Bob Gates' Pentagon Revolution

When all is said and done, it may be Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, a Republican, who is seen as Barack Obama's most revolutionary cabinet pick. The Boston Globe reported Tuesday morning that Gates is poised to make "the most far-reaching changes in the Pentagon's weapons portfolio since the end of the Cold War," and plans to cancel as many as six major weapons programs this month, including the F-22, the Navy's Zumwalt-class destroyer, and new Army ground transports.

Cutting these programs won't be easy. When Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense, the Globe notes, he tried to cancel the V-22 Osprey four times. Each time Congress resurrected the program. Big weapons programs mean jobs for states, and members of Congress don't want to be blamed for their cancellation, especially in a recession. Besides, if this was easy, it would already have been done: the F-22, for example, has not even been used in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. But that hasn't stopped it from being built. Andrew Exum (a.k.a. abu muqawama), a fellow at the Center for a New American Security and a top counterinsurgency blogger, writes: "Prepare to fight three wars at once: one in Afghanistan, one in Iraq, and one in Washington against the bi-partisan coalition of lobbyists, congressmen, and industry leaders who will fight Robert Gates tooth and nail on this. It is going to be awesome to watch, that's for sure."

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) has been campaigning against out-of-control military spending and "Cold War-era weapons" like the F-22 for a quarter-century now. Last month, he and other liberal Democrats hosted a forum on Capitol Hill demanding Obama cut the Pentagon budget and shutter programs like the ones Gates plans to kill later this month. Obama's budget increase for the Pentagon, announced just a few days later, was a setback for Frank and his allies. But now it looks like Frank may have a friend in the Pentagon after all. The next few weeks should give us a better sense of exactly what kind of change Gates can push through.

When Are the Steelers Visiting the White House?

In light of today's news that Steelers owner Dan Rooney will be the next US Ambassador to Ireland, it's only appropriate to ask the most pressing question in Steeler Nation (or at least the little corner of Steeler Nation that works at Mother Jones): when are the Pittsburgh Steelers, who won Super Bowl 43 on February 1, getting their customary visit to the White House? Rooney and head coach Mike Tomlin are both huge Obama fans, and before the Super Bowl various Steelers players cited a visit to Barack Obama's White House as extra motivation. Obama himself professes to have been a Steelers fan growing up in Hawaii, and admitted before the Super Bowl that he was rooting for the Steelers over the Cardinals.

Yet six weeks have passed since the Steelers won their NFL-leading sixth ring and no mention of a visit. I called the White House press office this morning to ask for an explanation and received a beleaguered "I don't know" that had strong hints of "please stop bothering us." I understand the White House is busy, put c'mon folks. We're going to have a March Madness champion soon, and NHL and NBA winners after that. You can't let these things pile up.

Photo by flickr user Pixteca MX used under a Creative Commons license.

A Democratic congressional staffer confirms to Mother Jones that Pittsburgh Steelers owner and Obama supporter Dan Rooney will be named the United States Ambassador to Ireland today.

Rooney became president of the Steelers in 1975 and owner in 1988, continuing a line of family ownership that began when Rooney's father, Art Rooney, known as "the Chief," bought the team in 1933 for roughly $2,500 in horserace winnings. In addition to being involved in the Steelers' league-leading six Super Bowl championships, Dan Rooney is known for guiding the creation and implementation of what is commonly called the Rooney Rule, which requires NFL teams to interview at least one minority candidate when filling a head coaching vacancy. The rule is widely credited for adding to the diversity of the NFL's coaching ranks. When the Steelers won the Super Bowl last February, their head coach, Mike Tomlin, was only the second African-American head coach to pilot a team to the championship. Rooney was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 2000.

Rooney has long ties to Ireland. He created the Rooney Prize for Irish Literature and founded the American Ireland Fund. Despite being a lifelong Republican, Rooney supported the candidacy of Barack Obama, going so far as to campaign for him in important swing states.

Currently, Pittsburgh area papers are reporting that Rooney "may" be named to the ambassadorship. The congressional staffer who confirmed the move to Mother Jones said that his member received a courtesy call from the administration informing his office of the appointment.

Update: The White House emailed reporters announcing Rooney's appointment at 10:04 am. Beat 'em by about 25 minutes. Obama had this to say: "I am honored and grateful that such a dedicated and accomplished individual has agreed to serve as the representative of the United States to the Irish people. Dan Rooney is an unwavering supporter of Irish peace, culture, and education, and I have every confidence that he and Secretary Clinton will ensure America’s continued close and unique partnership with Ireland in the years ahead."

According to the principles of retributive justice, punishment is supposed to be more or less in proportion to the magnitude of a crime. So—which do you think is an appropriate punishment for the Wall Street executives whose greed and corruption not only bankrupted their own companies, but set in motion a meltdown that has deprived millions of Americans of their homes and their life savings, driven millions more into unemployment and poverty, and triggered economic chaos, political unrest, and even starvation and death around the world?

A. Don’t give them a bonus this year.

B. Fire their asses.

C. Lock them up and throw away the key.

If you answered A, you are in line with the policies of the Obama administration, which, after giving billions in bailout money to the likes of AIG, discovered that the company intends to pay out millions in executive bonuses.  The administration’s response has been to get really, really pissed off, and say that they just aren’t going to stand for  these guys getting multi-million-dollar bonuses on top of their multi-million-dollar salaries–if only they can figure out a way around those pesky contracts.

Revenge of the Spurned

So what happens if we manage to wrest all those retention bonuses away from the AIG traders who destroyed the company?  Maybe this:

Company officials contend that the uproar is scaring away the very employees who understand AIG Financial Products' complex trades and who are trying to dismantle the division before it further endangers the world's economy.

"It's going to blow up," said a senior Financial Products manager, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak for the company. "I have a horrible, horrible, horrible feeling that this is going to end badly."

That would be bad.  But Andrew Ross Sorkin thinks it might be even worse:

A.I.G. employees concocted complex derivatives that then wormed their way through the global financial system. If they leave — the buzz on Wall Street is that some have, and more are ready to — they might simply turn around and trade against A.I.G.’s book. Why not? They know how bad it is. They built it.

So as unpalatable as it seems, taxpayers need to keep some of these brainiacs in their seats, if only to prevent them from turning against the company.

Now that's a lovely thought, isn't it?  If they don't get their bonuses, these guys might not only leave AIG, but turn around and do their best to make things even worse.  That's just speculation, of course.  But would it surprise anyone if that started to happen?

El Salvador's Quiet Revolution

Roger Atwood has previously reported for Mother Jones from Iraq and Peru. This guest blog entry is a post-election follow up to his recent dispatch from El Salvador.

El Salvador's long civil war finally ended on Sunday night. As election results trickled in showing victory for Mauricio Funes, presidential candidate of the guerrilla group-turned-political party Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front, the streets around FMLN headquarters in San Salvador filled with people wearing red shirts, waving red flags, and chanting a line popularized by the president of the FMLN’s former archfoe, the United States: "Yes, we could!" 

Pickup trucks jammed with flatbed-riders and buses crammed with celebrating passengers crisscrossed the city into the night, red flags flapping behind them. The fact that many, if not most, of these celebrants were too young to remember the actual war did not change the fact that the promise of the 1992 peace agreement that ended the fighting and created a pluralist political system has finally been fulfilled. Through fair elections, Salvadorans chose the first genuinely left-wing government of their history. The ruling Nationalist Republic Alliance, or ARENA, which formed in the early 1980s with the express goal of stopping el comunismo, has collapsed under its own weight after 20 years in power. "This result says to the world that El Salvador is prepared for democratic alternation in power," Funes told cheering supporters. "Tonight, Salvadorans have signed a new peace agreement." The ARENA candidate Rodrigo Avila was sullen but gracious, saying in his concession speech, "When we said we would accept whatever result there was, we meant it." 

One learns not to get one's hopes up in a country that has seen as much betrayal and war as El Salvador, but this time it does look like the democratic transition is complete.

Funes takes office on June 1. He is going to face high expectations and tough odds. The economy relies on remittances from Salvadorans living abroad, and remittances are in sharp decline. At 55 homicides per 100,000 people, the crime rate is one of the highest in the world and intimately tied to the family disintegration caused by mass emigration. Even foreign trade has fallen far short of expectations, despite ARENA's ambitions for a globalized role: El Salvador's trade deficit rose to $5.2 billion last year, a sad performance for a small, export-driven economy.

SF Chronicle Cuts Deal With Hearst

Two quick updates for those watching the demise of American newspapers. First, the 146-year-old Seattle Post-Intelligencer will publish its last print edition tomorrow. After that, it will be published online only. Hearst failed to find a buyer after putting the P-I up for sale in January. The P-I will be the largest daily to convert into a solely digital format, leaving Seattle with just one print newspaper, the Seattle Times.

Another Hearst property, the San Francisco Chronicle, appears to be safe... for now. One of the Chronicle's two employee guilds has reached an agreement with Hearst that will allow the paper to continue publishing both in print and online. Guild members (which include the Chronicle's editorial, art, and marketing staff) voted 333-33 to accept terms that will result in at least 150 layoffs and buyouts. The terms will also reduce sick and vacation time and lengthen the standard workweek, but will secure "up to a year's pay and healthcare" for those who are forced out. The agreement is the result of 10 days of negotiations, with guild members suggesting various proposals to reduce layoffs such as employee ownership.

Dealing With Crises

Noam Scheiber says "our political system isn't ideally suited to dealing with financial and economic crises."  Ezra Klein begs to differ:

Indeed, I think our political system is actually fairly well-designed for short-term crises. The problem is long-term crises like global warming or health costs. As Peter Orszag wrote back on his CBO blog, "our political system doesn’t deal well with gradual, long-term problems" that require "trading off up-front costs in exchange for long-term benefits." Few Congressmen want to raise taxes tomorrow to reduce carbon a decade from now. Lots of Congressmen don't want the economy to collapse if they have to run for reelection next year. For that reason, I'm much more confident in the system's ability to react agilely and seriously to the economic crisis than global warming. The economic crisis, after all, threatens their reelection. Incumbents often don't survive depressions. Conversely, I think conventional wisdom is that it's fixing global warming, rather than global warming itself, that poses the largest political threat to incumbent legislators.

I think that's right.  In fact, I'd go further: not only can we respond fairly well to short-term crises, we actually have responded fairly well to the current economic meltdown.  There have been plenty of miscues and half measures along the way, but in the space of 18 months the Fed has created an alphabet soup of term lending facilities; Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG have been nationalized; interest rates have been reduced to near zero; TARP was passed and hundreds of billions of dollars pumped into the banking system; the Fed has launched plans to rescue the commercial paper market, the money market, and the consumer loan market; FDIC insurance has been raised to $250,000; Detroit has been bailed out; and an $800 billion stimulus measure has been passed.  Some of these actions might have been late or misguided — it could hardly be otherwise considering the depth and freakishness of the financial implosion — but all things considered, the willingness of our political system to deal with this crisis hasn't been all that bad.  If we could muster half this much energy, mistakes and all, on behalf of global warming I'd be ecstatic.

Guilt at 35,000 Feet

In the course of one flight from San Francisco to Tokyo I was handed 13 plastic drinking cups, a new one for every drink. When I held onto one and tried handing it back for the next fill-up, the flight attendant handled it like it was radioactive. Hmm. Northwest Airlines claims to be greening itself [pdf] but the disposable aftermath of even one in-flight meal suggests otherwise. Even assuming they might recycle some of this stuff (will they?), recycling ain't cheap. It's energetically expensive and sometimes counterproductive. Can't we just wash some dishes?

Artist Chris Jordan claims with his usual punch-in-the-gut visual impact that the airline industry in the US uses 1 million plastic cups every six hours. Not sure where he got that number but my flight alone must have squandered something like 4,000 cups.

The problem bugs me on the ground too. So here's my solution. I call it my Urban Mess Kit. It's composed of a cool Float messenger bag from Osprey made of PET plastics with a a minimum of 70-percent recycled materials, mostly recycled drink bottles. I throw in two polypropylene doggy-bag containers that came with my Chinese restaurant leftovers. They're designed for one-time-only use but in reality they'll likely outlive me. I add two sets of plastic cutlery picked up from to-go meals and then NOT thrown away. Finally, one Nalgene drink bottle that I use for hot and cold drinks.

Okay, Nalgene isn't perfect. This older bottle I have probably isn't even BPA-free like the newer stuff. It's definitely not trendy like stainless. But it's overwhelming advantage, IMO, is that I bought it used from a thrift store & so did not encourage the creation of any more plastic to clog the arteries of Planet Earth.

I use my Urban Mess Kit for most everything these days: drinks bought on the go (I hand over my bottle); food bought on the go (including deli counters); leftovers; impromptu picnics. Plus there's still room in my Osprey pack for my laptop, wallet, glasses, keys, phone, a book and more. It all nests into a small footprint, pun intended. If I was entrepreneurial, I'd build and sell these kits. But it would be friendlier to the environment if you reused some of the disposable stuff coming your way and made your own.

Oh, and as part of its Triple-R program for US customers, Osprey joins with the Mountain Fund to take back your old (still useable) pack and give it to someone somewhere in the world who needs it: women trying to break into the trekking and climbing industries in Nepal & Uganda; kids in orphanages in Kyrgyzstan who can learn to socialize on treks; city kids who need to see wilderness. In return, they'll give you 10 percent off a new Osprey bag. So if you really need a new bag, this is a good way to mitigate some of your consumption.

White House Invites Right-Wingers to Discuss Abortion Reduction

Right Wing Watch notes the White House has invited anti-abortion representatives from the religious right to a meeting next Tuesday with Josh DuBois, head of the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, to discuss ways to reduce abortions. Among those attending will be Tom McClusky of the Family Research Council and Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America.

That's the same Wendy Wright who has declared that President Obama and Congress are "more hostile to unborn children, to marriage, to religious freedom, to free speech, to protecting our country than has ever existed in our history." And when Obama lifted the ban on Federally funded stem cell research, Wright blasted the move, saying it "financially benefits those seeking to strip morality from science. It is politics at its worst."

Considering Wright's disparaging rhetoric—and similarly critical comments from other Evangelical groups—their invitation to meet with the White House puzzled me: The pro-life stance offers very little, if any, middle ground. Why, then, include pro-life hardliners in a discussion on abortion reduction?

At the very least, the move demonstrates Obama's commitment to listening to and talking with the opposition. It also further distances Obama's administration from George Bush, who never reached out similarly to representatives of groups with views as hostile toward his positions. As a spokesman for NARAL told me via email, "Unless you count getting thrown off the grounds of the FDA for trying to deliver petitions on birth-control access, then no, we were never invited to meet with the Bush administration."