Good History Of The NorKor Nukes

Bahukutumbi Raman has written a great article for Forbes on the genesis of the NorKor nukes, as well as some original ideas for dealing with this escalating situation:

All eggs were put in the basket of the six-power talks, which were marked by a faith in the ability and readiness of China to make North Korea behave. North Korea skillfully adopted a stratagem of "Talk, test, talk again, test again". It would seemingly cooperate with the talks; agree to some denuclearization measures; then break the agreement under some pretext; test; agree to talk again; break off the talks again under some other pretext; then test again. This has been going on for some years now.

The result: North Korea is a demonstrated nuclear power with a delivery capability at least against South Korea and Japan, if not yet against the U.S. It has carried out
two tests, the second, earlier in May 2009, reportedly more powerful and sophisticated than the first (in 2006). It has reportedly restarted the re-processing of spent fuel rods, which would add to its stockpile of fissile material.

Pre-emption is no longer an option. Can North Korea be pressured or cajoled, through China, to come back to the negotiating table and renew its commitment to the denuclearization path? Even if one succeeds, it is very likely that after some talks, it will break the agreement reached under some other pretext. It broke the last agreement under the pretext that the U.N. had imposed sanctions against it for allegedly testing a communications satellite. The next time, it will find some other supposed reason.

All U.S. administrations have fought shy of a confrontation with North Korea, the Obama administration even more so than its predecessors. The North Korean leadership has concluded that not only the U.S., but even Japan and South Korea, do not have the stomach for a policy of confrontation. Pyongyang therefore feels it does not have to fear either pre-emption or confrontation.

There is one option still left: Threaten China with the possibility of the international community closing its eyes to Japan acquiring military-level nuclear capability if China does not force North Korea to denuclearize. Will it work? It may or may not, but in the absence of any other option, it is well worth a try.

Even while struggling and juggling with various options available against North Korea, it is important for the Obama administration to remember that Tehran is closely watching Obama's handling of North Korea. Any sign of further weakness toward and accommodation of North Korea could encourage Iran in its nuclear obstinacy.

This is decidedly not the time for the Obama administration to convey a wrong message to Iran that ties between the U.S. and Israel are weakening. The U.S. will end up by undermining a steadfast ally for the sake of better relations with an unpredictable country. The U.S. may have valid reasons for improving its relations with Iran, but this should not be at the expense of its relations with Israel.

No LeBron V. Carmelo This Year, But...

I was disappointed by the fact that we won't be seeing LeBron and Carmelo face off in the Finals this year. But there is a serious upside to this for Knicks fans. LeBron will probably be less likely to stay with Cleveland now. And we might just be able to woo him to New York. It would reinvigorate so many old rivalries that were lost on the irrelevance of Cleveland as a basketball town (New York - LA, New York - Boston). I wonder how Q-Rich would feel about giving up his number (he would have no choice). I know I'm getting way ahead of myself but, if the chips fall where they may, the Knicks might have numbers 22-24 all retired...

LeBron would be silly to stay in Cleveland. Even though Mike Brown was coach of the year, he was clearly without a plan and severely outmatched by Stan van Gundy in the series against the Magic. LeBron James, meet Mike D'Antoni.

Bush The Statesman

Nicolle Wallace (of McCain '08 lore) has written a good piece on Bush and his legacy. I think she hits on some very key points, mainly that Bush was unwilling to sell out his beliefs and his "convictions" for the sake of popularity. Obama has done precisely the opposite, and has garnered more worldwide love than Bush ever did. The differences between the two men could not be more stark. And Clive Crook is right, the public denouncement of Bush and his policies by Obama needs to stop. To set things straight Obama should clear the air and apologize to Bush for his strong words during the campaign and early days in his Presidency (the likeliness of this notwithstanding). Candidate Obama was clearly clueless about the state of national security into which he was entering, and as a result said he would do some really dumb things (almost all of which he has walked back on, to the dismay of his fanboys and girls the world round). When it hits you that you and your policies are responsible for the safety and security of 300 million people, you likely see the world differently than you ever have before.

Obama, unlike Bush, is incredibly ego-centric and image-obsessed. This comes through in his off-stage demeanor, during the unscripted moments that I saw during the campaign. Bush was humbler and simpler. He came to the presidency with a set of principles that, sure, transformed to a certain degree during his tenure. But Obama invented a set of principles that he thought the world, and the country--almost a secondary concern of his, hungered for. I'm not sure how that will play out during his presidency. But like Nicolle Wallace, I definitely think it is a liability,

But while no politician willingly sacrifices public support for his agenda if he can avoid it, George W. Bush relished traveling the politically treacherous path. Being a man of deep conviction was as central to Bush’s presidency as any other personal trait or outside event. I asked Senior Advisor David Axelrod once to what extent Obama was driven by his convictions.

“He’s pragmatic,” was his response, and it’s in keeping with something I’ve written
about before—Axelrod’s belief that every winning candidacy is a ‘remedy’ to the
previous administration.

I’m certain Axelrod was not suggesting that Obama doesn’t have convictions, but he was acknowledging something interesting about the extent to which those convictions would control Obama’s actions. It is probably a correct political analysis on the part of Axelrod and the Obama team that the country hungered for more pragmatism. How else could they explain a national security team with Secretary Gates and Samantha Power on the same side? But as Bush’s rebound continues, Obama’s lack of a clearly defined and publicly acknowledged set of principles could become a liability.

Crook To Obama: Apologize To Bush

If I wasn't busy being an office lackey, I probably would have written a variation of this article since I've been saying this for some time. Although my criticism of the Bush admin would have been a bit milder, I think Crook is right that Obama has learned quite a bit since moving in at 1600. Those of us who questioned his foreign policy rhetoric, which have largely become the mantras of the Democratic party, were right in doing so, as Obama himself is proving. The "Move On Dot Org-ification" of the Democratic party is being stifled at least in the meantime by its newest hero, and that's a good thing. But pay credit where it is due and at this point Obama should be paying some in Bush's direction (he doesn't necessarily have to bow).

But Crook gets it wrong on Dick Cheney. Cheney's qualms aren't regarding the emasculation of all of the anti-terror policies. His speech at AEI would have been a little longer if that were the case. Rather, Cheney wants to quibble over two issues: the memos re: enhanced interrogation techniques that Obama purportedly cherry picked without full disclosure, and closing Gitmo.

According to Cheney, the most important aspect of the discussion on the enhanced methods-the quality of intelligence obtained from enhanced interrogation methods-has been withheld, distorting the conversation on the methods . I don't think Cheney believes that the whole anti-terror approach is being emasculated, just that a) releasing the memos was strategically foolish and helps the enemy therefore making us less safe; b) don't cherry pick the memos by releasing only those that don't contain information about the intelligence gained from those enhanced interrogation methods, release them all in the spirit of full disclosure so that the American people can decide how they feel about the methods; and c) reconsider closing Gitmo since you don't have a plan in place for the detainees and you're theory on how it recruits more terrorists than it detained doesn't hold water.

Twitter Plug

For those not yet on Twitter I strongly encourage you to join. If numbers are any indication, from February '08 to February '09 Twitter experienced a growth in users equivalent to 1382%. In case you weren't sure: that's ridiculous. I see the advent of the Twitter age as somewhat similar to that of Gmail. Increasing numbers of people signing up (or being invited, as early protocol required, remember?) but there were a significant number of holdouts as well (hotmail, yahoo, AOL even). And then the holdouts realized how amazing Gmail was, and the deed was done quickly thereafter. Well Twitter is similar in many respects. People love to hate it because of its immense popularity (and apparent corniness). But when you get inside the door you see that there really isn't anything corny at all. Just very cool. If you have a smartphone its essential (or will be very soon). Just considered yourselves warned, I wouldn't want you to be the last ones in the door. Follow me @: patrickthurber.

Fareed Zakaria On Iran

I might be starting to question Fareed Zakaria. Actually no, I questioned him after he maintained that soon we would be entering into a global order where America would be increasingly irrelevant. Those who think that somehow the heyday of American power is on the wane in any immediate and substantial way are out of touch with international relations (and history). Let me clarify that before we get sidetracked: yes, since the end of the Cold War, the US has enjoyed sole superpower status. And yes, the relative power of other states is on the rise. But just look at a simple bar graph of how much the US spends on its military if you need any reassurance. We aren't going anywhere, and that's a really good thing. It's called Pax Americana, and the world would be a chaotic, hellish place without it. If Zakaria lived as long as Methuselah he would still be thanking his lucky stars for his American passport (and what it signified). That Zakaria was managing editor at Foreign Affairs made his theory all the more surprising. But hey, he sold lots of books.

Anyway all that is to say that his new piece for Newsweek on Iran is an embarrassment. Do people really still believe that Iran is enriching uranium solely for purposes of a civilian infrastructure and not for weapons capabilities? The simple question is why then would they refuse repeatedly to declare their enrichment and reprocessing with the IAEA? And why on earth would (most) leaders of the free world be investing so much time and energy in diplomatic and strategic initiatives to try and bring the purported clandestine program to a halt. I know the topic of Iran will sell a magazine, but running this story was a poor editorial decision (it's even poorly written). It offers up very little in the way of evidence to make its argument and what it does offer Goldblog does a great job of rebutting:

The second point: Zakaria writes that "over the last five years, senior Iranian officials at every level have repeatedly asserted that they do not intend to build nuclear weapons. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has quoted the regime's founding father, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who asserted that such weapons were 'un-Islamic.' The country's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a fatwa in 2004 describing the use of nuclear weapons as immoral."

When ayatollahs start talking about Islamic morality, I run for the exits. Their ideas about what constitute moral acts are not, generally speaking, ours. Here's one obvious example, from the Iran-Iraq war, courtesy of the German writer Matthias Kuntzel:

During the Iran-Iraq War, the Ayatollah Khomeini imported 500,000 small plastic keys from Taiwan. The trinkets were meant to be inspirational. After Iraq invaded in September 1980, it had quickly become clear that Iran's forces were no match for Saddam Hussein's professional, well-armed military. To compensate for their disadvantage, Khomeini sent Iranian children, some as young as twelve years old, to the front lines. There, they marched in formation across minefields toward the enemy, clearing a path with their bodies. Before every mission, one of the Taiwanese keys would be hung around each child's neck. It was supposed to open the gates to paradise for them.

At one point, however, the earthly gore became a matter of concern. "In the past," wrote the semi-official Iranian daily Ettelaat as the war raged on, "we had child-volunteers: 14-, 15-, and 16-year-olds. They went into the minefields. Their eyes saw nothing. Their ears heard nothing. And then, a few moments later, one saw clouds of dust. When the dust had settled again, there was nothing more to be seen of them. Somewhere, widely scattered in the landscape, there lay scraps of burnt flesh and pieces of bone." Such scenes would henceforth be avoided, Ettelaat assured its readers. "Before entering the minefields, the children [now] wrap themselves in blankets and they roll on the ground, so that their body parts stay together after the explosion of the mines and one can carry them to the graves."

These children who rolled to their deaths were part of the Basiji, a mass movement created by Khomeini in 1979 and militarized after the war started in order to supplement his beleaguered army.The Basij Mostazafan - or "mobilization of the oppressed" - was essentially a volunteer militia, most of whose members were not yet 18. They went enthusiastically, and by the thousands, to their own destruction. "The young men cleared the mines with their own bodies," one veteran of the Iran-Iraq War recalled in 2002 to the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine. "It was sometimes like a race. Even without the commander's orders, everyone wanted to be first."

How do I say this as bluntly as possible? A leadership that could murder its own children in such a horrible way is capable of absolutely anything. Including lying about its nuclear intentions.

Fareed Zakaria's type of thinking on Iran is dangerous. There is still time to piece together a solution to this problem (though it obviously will not be easy). But deluding ourselves by crossing our fingers that the mullahs are not up to something is not an option.

State Of The Right

Damon Linker, whom I admire and respect a great deal, has written a status report of the brains and voices of the Right. While he uses broad strokes about National Review's "The Corner" and Commentary's "Contentions" (I really enjoy both of those blogs a great deal), I think his assessment is quite good. I feel mildly vindicated by the fact that Linker reads the same people I do (obsessively), namely those at The American Scene and Front Porch Republic.

There is no point deluding ourselves about the fact that the Right is a bit fractured at the moment. There are a considerable number of players who seek different agendas, almost like an issue-tug-of-war, although there are more than two ends to the rope. Many, like Linker, feel the drag of social conservatism is a big (if not the biggest) hindrance to a sustainable party and future. I think this analysis is far too simple. While I don't share many of the same ideas as social conservatives, giving up on these voices is not what Americans (conservative or liberal) should do. The hardest moral quandaries (gay marriage, abortion etc.) are those that need the most careful thought, not an eventual mass caving by people because they've become impatient by lack of national consensus or frustrated by what they believe are obsolete or religiously-influenced ideas. To state the obvious: pluralistic democratic societies are never unanimous or uniform places, and you can never please all of the people all of the time. But that doesn't mean we should give up on these issues or somehow cave-in.

The Republican Party needs work (ahem,I am for hire, ahem) and it should tend to itself before too late. The intraparty soul-searching doesn't seem to have yielded too many results as of yet, except of course the first black chairman (who hasn't impressed me as of yet). But the great minds writing on the Right indicate a bright future ahead (far brighter than those on the left if you ask me!). When those that attract the most attention (Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh et al) are pointed to as the leaders of the party or the face of conservatism I have to laugh. That is a narrow reading (and an intentional libel) of conservatism today.

The left has found a way to a large enough coalition (mostly through an incredibly charismatic and adroit politician) to currently control the Congress and the White House, though problems certainly remain. But I feel very comfortable knowing that there is certainly a strong future ahead for American conservatism. To all my conservatives and neos and Right-leaning friends out there: Don't get discouraged by the notion that the ideas that we subscribe to are somehow outmoded or are being repudiated. That is hogwash. We are in good hands my friends. Very good hands.

Let Us Rejoice. Or, Hava Nagila

Goldblog has a wonderful reader-submitted story up about the Springsteen concert in DC a few weeks back, seeking to defend Rahm Emanuel's Jewish cred,

My daughter didn't want to go because of homework, so I figured she needed a Jewish excuse to go to the concert. I made the 'Hava Nagila' sign - I'm in the mortgage credit market, so there's not a hell of a lot for me to do these days - and we brought it to the concert," he said. "I made it like the Torah, two sticks on each side...

He went on with his tale: "I didn't have the sign up when Bruce came to our side of the stage, but I held it up and Patti (Bruce's wife) sees it, and Roy Bittan sees it - he's Jewish - and he gives me a fist pump. But I've got to get it up to the stage. Bruce then looked our way and saw it and he points at me. Rahm Emanuel turns around and sees it and he loves it and grabs the sign. He hands it to a Secret Service agent who handed it up to Bruce and then they played it."

I turned to Rahm Emanuel and I said, `The least I can do for you as a great public servant is buy you a beer,' and he said `I'll take a light beer.' I mean, what a night.

Happiness Is A Fast Smartphone

iPhone users (like me) are about to get a lot happier.

If you don't have one you should definitely splurge. It is absolutely worth it. And rumor has it that the AT&T exclusivity contract may be on it's way to the paper shredder as early as this summer, for those Verizon holdouts out there (BFMC), and possibly to coincide with the release of a new iPhone. My guess is a slightly different phone (smaller) as well as an upgrade to the original.

I love the Apple rumor mill, but it is oft' incorrect.

The Shah Of Venezuela

The title of an interesting essay by Enrique Krauze. Long, but good.

Moving Day

My apologies for the extraordinarily light blogging - yesterday was moving day and in many respects I am still recovering. Moving is probably one of the worst things, there is always something more to do. Luckily I didn't have far to go - only down the hall - but our western democratic capitalism allows for absurd levels of consumption, something I am particularly guilty of. I was wishing for a few moments yesterday that I was a Chinese peasant or something...

Anyway blogging should be back up to speed today, sort of. I've hit another crazy patch at work, but am going to really try to not let it stress me out. This week has been a crazy news week! And Lost Causes has yet to comment on the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor. Stay tuned for that.

To start, here is a good piece by Robert Kaplan on NorKor.

Six Party Talks A Failure?

Does the nuclear test that NorKor conducted mean the six party talks have failed or are on the way to failure? Weigh in if you'd like using the comments. Here is Eli Lake on the matter.

This has extremely serious implications for Obama's heretofore preferred method (diplomacy first) of deterring Iran and NorKor from further advancements of the nuclear arms capabilities. NorKor is far ahead of Iran from what we know. But there is a lot that we don't know in both instances. This is a scary, scary moment for the world. I really feel like Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities may be nearer on the horizon than most people think (although there are still lots of issues with an Israeli strike). My guess is that nothing substantial will happen before the Iranian elections taking place in June, but the results will have huge implications for the future of Iran. I have a lurking suspicion that Ahmadinejad will win, though I pray he does not for the sake of the Iranian and Israeli people. An Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities means massive numbers of civilian casualties (for both Iran and Israel) according to a study done by CSIS (available here). There are very few (if any...?) scenarios that allow for a successful hit on Iran that don't incur serious losses and potential for widespread regional conflagration.

This is an incredibly challenging scenario.

Memorial Day

We are so lucky to have the bravest men and women serving this great country and keeping us safe. Enough thanks could never be said to them and their families for the sacrifices they continually make on our behalf and in the name of this great country. Today, we honor the dead.

Memorial Day Order:

I. The 30th day of May, 1868, is designated for the purpose of strewing with flowers, or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country during the late rebellion, and whose bodies now lie in almost every city, village, and hamlet churchyard in the land. In this observance no form or ceremony is prescribed, but Posts and comrades will, in their own way, arrange such fitting services and testimonials of respect as circumstances may permit.

We are organized, Comrades, as our regulations tell us, for the purpose among other things, "of preserving and strengthening those kind and fraternal feelings which have bound together the soldiers sailors and Marines, who united to suppress the late rebellion." What can aid more to assure this result than by cherishing tenderly the memory of our heroic dead? We should guard their graves with sacred vigilance. All that the consecrated wealth and taste of the nation can add to their adornment and security, is but a fitting tribute to the memory of her slain defenders. Let pleasant paths invite the coming and going of reverent visitors and fond mourners. Let no neglect, no ravages of time, testify to the present or to the coming generations that we have forgotten as a people the cost of a free and undivided republic.

If other eyes grow dull and other hands slack, and other hearts cold in the solemn trust, ours shall keep it well as long as the light and warmth of life remain in us.

Let us, then, at the time appointed, gather around their sacred remains, and garland the passionless mounds above them with choicest flowers of springtime; let us raise above them the dear old flag they saved; let us in this solemn presence renew our pledge to aid and assist those whom they have left among us a sacred charge upon the Nation's gratitude—the soldier's and sailor's widow and orphan.

II. It is the purpose of the Commander in Chief to inaugurate this observance with the hope that it will be kept up from year to year, while a survivor of the war remains to honor the memory of his departed comrades. He earnestly desires the public press to call attention to this Order, and lend its friendly aid in bringing it to the notice of comrades in all parts of the country in time for simultaneous compliance therewith.

III. Department commanders will use every effort to make this Order effective.

—General Orders No. 11, Grand Army of the Republic Headquarters



Two Memorial Day Poems:

In Flanders Fields
John McCrae, 1915.

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.


Moina Michael,
1915

We cherish too, the Poppy red
That grows on fields where valor led,
It seems to signal to the skies
That blood of heroes never dies.

NorKor Post-Apocalyptic Mix

NorKor (North Korea) is a very ronery place. And I have a feeling Kim Jong-Il is about to get a whole lot ronerier.

Annoying News Anchor Look-A-Like Edition

I have always, always thought Joe was once a child actor. Isn't the resemblance scary? It's all in the eyes.

For those who haven't seen Deliverance, you really need to. BFMC (I'm guessing) that means you.

Judith Warner On Meghan McCain

I just finished reading Judith Warner's arrogant, snooty column about how she pities Meghan McCain (even though "she knows she shouldn't"). Oddly enough, the only person I feel pity towards after reading it is Judith Warner. I am not a frequent visitor of Warner's blog, but went looking in The Times today after reading a tweet from Meghan about a "hit piece" that they had done on her. What I found was a disgraceful piece from Warner (I'm assuming that was what Meghan was referring to).

The piece left me wondering what the hell is Judith Warner's problem? Warner writes that she knows she shouldn't be pitying Meghan but rather should be mocking and deriding her. I'm not sure I understand where all the contempt comes from. But there is lurking behind Warner's hyperbole and vitriol a very judgemental and pitying voice, one that says "I feel bad for you, you republican woman. You're too dumb to realize how repressive you're party is on women's issues. When will you ever learn?" It's not surprising to read this in the NYT, which is undeniably the choice rag for many of the unwitting bourgie feministes, women who freely scorn other women that have views and values different from their own (pro-life etc). I would know, I went to college with a lot of them. They feel a sense of sadness that these women are unenlightened or something. It's bizarre, and incredibly arrogant.

It's really unfortunate that a writer with such a prominent voice could sink to this low a level of empty ad hominems. It's especially sad because these attacks are on real people. Meghan McCain and so many with similar circumstances (in the public eye) are like us; they're not made with thicker skin. I think many people forget that. I'm no defender of celebrities, but when the attacks are so empty and seemingly just to toot your own lame horn (as Warner did in this case) they're pointless.

To the substance, Meghan McCain is doing a noble, and admittedly a very difficult thing. She is desperately trying to reorient her party (and mine) on social issues that are a huge factor in the GOP's alienation from younger voters. To go on national TV (let alone Colbert!) and defend your beliefs is a fiercely difficult task. I respect Meghan's courage. As for Warner, she has definitely lost the de facto respect that many of the writers at The Times get from me. I'll read her in a different way from now on (if I ever do).

Indy 500

I've been to an event from every pro sport I can think of, and there is nothing that compares to going to see a car race. Nothing. I went to the Brickyard 400 (the race now known as The Allstate 400 at the Brickyard) in 2007 and was completely amazed. First of all, Indianapolis Motor Speedway is something to behold in itself. It is the highest-capacity sports facility in the world. That's right, some 400,000 people come to watch the Indy 500, the largest single-day sporting event in the world. Compare that to Fenway Park, capacity 37,400, or the new Yankee Stadium, 52,325, or even Beaver Stadium (where Penn State plays football) 107,282. Bottom line: you should go to a race at the Indy Motor Speedway at some point. It truly is an epic experience.

More On Dick Durbin And Gitmo

Dick Durbin's appearance on Meet The Press was littered with all sorts of foreign policy blunders. In one instance however, I want to thank David Gregory for asking the exact question at the same time that I did to Dick Durbin (albeit I was shouting at the TV and David Gregory was sitting across the table from him). That question was: "Where is the evidence?"

Dick Durbin, echoing the President this past week, maintains that the US prison at Guantanamo Bay is used and has been used successfully as a recruiting tool for al Qaeda. The President even claims that Guantanamo created more terrorists than it ever detained. Obviously this is all hyperbole, something we are getting used to, but it is seriously distorted. This is a serious claim that is being levied in the name of closing Gitmo, and it's very important that we are as accurate as we can be with this argument.

Durbin's evidence is that we can attribute these numbers to Major Matthew Alexander, who after personally interrogating some al Qaeda suspects in Iraq concluded that half of them "had been recruited and were fighting trying to kill Americans because of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo." Now there's some sound evidence-gathering if I've ever seen it.

First of all, there is a serious (and misplaced) conflation between Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. Abu Ghraib was a horrible aberration that was addressed promptly appropriately. Regarding detainee treatment, Gitmo could not be further from Abu Ghraib. Sure I've read some of the testimonies of guards at Gitmo who used rough techniques with the prisoners in the early years. But this is war people, it's not a bed and breakfast. After the alarm was sounded about possible detainee mistreatment issues at Gitmo Human Rights Watch and other groups (The Red Cross has a shop set up across the street) have complete access to the facility and keep very close tabs on the conditions.

In addition, the President has conceded that an option for closing Gitmo would be creating an identical prison in the US. In effect, the change would just be in the name. Now isn't that some change I can believe in.

As for the other option of moving Gitmo detainees into US Supermax prisons, there is now serious concern after last week's news. All of the 4 terrorists arrested last week (in the foiled plan to blow up a synagogue in New York) were converted to their extremist ideology in prison. One almost thinks that there was divine intervention meant to nip in the bud the notion that we can keep these detainees in a general prison population in the US where they'd be able pollute the already noxious atmosphere with their distorted extremism.

If the numbers provided by Major Alexander are even remotely accurate (which I highly doubt they are) closing Gitmo would do very little to stifle recruitment by terrorists. Even if we did close it, do you think the terrorists rely solely on the cold hard facts in their recruitment? These people rely on a mixture of rumor and nonsense that resonate in a very medieval way in order to bring people into their fold ("Did you know that the women can show their arms in America? They teach women to read in America!") And do you really think potential recruits are scrupulous enough in their decision-making to say "Wait, no, they closed Guantanamo. I think I'm going to have to reconsider my virulent anti-Americanism. Democratic capitalism isn't bad after all. No more terrorism for me. Here's my Soviet-issued AK-47 from 1976 which I don't know how to shoot properly and some IEDs. Sorry, the jig is up. I'm moving to America, Land of the Free, Home of the Brave, where they no longer have Gitmo, the main reason I hated them so much." The question answers itself. Al Qaeda and other extremist groups are barbarians whose objective seems to be establishing a global Islamic caliphate. Closing Gitmo will have a negligible effect on deterring potential recruits. The argument is completely bogus and the President and members of Congress should stop fooling themselves and lying to the country.

Disclaimer: This post relies on certain terrorist stereotypes.

Because Everything Sounds Better Auto-Tuned

These are very good.

The Roundtable

Rich Lowry - National Review, Eugene Robinson - Wash Post, Chuck Todd - NBC, Michele Norris - NPR

• Chuck Todd - Obama said we are going to have a new Gitmo, just changing the name of Gitmo, calling them "prisoners of war" and can still hold them indefinitely. Change?
• Rich Lowry - Obama has accepted the principles of the Bush counterterrorism efforts. Obama disingenuous for continuing the policies after defaming them for 4 + years
• Michele Norris - Obama unafraid of engaging difficult issues. Obama intentionally chose Thursday to go head-to-head with Cheney
  
• Chuck Todd - Cheney's principles are popular, Cheney is not. Cheney's brand makes it easier for Obama to win that debate
• Eugene Robinson is incoherent...
• Lowry - Cheney motivated by honor, nobody in Republican Party with 60% approval to make the argument that Cheney makes
• Lowry - That Pelosi (who has impressive human rights credentials) did not raise "holy hell" about waterboarding shows that it exists in a murky area.
  
• Chuck Todd - Why announce nominee next week? Congress isn't here. Don't want a political fight, too early to jeopardize popularity.
• Lowry - False choice for Cheney between Limbaugh and Powell in GOP. We need both obviously!

Obama's High Court Nominee

Durbin says we will have Obama's Supreme Court nominee this week, possibly as early as Tuesday. Gingrich says this nominee will be the test of Obama's Notre Dame speech, a measure of his sincerity.

Also Gingrich not thinking about running in 2012 until 2011. He would not disavow the possibility of a 2012 run. Interesting.

Live-Blogging Meet The Press

I am going to give it a shot. Although it's hard to type and listen at the same time.

Dick Durbin And Democrats' Gitmo Argument

Sorry the argument that Gitmo recruits terrorists does not hold water.

Terrorists fighting to create an Islamic caliphate in the image of the 13th century are recruited by the argument that America doesnt respect the rule of law, which they probably have never heard of? Sorry, not buying that. Possibly Abu Ghraib, but not Gitmo.

Cheney Demystified

Cheney's speech at AEI yesterday was very good. His role as the defender of the Bush admin is working out well. I was leery of Cheney's increased media appearances at first, mostly because Cheney remains an unpopular figure, and without a measured approach things could quickly worsen. I now believe, however, that more face time will actually help his image and legacy, and will make the debate (and history-writing) of the policies that so many detest from the Bush admin contentious but winnable.

The role of the VP is often a challenging position to master as it is largely devoid of real day-to-day responsibilities and is primarily symbolic. Cheney's PR difficulties originate in this tension: his detractors have accused him of having immense sway over President Bush, primarily in foreign policy (the analogy of Emperor Palpatine and Darth Vader is one that has been used often - although obviously imperfect). These concerns are well-known, but are largely undocumented in any way. I invite readers to find legitimate sources that document Cheney's usurpation in any serious way of Bush's foreign policy (other than the 2 or so hours that Bush underwent surgery to remove polyps).

One of the points here is that the Bush presidency in many ways has been largely fictionalized by hyper-liberal cynics, and political opportunists, whose aspirations were to take advantage of an unprecedented and uneasy political climate (post-9/11 America) in order to advance their own careers (think Joe Biden, Kerry, Clinton and countless others: staunch Iraq War supporters at first, then completely and unequivocally denounced the War when it was unpopular, did not support surge because there was little public support, and ran in '04, '06 and '08 on an anti-war, Bush-admin-messed-it-all-up platform). Those people have done an immense disservice to the historical record. But fear not, history is not written by the stammering fools who utter every damned word in obedience to polls and numbers. It is written (if it is written well) by those who carefully examine the record, free of political fetishes and euphemisms, in a way that pays homage to fact and not self.

Bush and his admin had little success in defending themselves from the onslaught of criticism and mythologizing. Part of this I believe has to do with a public confidence drought that Bush suffered most severely in his second term, which I think stemmed from what many would have called Bush's "stupidity" or his "lack of intelligence." In actuality what people perceived as stupidity (as cruel and inconsiderate as that was) - his mispronunciation of words, and general inarticulateness - was probably dyslexia. Many people have made this point. How tragic that what was most likely someone's disability was turned into a justification for further distortion of fact and outright hatred of a man who was dealing with incredibly difficult and unprecedented circumstances. If there is something that makes me incredibly angry, it is when other people's disabilities are made fun of or are exploited for humor or for gain in some way (I still get furious when I think about Obama's late-night gaffe while on the Leno show - what a jackass).

Cheney-as-spokesman has the potential to offer up a serious critique of the Obama administration's hyped-up (and largely heretofore unseen) repudiation of Bush's "evil" and American-value-sacrificing anti-terror regime. I eagerly await the next round of Cheney v. Obama.

Obama's Cart Is In Front Of His Horse

There have been a few voices of dissent in my subtle cheerleading of Dick Cheney and those who question Obama's anti-terror approach. To them I ask: how can we consider closing down Guantanamo without a plan in place that deals with the myriad complexities that arise in its closing? Obama has put the cart in front of the horse here, and it was a coldly calculated political decision (how un-Obama...), one that lacks foresight or strategy (even more unlike Obama!). I think Americans (and Congress) deserve to know what will come of the 200-odd detainees, many of whom are known-terrorists (a word Obama seems unwilling to use) before we sign on to this half-assed plan. Come on!

More thoughts on this later.

Showdown Cont'd

Thanks to @MikeMurphy I now have links to both speeches, and that means you do too:

• Dick Cheney at AEI
• Barack Obama

By the way, Mike scores the bout at Dick Cheney 1, Barack Obama 0.

I'm assuming this is going to be a multi-round fight.

Any good name suggestions? The Fisticuffs In The District of... nah.

Alright more name ideas later, need to read the speeches!

Showdown

For those who aren't junkies like me, Obama's speech this AM (text is not up yet on whitehouse.gov) on national security is being immediately followed by Cheney at AEI.

I'm watching my twitter feed for reactions and so far it's been interesting.

I did catch some of Obama's speech (my building had a fire alarm this morning - takes about an hour to complete - had time to run home and turn on the tube). I didn't think it was very good. There is an acquired immunity that one develops to Obama's speech tactics, you learn to dig beyong the flowery rhetoric and impossible compromises. And when you do, there is very little.

I will read the text of the Cheney speech and have some thoughts later today.

I Thought I'd Never Say This

Twitter is awesome.

You should join too.

35 Years Ago Today

This is extremely important and must be recognized.

On this very day, 35 years ago the Philadelphia Flyers beat Bobby Orr and the Boston Bruins at the Spectrum in Philadelphia to win their first-ever Stanley Cup.

What a beautiful moment that must have been.

One More Thing Before I Disappear Behind A Mountain Of Papers

A testament to how busy I am: I totally forgot it was Tuesday and thus Ross would be in the NYT. I was just reminded when I scanned over my google reader feed of Matt Yglesias' blog and saw him referenced. Haven't read it yet but look forward to it. Ross is great and you should read him weekly, that is if you like well-argued and smoothly-written opinion articles in the NYT from someone who is a Gen Y'er. And that will make you want to join the Dark Side if you already haven't.

The Dark Side is so much cooler.

Sorry X 1,000

For the light blogging.

Work has me completely strapped.

Sending my good thoughts to GHC on his Army PFT today!

Sending my congrats to JNM who got accepted into a prestigious Parisian school of diplomacy yesterday. Félicitations!

Things will be back up to speed soon.

Anyone who knows of any opportunities in the political world (the right-wing universe preferably, or The Dark Side as we sometimes call it) let me know. I am starting to think about new options and any input you might have would be greatly greatly appreciated.

Obama Meets Bibi

And it seems like the implications of today's meeting are huge for the future of American-Israeli relations.

There is more here, here, here, and here.

I think many will be watching very, very closely.

An Interesting Take On Gaza

Sunday Night Omnibus

Ramesh Ponnuru on Obama at Notre Dame

Abe Greenwald on W (ties in nicely with my similar post)

Michael B. Oren on seven existential threats to Israel

An interesting look inside the highly secretive world of the communist Chinese state

WSJ on Pelosi's self-inflicted shitstorm

The Role Of The Henchman

Bush Era Anti-Terror Policies Slowly Being Vindicated, Or The Change That So Many Believed In That Never Came

I think Monica Crowley goes a little overboard here, but I think she expresses some important points, mainly that many of the Bush-era policies are largely being vindicated by their continued use in this new administration.

Even some of the symbolic gestures (like the future closing of Gitmo) that were meant to repudiate Bush and assuage liberals are being questioned by Democratic leaders in Congress.

There has been a lot of relief on the part of neocons and hawks regarding Obama's approach since taking office. Conversely there has been a lot of disappointment in certain corners. During Obama's campaign a good friend and I wrote a number of very critical opinion pieces for our college's newspaper about Obama's apparent foreign policy naivete. Unfortunately (and not surprisingly) the articles have gone missing from the archives. I guess the lingering sting of our irrefutable arguments regarding Obama's bankrupt "change" rhetoric was too much for them to handle.

No, I Am Not Slavoj Žižek's Ghostwriter

I happened upon an odd coincidence recently and thought I would clear the air. Slavoj Žižek, a famous Czech philosopher (and proud Marxist) recently wrote a book with the same title as this blog. I can't speak for him, but I draw no inspiration from Slavoj or intend the name of this blog to represent any secret (or not so secret) agreement between us that involves the dissemination of subliminal Marxist propoganda. In fact, I'm quite sure that upon reading the contents of this blog, Slavoj might very well become ill to his stomach. I hope to buy and read the book sometime soon, though I'm not so sure it will sit well with me.

By the way I am now on Twitter, you can follow me @ patrickthurber.

Partisan Wrangling And Supreme Courtship

The partisan wrangling over nominees to the Supreme Court is nothing new, think Ted Kennedy's rant at the Robert Bork confirmation hearings:

"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens ..."

They even made a verb out of Robert Bork; this was one of the most ridiculously cruel examples of what many people on the Left anticipate from conservatives in response to any nominee that Obama chooses.

A lot of this is unfortunate, but some of it makes for good drama. In fact Christopher Buckley wrote a pretty funny/good novel about this exact issue called Supreme Courtship.

To the extent that conservatives blindly stonewall a reasonable nominee they are foolishly wasting the public's time and their own efforts. I would bet, though, that Obama will choose someone who fits into that "reasonable" mold, as I think Bush ultimately did with his two nominees (albeit not at first, Harriet Miers was a disastrous pick and he incurred a serious beating for that foolish episode). Obama is politically astute and he surely knows the vulnerability a president experiences with a political decision of this magnitude. I'm sure he won't want to squander his early popularity with a unapologetically political selection.

In response to reader JNM's comments I would strongly disagree with your contention that abortion and gay marriage have no bearing on the future of the country or the welfare of our people. These are two hugely divisive issues that many many Americans feel strongly about. To brazenly operate as if those opinions don't matter just because they may qualify as "movement conservatism" or antiquated, religiously-influenced opinions is not a politically viable strategy (though maybe in secular France...). Obama recognizes this, and in fact himself does not support gay marriage. As to the protection of abortion, Roe is a disgrace to Supreme Court jurisprudence. Most people I know who study law or have JDs feel this way. That doesn't mean that for many really compelling socio-political reasons abortion rights aren't necessary. It just means that abortion is so bitterly contentious in part because of the devastatingly flimsy legal justification established in Roe.

We live in a pluralistic society and I think its easy to forget the importance of the art of the compromise (and the potential resolution of complex and divisive problems through federalism). Obama has the rhetorical side of the art of compromise down pat. With his selection he can show us that he not only talks but also walks his above-politics approach to governing.

AWESOMENESS X 1,000

Do You Like My Facelift?

The veritable nation of loyal Lost Causes readers will notice that today we got a facelift. It's relatively minor (I switched templates in blogger's settings), but as the timeless lyric goes: "It feels like the very first time." Let me know if you think it's shite (no, not Shiite; shite like the British way of saying "shit"). If you don't think it shite we will keep it for a while. Maybe I can figure out a way to put a picture in the header...

Color Me Baffled

Wow. Matt Yglesias says the unthinkable,

I’m actually 100 percent positive that were Oprah on the Supreme Court she would do a good job. In a lot of ways, it’s just not that difficult a job. You need a reasonably intelligent, public-spirited individual who’s aware of their own limits and does a good job of hiring clerks. To be a truly great justice requires more than that, but it’s not as if putting a TV personality on the court would lead to her making “wacky judicial bloopers” or something. The difficult, controversial cases that come before the Supreme Court are precisely the cases where the answer isn’t in your bar exam study book.

This is absolutely foolish. "...it's just not that difficult a [sic] job." That's crazy! Matt should take a constitutional law class: in fact I can recommend to him a great textbook.

The sad thing is that just being a Supreme Court justice is really quite hard. But being a halfway decent justice takes an encyclopedic knowledge of the law and an incredibly sharp mind. So to state the obvious Oprah is not up to the task at all. Plus she would probably make .00001% of what she earns now, or even less. Plus the robes definitely make you look like 50 pounds heavier so she would probably never go for it anyway...

I had a conversation with a very smart attorney recently (my dad) about the oft-intriguing concept of appointing a non-judge to the court (which used to be the case more often than not in the days of yore, for many reasons). He seemed to think, and I agree, that the increasing level of complexity that so many new cases demand would make a lack of substantial judicial experience difficult to reconcile. Yes, judges may be "closed-off" from certain aspects of policy debate, or "real-life" (not sure about the legitimacy of that claim) that others could potentially bring to the table, but not having a judicial background is a real cost that needs to be thoroughly considered. And nominating a Justice without a J.D. is absolutely unthinkable.

4 In 10

4 in 10 Children are born to unmarried mothers in the US. So sayeth a new study from the CDC.

There are tons of studies that examine the implications of the aforementioned scenario on children, and it is fairly unequivocal that it is a circumstance that society should disincentivize.

Americans' Views On Abortion Shifting

So says a Gallup Poll,

WASHINGTON (AFP) — US opinion on abortion has shifted with, for the first time in nearly 15 years, a narrow 51-percent majority identifying themselves as "pro-life," according to a new Gallup poll published Friday.

The "pro-life," anti-abortion opinion has risen from 44 percent a year ago, while the number of Americans who described themselves as "pro-choice" fell from 50 percent a year ago to 42 percent now.

E Pur Si Muove!

I heard Charles Bernstein read his poem Recantorium at a celebration of the life of Raymond Federman this past fall and was in awe. It's written in a style inspired by Galileo's recantation before the Inquisition. E pur si muove!

So I've searched it out and while it is only available in sections I will post those anyway (the poem is incredibly long). There is video of him reading it (which is much preferred to just the text) and if I can figure out how to post it I will. I may end up just linking to it. In fact I'll do that right now: here is the video. These selections were taken from The Chagall Position - thanks to them for posting these!


Selections from Charles Bernstein's “Recantorium (a Bachelor Machine, after Duchamp after Kafka)”:

*******

I was wrong, I apologize, I recant. I altogether abandon the false opinion that National Poetry Month is not good for poetry and for poets. I abjure, curse, and detest the aforesaid error and apostasy. And I now freely and openly attest to the virtues of National Poetry Month in throwing a national spotlight on poetry, so crucial to keeping verse alive in the twenty-first century.

I was wrong, I apologize, I recant. I altogether abandon the false opinion that only elitist and obscure poetry should be praised. I abjure, curse, detest, and renounce the aforesaid error and aversion. And I now freely and openly attest that the best way to get general readers to start to read poetry is to present them with broadly appealing work, with strong emotional content and a clear narrative line.

*******

I was wrong, I apologize, I recant. I altogether abandon and renounce the false opinion that poetry is a social and ideological construction and not the expression of the Pure Feeling of the Poet (PFP) and declare, The Sovereign Human Self (SHS) is the sole origin of authentic expression and meaning. In full recognition and acknowledgement of my error, I hereby declare and swear, to all present company, that I must not hold, defend, or teach in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing, the said false doctrine.

I was wrong, I apologize, I recant. I altogether abandon the false opinion that official verse culture, through prestigious prizes awarded for merit and reviews in nationally circulated publications selected for major importance, and including the appointments of the poets laureate, does not represent the best and the finest, the most profound and significant, the richest and the most rewarding, poetry of our nation. And now that I myself, in my person and through my work, have ascended into this Exalted Company, and joined the rarified and incorrigible company of official verse culture, I do here cast stones and sticks and call an abomination and curse and scorn and repudiate any who would not cherish and adore both the process and product of that official verse culture that has embraced, with trepidation and embarrassment, and with noses tightly pinched and earmuffs in place, my unworthy ascent.

*******

I am with regret fillèd and by errors o’erwhelmed, having chosen the broken path over the righteous, the warped over the erect. I cant and recant. I altogether abandon the false opinion that advocacy or partisan positioning has any place in poetry and poetics. Poetry and poetics should be reserved for those who look beyond the contentions of the present into the eternal verities, the truths beyond this world that never change, as represented in the Books of the Accessible Poets. I further stipulate that I recant, categorically, that poetry is an activity of the intellect and herewith and hereby declare and proclaim that true poetry is an affair of the heart and only the heart.

*******

I was wrong, I apologize, I recant. Like a rat seeking a dark cavity to eat its hapless prey, I succumbed to the dictatorship of relativism, a state of profound confusion in which I could not recognize anything as definitive and based my judgments solely on my own ego and desires. In this graceless state, I falsely believed that the real tyranny was intolerance to those who do not adhere to the aesthetic values of honesty, coherence, clarity, and truth as revealed to all with a moral conviction and a commitment to the timeless human story. I repudiate this gutless indulgence toward benighted and fallen ideas and commit myself to the dictatorship of obedience.

I was in error, I apologize, I recant. I altogether abandon the false doctrine of midrashic antinomianism and bent studies, which I have promulgated in writings, lectures, and teaching, with its base and cowardly insistence on ethical, dialogic, and situational values rather than fixed and immutable moral laws. I loved language more than truth, discourse more than reality, and so allowed to spread, in myself and others, an intellectual virus that uproots the plain sense of the word.

Sykes-gate

Jennifer Rubin gets this pretty right:

Kathleen Parker spends a column telling us that Sykes wasn’t funny and Rush Limbaugh isn’t a terrorist, which is why Sykes’s now oft-repeated joke wasn’t funny. Thank goodness she cleared that up! But she misses the boat when she says the real problem is “our thin-skinned intolerance and our reflexive lurch to take offense.” Yes, that’s a problem in society and would have been relevant if Limbaugh had actually taken offense. But that’s not what is at issue here.

The concern Pete and I (as well as many others) have raised has nothing to do with a foul-mouthed, unfunny comic. It has to do with the president. If Parker hadn’t noticed, the focus of the mini-kerfuffle has been on the president’s obvious amusement at the time, followed by perhaps the first time in history a White House press secretary has “walked back” a laugh. It’s not the biggest story of the week, but it provides some insight into the president’s lack of presidential-ness, which has become all too familiar.

It should be of concern that, after riding into office on the hope and promise to end the perpetual cycle of acrimony, Obama has intensified it through perpetual slights and jabs at his predecessor. It should be of concern that he doesn’t quite realize his job is to rise above nastiness; not to encourage it. It should be of concern that his administration has made a fetish of vilifying select media figures, a practice not seen since the Nixon presidency. And it should be of some concern, quite bluntly, that Obama thinks a joke about someone keeling over from kidney failure is a hoot.

Bottom line: we don’t expect anything better from Sykes, but we do from our president.

My main beef with the correspondents' dinner was that so little of the laughs were directed at Obama--what I thought the event was all about. I think Hollywood and the rest are so busy drooling that no one had time to write a joke or two about the suave O man himself.

Recommended Reading

This is a great review of Tom Ricks' book The Gamble which I own but have only read portions of. It's a lengthy write-up but is quite comprehensive and well worth it.

Do You Have $140?

Then buy this.

And let me know when I can borrow it from you. That's right: only $1.60 per page.

Obama To Oppose Release Of Detainee Abuse Photos

It seems that Obama has reversed course on this highly controversial issue; could this be because Obama tunes in to Lost Causes on his Blackberry? Doubtful, as I believe the readership for this blog is still at depressingly low numbers (tell your friends). I'd bet that google searches for Yasser Arafat nude gets more hits than this blog. That's gross but probably true.

Anyway, as I mentioned above I wrote about this issue when it initially broke. Many of the usual suspects (I thought I could find a link to a Glenn Greenwald post, but I couldn't), took a stance that seemed to defend the administration's backing of the ruling, as if it would allow us to wash our hands of these aberrations and not suffer a serious PR hit in the Arab/Muslim world or in the world in general. That's craziness. It seems Obama was a little busy stuffing McChange (thanks Ramesh Ponnuru) into his mouth that he forgot to chew, and now that he has had a taste it's become apparent that it is a seriously dumb and dangerous idea.

As I wrote in my earlier post, this is a situation where the costs alone exceeds the benefits, but there is an additional risk element (hostility directed towards our troops, further recruitment for terrorist groups, terrorist attacks, and a host of others) that tips the scales off the table. I hope that we don't come this close to as dangerous a mistake again with this administration, otherwise it will be a long four years (I think it will be anyway).

Foolish idea, glad to see it hit the paper shredder.

It will be interesting to see the fallout from this, which I think may force people to reconsider some of their harsh and unending criticism of the Bush Administration's policies. Obama, to his credit, realizes the importance of continuing some of the policies that arose in a post-9/11 government. While he campaigned as the anti-Bush, which his admirers lapped up lovingly, he has thankfully not governed in a way that is consistent with this rhetoric, yet. I'm sure much of this is due to the fact that what his supporters on the left wanted to hear him say (and what he has heretofore refused to do) is largely impossible if the best interests of the country-and not politics-are paramount.

Bush FTW!!

Morning Omnibus

McArdle defends our bankruptcy system

Richard Florida on mega-regions and high-speed rail

Richard Posner on conservatism (wow)

Patrick Ruffini dissects the implications of Obama's popularity

Joshua Wolf Shenk's essay on George Vaillant

Two excellent Hitchens columns, one on Edward Upward and the other on Marx

Thoughts On Gay Marriage

Much to the chagrin of many people I know, I'm fairly agnostic on this issue-though I tend to lean against when I do lean. That's for many reasons, not least of which is that I think a redefinition of this particular cultural institution is simply unnecessary to achieve the human/civil rights that gay people are currently denied, such as visitation rights etc. I know this will score low with lots of people, but I hope that they can be mature and not make it personal.

I will say this though, that a certain prized and oft-worshipped figure within the Liberal universe holds precisely the same position I do on this issue. I know most glossy-eyed admirers have pushed this reality to the back of their head, or even forgotten it altogether, to make their idolatry slightly easier. I kid, I kid... Sort of.

Two (very) important weigh-ins re: gay marriage,

1) Donald Trump made the right call by allowing Carrie Prejean to keep her crown as Miss California. The selective outcry regarding this issue has been absurd, and the deliberate character assassination attempts on Prejean mimicked those used on Palin. I have no interest in beauty pageants whatsoever, but I thought that Prejean's answer was clearly honest and from the heart, two characteristics we tend not to associate with contestants' answers at beauty pageants (but should encourage!).

2) Read Ross Douthat's third column as a Times contributor. I think he makes some very valuable points.

I Like The Inter-Blog Dialogue (Hopefully There Will Be More)

JNM and I have a good bit of dialogue going and I know this blog has benefited from having his commentary (you should certainly pay a visit his blog). So a sincere thanks to him for allowing me to post his responses here. I do have a few more questions for him and I'm hoping that he can draw upon his experience as a student of modern Israeli history (remember that class you took - was it the spring of our senior year?) as well as a Jew living in modern Europe.

I'm hoping he can confirm or deny an interesting trend that I have seen gaining in speed in recent years, one that I think plays heavily into what I have referenced in earlier posts. I'm interested in exploring what I see as an anti-Israeli sentiment (that often times manifests itself as a new, subtler anti-semitism) that seems to be on the rise in Europe and throughout the west. It stems from a relatively recently formed view of Israel as aggressor and repressor of the Palestinians, as well as regional bully. This view seems to also associate Israel the Middle East hegemon with the US the global hegemon (or as the Iranians would prefer, The Little Satan and The Great Satan respectively) and views the actions of both as aggressively neo-imperialist. This allows for the convenient but unfortunate amalgamation of those who seek to protest the global hegemony of the US with that of the plight of the Palestinians (experiment: count the number of keffiyehs you see at the next anti-globalization protests).

Some might say that taking these radical views seriously is unnecessary as they are often devoid of serious scholarship. Though I agree that serious scholarship is often lacking, I must respectively disagree; I went to a college where the Palestinian lobby was so incredibly well-organized and well-supported that it absolutely dominated the college-wide discourse on Israel, the Palestinian question and the Middle East. College students, renowned for their desire to challenge the status quo no matter the facts, are easily lured into a world of keffiyeh-wearing anti-Israeli sentiment it turns out.

My question to JNM is the following: is anti-Israeli sentiment becoming the status quo? In Europe and elsewhere (not quite in mainstream America yet, but certainly on college campuses) does Israel suffer from a PR deficit (undeserved, I think we both would agree) that is in turn creating a new, though youthful, anti-semitism? And if so, how do you trace the progression of this trend? Personally, I see the tactics of Yasser Arafat as being a watershed moment in the history of the Palestinian question. His mastery of PR helped to shape the global discourse on the Palestinian question around the view that Israel was inherently aggressive and repressive, something that had previously not been the case. But hopefully our alma mater didn't fail you in yet another regard and you will have some course materials to draw upon regarding this issue.

I went back to the archives of my college newspaper to find an opinion piece I had read a while back that left a sour taste in my mouth. It turns out that it doesn't exactly fit the mold of what I am trying to build here, but it shows some of the absolute ignorance that pervades college campuses (especially mine) when it comes to foreign policy. I don't need to get into dissecting this piece for obvious reasons but it brings to the fore some important questions. JNM, help us out.

And just quickly - what brought this issue to mind was this pretty good (though certainly biased) review of some of Benny Morris' books by Gershom Gorenberg. Morris' story is an interesting one, and I hope to read some of his excellent histories in the near future (when I might have one spare second).

Who Can Speak For The Muslims Of France

JNM has responded, and thankfully vindicated my crude and unscientific assessment, with his thoughts in response to the question that I posed to him a few days ago.

In a post a few days ago I wrote:

In Europe its clear that a majority of immigrants are not coming from similar religious backgrounds (religion is largely dead in Europe anyway) and instead come from primarily Arab Muslim, or African Muslim backgrounds. Just from my own anecdotal evidence I would venture to say that immigration and subsequent adjustment is far easier in the United States, and we are incredibly lucky for it. I wonder if our Parisian correspondent would like to add further and far more scientific observations of his own?"

JNM responds:

This is largely true and perhaps common knowledge in France. Massive Arab immigration not only poses institutional and bureaucratic problems, but also socio-religious ones as well, that lethal mixture that breeds racism and segregation. But what's important to note is that not all Arabs immigrating to France are either jihadists or strict adherents to the Koran. Indeed, there are huge communities of less doctrinaire Muslims who integrate very smoothly into France's largely secularized political and social cultures (one of my students included). But because of events unfolding within the last decade, their reputation falls with the extremists.

I suppose that's why Le Monde just published a front-page article over the weekend called "Qui peut parler pour les Musulmans de France?" (Who can speak for the Muslims of France?) The article details recent attempts by secular Muslims to recapture their respected status by forming a laique group, or a nondenominational group to represent Muslim social and political interests within the country. So there is evidently a struggle among French Islam itself for self-imagery, and this should point out the difficulty of the problem as a whole.

Ironically enough, the Muslims of France could take some notes from the well-organized and nondenominational groups that represent Jews. Jews of course, through and after the Revolution, hadn't achieved complete equality until after World War II. But that they did have early successes in this regard, most specifically following the Revolution where French parliament members passed a creed granting complete de jure equality to Jews, highlights the potential for Muslims to do the same with a highly organized and, especially, secular voice.

The Cost Of Obama's Healthcare Plan

Megan McArdle has a very important post on this exact issue so I'll let her do the talking,

This weekend, I was on a panel where the other economics journalist and I spent a great deal of time belaboring the obvious: Obama's health care plans are very, very expensive, and they mean higher taxes for everyone, not just that elusive klatch of greedy fools who are not in the 95% of working families now allegedly slated for stable or lower taxes. Otherwise, how could Obama hope to pay for it?

I think we found out today: magic!

Obama got the SEIU and various corporate entities involved with health care provision in a room and got them to promise to slash 150 basis points from the annual rate of increase in health care spending. How will we achieve this? Whitehouse.gov has a fact sheet which outlines the concrete proposals that came out of this meeting...

...You may recognize these proposals; they are recycled from the Obama budget. Estimated cost savings listed: $215 billion over ten years. That leaves just $1.785 trillion for the "stakeholders" to find. And with a model of stakeholder cooperation like Chrysler before us, that shouldn't be hard.

Cheech And Chong Mathematics

Mark Kleiman (who has a much-anticipated book coming out soon) over at the Reality-Based Community at UCLA has done his math (albeit with excessive use of paragraphs, but I guess I like the added emphasis they provide):

California Assemblymember Tom Ammiano has introduced a bill to legalize cannabis in California. The bill quite sensibly recognizes that California can't have a legal market while the drug remains banned under federal law, so in the meantime it defaults to a policy I prefer on other grounds: permission for individuals to produce cannabis for their own use and to consume it.

But of course doing it that way wouldn't produce any revenue for the state, and it's the prospect of revenue that is getting people interested. If cannabis were legalized at the federal level, the Ammiano bill would impose a tax of $50 per ounce. The article quotes the Board of Equalization as estimating that such a tax would produce $1.3 billion in annual revenue for the state.

Hmmmmmmmm.

So a $50/oz. tax is supposed to produce $1.3B/yr.

That implies $1.3B/$50 = 42m oz./yr.

The population of California over the age of 12 is about 27M.

The National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NS-DUH) estimates monthly prevalence of cannabis use among Californians over the age of 12 at 6.8%.

That gives 6.8% x 27M = 1.87M monthly users. Consumption of 42M ounces per year shared among 1.87M monthly users works out to 22 oz./user/year. An ounce is 28.3 grams, so that's 622 grans per year, or 1.7 grams per day, for everyone in California who smokes at least monthly.

The World Drug Report estimates average the average U.S. joint at about half a gram. (I recall seeing smaller numbers; for comparison, a tobacco cigarette weighs about a gram.)

Assuming half a gram per joint, 1.7 grams would make something more than three joints.

Per day. Average.

Can you say "bullsh*t"? Can you say "What have these people been smoking"?

I was sure that you could.

Vimeo: Ye Olde Treasure Trove Of Shorts II

Cool.

One year in 40 seconds from Eirik Solheim on Vimeo.

Editor's Note

I want to quickly confirm something about the title and purpose of this blog. This blog is intended to give political, cultural and sometimes random commentary, frequently from a "right of center" disposition. I hope to have guest bloggers who will provide alternative interpretations, reviews, and/or sardonic self-congratulatory pieces of original writing.

The name is a reference to my feelings about my having to defend many policies instituted during the evil and conniving Bush administration (specifically those dealing with national security and foreign policy) against the tidal wave of "liberal" sentiment that (neo)conservatives-or just hawkish types-in my generation are up against. For example, many great minds (both liberal and conservative) who once supported Operation Iraqi Freedom now publicly exclaim its failure, both in conception and execution. I would argue against the first and hope to qualify the second.

It is my hope that this blog, and this blog alone, can resurrect the roundly excoriated neoconservative position on foreign policy. Thank you for reading.

Real Housewives Watch

I'm not one for reality TV, let alone shows that use the exciting lives of housewives as storyline, but I do think I might tune into at least a few episodes of The Real Housewives of New Jersey, if only because I love my home state and miss it dearly. I also would wager that New Jersey has the best (and potentially most entertaining) housewives. But then again, I might be biased...

I can tell you one thing, we certainly would top Atlanta in a housewife-off. Case-in-point: Carmela Soprano. Game, set, match.

More Friday Laughs

While catching up on my serious blog backlog from a very busy week I found this treasure from FP Passport that had readers send in awful (but actual) acronyms:

More awesomely bad acronyms from FP readers:

Tiago Dias:
May I suggest the Spanish GRAPO (Grupos de Resistencia Antifascista Primero de Octubre)? It sounds like a fruit (obviously), but also reminds me of Grappa, the Italian hard liquor.

Joe Geni:
I nominate JUSCANZ, pronounced "juice cans", and stands for Japan, the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. I am not making this up. I'm a reporter at the UN and I've heard it used here repeatedly.

Demian Smith:
MOOTW: Military Operations Other than War

John Carrick, once again:
DFAT, Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, is pertinent and poetically evocative. Trade commissioners create the surplus to import de fat. Diplomats deploy their skills as they chew de fat.

Jed Odermatt:
I always thought that RAPEX, the EU rapid alert system for all dangerous consumer products, was a name that was not fully thought through.

John Halperin:
The bus system in Kinshasa is aptly named:Societe de transport urbain du Congo (STUC)

There were several nominations for SLORC, (State Law and Order Restoration Council) as Burma's military regime used to be known. I actually think that's an appropriately unpleasant name for a very unpleasant group of people.

Harvard Humor

Greg Mankiw provides the much-needed dose of Friday giggles:

Conor Clarke says my livelihood is in peril.

It is true that there is always entry into the textbook-writing business, which imperils incumbents like me. But I am not worried. I am one of the economics profession's leading producers of textbooks, I have an extensive network of dealers (aka professors), and I have friends in high places (Larry Summers, Christy Romer). So doesn't all this make me precisely the kind of too-big-and-too-interconnected-to-fail plutocrat that, if push comes to shove, will get a government bailout?

If you doubt me, let me point out that my initials are GM.

The Murder Of Ilan Halimi

JNM's vivid depiction of the perils of the banlieu are a testament to a key demographic difference between the US and Europe. I wrote a post a few weeks back on this exact issue but never got around to editing it for publication: immigration. Here in the US, I contend that we are incredibly lucky to share a 2,000 mile land border with a country whose people tend to share a religious tradition with most Americans. This is because religions impart values, and congruency in value systems makes the immigration and adjustment process smoother. Almost 176,000 Mexicans legally immigrate to the US every year, and I applaud every last one (even those that come here illegally; and if the estimates are right, the numbers are much higher than those that come here legally).

In Europe its clear that a majority of immigrants are not coming from similar religious backgrounds (religion is largely dead in Europe anyway) and instead come from primarily Arab Muslim, or African Muslim backgrounds. Just from my own anecdotal evidence I would venture to say that immigration and subsequent adjustment is far easier in the United States, and we are incredibly lucky for it. I wonder if our Parisian correspondent would like to add further and far more scientific observations of his own?

Paris Dispatch

Lost Causes Parisian correspondent JNM writes as follows regarding the barbaric murder of the Jewish Ilan Halimi by the African Muslim Youssouf Fofana:

Though I was bar-mitzvah'ed at thirteen I haven't really participated in many holidays or rites since then, so I can't really speak for the Jewish community as a whole. But as a human being I can pretty easily share in your disgust for the acts which saw a Jewish youth tortured and killed simply because he was Jewish. Though shocking, it is however old news. But that it happened at the hands of Arabs in Paris highlights one of the most pressing issues facing the French government: How to deal with the banlieu.

For those of you out of the Paris loop, the banlieu is essentially the immigrant and Arab-dominated suburbs forming a ring around Paris. Cheaper housing and manufacturing jobs are presumably what attracts them. For Paris through the ages, this trend is nothing new. The cycles of urban expansion fed by intense immigration have marked the Parisian landscape since before the Revolution. But what's alarming about developing trends is the inability to integrate today's banlieu with the customs and economy of the more inner city.

If you visit the banlieu you can immediately sense a deep and unsettling alienation amongst its inhabitants. PNCT can probably testify historically to what happens when indigent and alienated communities aren't given due attention and relief. The schools are terrible, the hospitals are overcrowded, the transportation is limited in correspondence, and the same apathy that plagues inner-city black youth in America attaches itself to Arab youth in Paris.

In this view it's not so surprising that a gang of kids abducted, tortured, and killed a 22-year-old Jew. They were acting on complete ignorance, and this much is obvious in the facts. Education is not just good for its own sake. It dissects, liberates, mollifies, and calls into question most prejudices about the way the world operates.

So this latest incident was as much a failure of Parisian administration and social absorption as it was of human dignity.

Blog Request

I've just written my friend in Paris to see if he would be willing to comment on the trial of the self-proclaimed barbarian Youssouf Fofana who tortured and murdered Ilan Halimi (who was Jewish) in 2006. France is no stranger to antisemitism and I'd be interested to hear from my friend about how France has reacted thus far. Stay tuned for that.

These sorts of crimes bring out the worst in me. Its hard for me to contain my rage and piece together something that would be appropriate for publishing...

A Brief History Of The Irish Economy

This is a great piece on a fascinating economic story. (H/T Reihan)

Marty Peretz v. Roger Cohen

In the welterweight event of the year, Peretz in the red corner and Cohen in the blue corner, these two throw down.

Your "I Can't Believe Its Not An Onion Story" Of The Day

Courtesy (as usual) of Yahoo! News:

Afghanistan's Only Pig Quarantined In Flu Fear

I'm speechless, but just finished laughing too hard. Money quote:

Shabby and rundown, Kabul Zoo is a far cry from zoos in the developed world, but has nevertheless come a long way since it suffered on the front line of Afghanistan's 1992-4 civil war.

Mujahideen fighters then ate the deer and rabbits and shot dead the zoo's sole elephant. Shells shattered the aquarium.

One fighter climbed into the lion enclosure but was immediately killed by Marjan, the zoo's most famous inhabitant. The man's brother returned the next day and lobbed a hand grenade at the lion leaving him toothless and blind.

Blogger Down, Morning Omnibus

I am incredibly busy at work and hardly have a moment to look at anything let alone write about it. Light posting for at least today, possibly a few. In lieu of regular posting, I give you the busy-morning omnibus:

Sowell on Obama's Supreme Court selection

Wesley Pruden on Obama the car salesman

Ross on The Center (and the consummately unprincipled Arlen Specter)

David Brooks on Westerns

Kaplan on Obama the Untested

Hitchens on Obama, Churchill and Torture


Enjoy!