatory system will not come out of this Summit, but we agreed to promulgate stricter intra-county regulations over hedge funds and rating agencies. Similarly, a global stimulus will not be implemented, but we agreed to fund international financing institutions with $1.1 trillion. Source. If Obama's initial goals constitute the benchmark, the Summit results are a wash.

That is, with one major exception. Apparantly, Obama soothed a tiff between France's Sarkozy and China's Hu Jintao. The Times reports that Sarkozy and Hu Jintao were engaged in a heated exchange over tax havens, when Obama intervened, spoke with each individually, and negotiated an agreement. Such diplomacy is probably Obama's strong suit, and it is nice that he can capitalize on his strenghs. With such actions, America can re-gain some of the respect we lost during Bush's tenure.

Overall, I say: Well done, Mr. President.