Vacation

I am leaving tomorrow AM for a week and a half. I wont have access to a computer (or internet for that matter) so blogging will be light. I will have my trusty iPhone and can try to post via SMS when I have a signal (which will be very infrequently). I'll do my best to keep it interesting, but every blogger needs a vacay sometimes. I'll post some pictures when I get back, and maybe a video or too, Im going to have one of these with me. Keep it real.

Oh and stay tuned tomorrow for the announcement of the decision in the Ricci v. DeStefano case. I blogged about that here.

R.I.P Michael Jackson, King Of Pop

Thank you Michael Jackson for everything.

Thoughts Re: Neoconservatism

I really respect my friend whose email I posted earlier for his recognition of the need to use our power to promote democracy and human rights abroad. This is something that presidents of both parties have done (the Clinton years are littered with examples). The looming question mark of course is how we use our power to achieve those ends, and that's where the divisions begin - even within the neoconservative community.

In a subsequent email my friend talks about his dislike of the word "neoconservative" and "neocon". I think he is right to point this out. The word "neoconservative" and its derivative "neocon" are both shrouded in a pejorative and ominous cloud, forever branded as evil and ruthless imperialism (and with Bush as a spokesman). It doesn't help that it shares a prefix with "neo-nazi" as we all know how damning word associations can be. But let's not forget that Bush was by no means a neocon upon taking the oath of office. His transformation began during the early years of his first term, most dramatically after the horrific events of 9/11. In fact, Bush had run in 2000 on a platform that harshly criticized the Clinton administration for their use of the military in conflicts such as Somalia where there was no clear threat to the US, essentially an anti-neocon position (and one that targeted soldiers and their families for votes because of the relative unpopularity of these conflicts within the armed forces community).

I know there are people out there who believe strongly that the United States spends far too much money overseas in its engagements both in war and otherwise. These people would prefer the United States to look inward as opposed to outward, and to return to 19th century isolationism. Ron Paul is a perfect example of a national figure with these beliefs who has garnered a significant amount popularity. Rep. Paul in fact just cast the only "no" vote against a House resolution condemning the Iranian regime for its role in the post-election violence. He is an example of someone devoid of any neoconservative tendencies (in fact he often talks about how these positions are causing the downfall of the United States). Rep. Paul's views are outmoded. The 21st century is not the time for the USA to crawl into a dark cave and cease to engage the world. If we did that, we could be sure that terrible things would happen. Our power checks the entire world and keeps in relative balance a fantastic array of states, leaders, egos, trade agreements and so forth. This balance is often referred to as the Pax Americana, a relative peace achieved by the stabilizing nature of American power. Of course there are minor violent flare-ups, threats and other terrible things that happen. But the theory holds that things would be worse without the constant outward-looking posture of the United States.

This is the nature of neoconservatism: the notion that the USA should do what it can, within appropriate norms of international relations, to promote democratization, human rights and the destruction (through the utility of American power - both diplomatic pressure and, if necessary, military might) of oppressive regimes that stifle human freedom and liberty. Behind this position is the acceptance of the notion that a world with more true democracies is one that is a safer place for everyone. How uncontroversial...

Headline Of The Day

"Adultery Finds a Pol on Hiking Trail of Life"

From Margaret Carlson's story found here.

For the record I would have never guessed that Mark Sanford would go down like this. He had a bright future ahead of him (some say very bright, I'm not so sure of that). Regardless, this is a terribly sad story and my thoughts are with him and his family.

Power corrupts, my friends. Do you have the strength to battle it?

Neoconservatism: Not So Bad After All

A good friend of mine wrote the following re: my post here. He nicely is allowing me to post it. I will offer my thoughts in a subsequent post.

I agree that Obama's foreign policy soft tactics are probably the result of keeping consistent with his campaign, which was to pose as the anti-Bush. In that sense it does seems like he's running into a realistic wake-up call.

But I think he needs to come into realism slowly. His popularity abroad is soaring, and the cost of tough stances could be in international disfavor and rough resemblance to the Bush administration. So it seems he needs to play a balancing act. In order to garner an international backing, he needs to strike a balance between neoconservatism (which the rest of the world hates) and soft diplomacy.

I guess the good thing is that the memory of Bush is fading, and the more it continues to do so we can start a more neocon agenda with democracy-building. To be honest I'm with you in that I don't accept the idea that we have no business in the rest of the world's affairs. If we're powerful with resources at our disposal, we have a duty to protect human beings.

I actually think there's a bright wing of neoconservatism that accords extremely well with globalism, at least philosophically. Essentially, yes the world is imploding, and because everyone's interests are overlapping, we have a moral and realistic obligation to protect democracy. [Emphasis mine]

Please Read This

Article from Reihan Salam.

John Dickerson Agrees With Me

And he writes for Slate.

Obama laughed at the notion that his critics like John McCain had pushed him into a stronger position. "I just made a statement on Saturday in which we said we deplore the violence," he said. But the president's statement on Saturday contains no such tough language.

I had written a similar statement here.

It's nice when people with far more credibility than you end up with a similar conclusion. You feel mildly vindicated because writing analyses of these issues is often daunting.

You should read John Dickerson's article.

Portmanteau Of The Week

Starting a new feature called "Portmanteau Of The Week." If you don't know what portmanteau is look here (I hope David Frum is okay with me pointing people to Wikipedia - which is also a portmanteau - for the definition of portmanteau! watch the video here if you don't know why I am referring to David Frum). Please keep an eye out for portmanteaus and submit them to me via the comments section. Don't worry, I'm not expecting to many submissions (or any really).

This week's Portmanteau Of The Week is... Mullahcracy

A combination of which two words? While mullah and democracy of course.

It is often invoked to describe the system of government in Iran whereby people cast ballots but there is hardly a vote taking place. The candidates are hand-picked after they are shaken down and frisked for any undesirable qualities. And as we recently saw, entire elections may be rigged so that an outcome most desirable to the mullahs is achieved.

Obama And Iran

I just watched Obama's press conference and there were a significant amount of questions devoted toward the President's Iran statements and his positioning, which I think was appropriate (6 out of 13 questions).

The events in Iran have garnered a lot of attention, albeit in a new sort of way. The first weekend after the elections (two weekends ago) lots of waves were being made in the Twitterverse and various sites (HuffPo etc.) about the massive protests happening in Tehran and elsewhere. However, very little coverage was being aired on the 24 hr cable news networks. There are a lot of explanations for this, some justifiable, some not, but I'm not going to get into that now. Twitter and Facebook and to a lesser extent other social networking sites made this news available, while also contributing to the dissent - creating a fantastic nexus of information for news' sake and information for organizing and dissent's sake. It was interesting to watch it unfold through non-traditional forms of media.

A substory in all of this is Obama's reaction to the events in Iran. Some have called it timid, others have called it measured and appropriate. I happen to find myself somewhere in between.

In the press conference today, Major Garrett of Fox News asked the President what took him so long to declare the violence in Iran "unacceptable", and the President's response was that he had been consistent all along. I'm not sure that's accurate. In his strongest words on Iran to date the President said the following in a statement released this past Saturday June 20, 2009:

The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

The President seemed to suggest that he had used the word "deplorable" in respect to the violence against peaceful protesters in Iran before, though I didn't see that word anywhere in the statement.

There is a delicate balance that Obama has tried to strike, one of not giving the appearance of too much intrusion into Iranian sovereignty, but still a vocalization of democratic ideals. Some would call it triangulation, and I really don't think the President wants his legacy on supporting the dissenters in Iran to be one of triangulation. In the short term he needs to be a more vocal supporter of the Iranians who are challenging the "iron-fist" (his words) of the mullahs.

The President is right to point out that the state media in Tehran has concocted all sorts of nonsense about how Obama is secretly urging on the protesters, and that the CIA has a hand in all of this. But this is not a reason to lay low, as the credibility of these outlets is far from pristine. Obama is someone who has immense capital when it comes to a western leader resonating with Muslims - Arab, Persian or otherwise - and he should invoke it when he can, now being a prime example.

Behind all of this mayhem though lies a serious diplomatic conundrum that has no easy answers. Christopher Hitchens call this problem "a nuclearized, fascistic theocracy in Iran," and rightfully declares that we simply cannot coexist with one. I agree wholeheartedly, and from what the President says he does as well. However, the question remains how to best use our power to make this end an impossibility for the current Iranian regime.

Some like Max Boot, who I had blogged about a week or so ago, have written that the re-election of Ahmadinejad is at least partially acceptable, because the ability to diplomatically (i.e. without war) quash the Iranian's nuclear ambitions with the mullahcracy intact are nil. The logic continues that with Ahmadinejad in power the West will be more likely to engage Iran militarily, and bring the mighty (or not so) Persian pests to their knees. I think Boot is probably right, though this administration will never come close to thinking so pessimistically (some might say this is in fact realistic thinking).

Others, like Hitchens, think that a more strongly-voiced support for the Iranian dissenters from the President might succeed in urging them on, bringing the state to a halt, and quite possibly, with enough encouragement, the mullahcracy to its knees.

The problem in analyzing these various tactics is one of an information gap. There is evidence of a fracturing within the top tiers of the Iranian government, but to what extent we don't know. Will further protests deepen these divisions? Or will they only drive the mullahs toward more unity in order to bring a halt to the domestic turmoil? The impenetrability of the mullahcracy has made any good news or foreign/policy analysis hard to honestly execute. And in many cases, amongst experts on Iran, one person's guess is as good as another's.

The sad part is that with each passing day, new centrifuges are built, their nuclear program expanded and the Iranians are increasingly closer to the weaponization of uranium.

Obama's use of the words "unacceptable" and "deplorable" to describe the Iranian state's use of violence on its own people is a step in the right direction, albeit a baby step. The United States has a proud tradition of supporting movements toward democracy and liberty throughout history (admittedly not always, I know) and Obama should continue this tradition.

The clock continues to tick down towards a nuclear-armed Iran. The world simply cannot accept that result.

Update

Sorry for the light blogging of late. A few factors have contributed to this:

1. Leaving for vacation soon and trying to get everything in order before I go.

2. News coming out of Iran has been stifled greatly by the oppressive regime putting the clamp down on foreign journalists and social networking sites (and the distribution of false information on these sites as well by regime insiders).

3. I am not a health care policy wonk and thus have little to say regarding Obama's plans for revamping our system. I really do hope to learn more at some point, it is just such a vast and opaque sea of confusion for me, so no use in trying to offer commentary at this point.

I hope to get a few good posts in before I go, and am investigating the possibility of blogging from the azure seas of the Caribbean.

Another Hitchens Gem

Christopher Hitchens has a wonderful new piece up at Slate. Hard-hitting as usual, here is a great line:

It is a mistake to assume that the ayatollahs, cynical and corrupt as they may be, are acting rationally. They are frequently in the grip of archaic beliefs and fears that would make a stupefied medieval European peasant seem mentally sturdy and resourceful by comparison.

"An Iranian Everyman With Badly Fitting Clothes And White Socks"

This is a great article from Fouad Ajami.

Photo Of The Day

Candles lit for the victims killed in the protests in Iran on June 16, 2009. The slogan reads "Death to dictator."

Who Is Mousavi Anyway?

Daniel Byman has an excellent article up at Slate that breaks through what some of the MSM has failed to regarding the current situation in Iran. This is required reading for all interested in what is to come in the Islamic Republic.

Mousavi himself is likely to disappoint. A prime minister in the 1980s, when the regime was far more revolutionary than it is today, he is a creature of the Iranian system. Indeed, in order to win approval to run for president in the first place, he had to pass an ideological and political litmus test that rejected more than 400 other candidates, leaving only Mousavi, Ahmadinejad, and two other establishment types. As prime minister, he approved Iran's effort to purchase nuclear technology from Pakistan, and during the 2009 campaign he defended Iran's nuclear program. Clearly he is an improvement over Ahmadinejad, but that is damning with the faintest praise.

I think there has been a widespread pro-Mousavi sentiment that has blanketed the West. I think this is wrong, but expected. Mousavi certainly looks to be on the wrong end of a farcical election, and the feelings about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad throughout the West are well-known. But as Jake Tapper tweeted a few days back, Mousavi is no Thomas Jefferson.

In Case You Missed This

I'm sure most people have seen this, but given what's going on right now it seems especially funny.

Reihan Salam's New Blog At NRO

So my predictions were wrong, Reihan Salam will not be taking the place of Ross Douthat at The Atlantic (in retrospect that seems all too obvious). There is a serious void now that Ross has departed for the Times, despite the multitude of new bloggers at The Atlantic's Correspondents' blog (which I would recommend). Nonetheless Reihan has a new blog at National Review Online called The Agenda. It's been quite good so far and I recommend you check it out.

Brink Lindsey And David Frum On Movement Conservatism

This clip is mostly Frum taking Matt Lewis and Mark Levin to school, which is highly entertaining. I recommend the whole episode if you have an hour or so, it's very interesting. Two very smart individuals who disagree - but do so like old friends would.

Annoying News Anchor Look-A-Like Edition II

Does Neil Cavuto Have A Neck? I'm really not sure if God gave him one.



And did the NY Lottery Commission model their spokesman after him?

And while we're looking for his neck, has anyone confirmed that he has a brain? No one seems to care that Fox Business exists. I certainly don't.

For those who missed the first edition of Annoying News Anchor Look-A-Like find it here.

New Font At Lost Causes

You may have noticed that I changed the font on the website today. For those interested I switched to Times from Trebuchet, which was the default font if I'm not mistaken. I'm still working on a more aesthetic header, but hope the font change works for everyone.

If there is ever a problem with formatting on the site please let me know. The default templates that Blogger provides have serious limitations and their display varies on each computer from what I know. I'm hoping a Blogger overhaul is not that far off.

This Actually Gives Me Chills

I didn't realize this until now, but Twitter was scheduled to undergo maintenance last night. There was a call for them to reschedule, and they honored this request. Here is their statement:

A critical network upgrade must be performed to ensure continued operation of Twitter. In coordination with Twitter, our network host had planned this upgrade for tonight. However, our network partners at NTT America recognize the role Twitter is currently playing as an important communication tool in Iran. Tonight's planned maintenance has been rescheduled to tomorrow between 2-3p PST (1:30a in Iran).

I have been following the events in Iran closely through Twitter and it's been an incredibly powerful tool. The hashtag "iranelection" (#iranelection) has been the top trending topic for a few days now.

I know this is a late and obvious diagnosis but this really is the beginning of the end for much of the media as we know it. Twitter's role in the events currently transpiring in Iran is very much a watershed moment.

New GOP Logo

Thoughts Chairman Steele?

Illustration by Dan Page for Time comes from this story by Mike Murphy at Time.

Kurds For Ahmadinejad?

From Raye Man Kojast (Where Is My Vote) blog:

According to official results announced by BBC Persian, Kurdistan province has been won by Ahmadenejad. This is unprecedented in the history of the Islamic Republic. For thirty years Kurdistan has voted for the opposition candidates and the turn out is very low. This time around the turn out in this province has been extremely high.

This is oddly reminiscent of the incident in 2000 where liberal precincts in Florida (like Palm Beach, with high Jewish populations) were going overwhelmingly for Buchanan, an arch-Christian candidate with a history of unfortunate commentary towards Jews.

The mullahs should have made their meddling a little less blatant.

Political Cartoons From Iran

These via Andrew Sullivan, who has great Iran coverage by the way. Click to enlarge.

Ahmadinejad's Dilemma
--By Nikahang Kosar

(The sign says "recount")




And this from an Iranian female cartoonist, Mana Neyastani:

Photo(shop) Of The Day

"The Mouse That Roared" via Andrew Sullivan

Read Hitchens On Iran

Hitchens has a way of reporting that is unrivaled in the business. His take-no-prisoners approach is fantastic.

Read Hitchens' article on what he would call "the events wrongly called the Iranian elections." Hitchens writes,

Iran and its citizens are considered by the Shiite theocracy to be the private property of the anointed mullahs. This totalitarian idea was originally based on a piece of religious quackery promulgated by the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and known as velayat-e faqui. Under the terms of this edict—which originally placed the clerics in charge of the lives and property of orphans, the indigent, and the insane—the entire population is now declared to be a childlike ward of the black-robed state. Thus any voting exercise is, by definition, over before it has begun, because the all-powerful Islamic Guardian Council determines well in advance who may or may not "run." Any newspaper referring to the subsequent proceedings as an election, sometimes complete with rallies, polls, counts, and all the rest of it, is the cause of helpless laughter among the ayatollahs. ("They fell for it? But it's too easy!") Shame on all those media outlets that have been complicit in this dirty lie all last week. And shame also on our pathetic secretary of state, who said that she hoped that "the genuine will and desire" of the people of Iran would be reflected in the outcome. Surely she knows that any such contingency was deliberately forestalled to begin with.

****Note: I do have to credit Hitchens with my use of "illiterate fundamentalist" to describe the pathetic anti-semite Ahmadi-nejad. What a hapless, lumpen, Members Only-jacket-wearing coward.

Another Theory For Lack Of Iran Coverage

I've got another theory for why so little news has been reported from Iran: the pronunciations intimidate the news anchors.

While flipping through some of the cable news channels this morning I believe I counted 4 different, and all equally incorrect, pronunciations of Ahmadi-nejad. The illiterate fundamentalist doesn't deserve to have his name pronounced correctly anyway.

MSM M.I.A On Iran. WTF?

Sorry for the overdose of acronyms. The last one wasn't really necessary.

Megan McArdle puts forth a potential explanation for the mainstream media's (MSM) absence on the tumultous weekend in Iran. I remarked earlier that the coverage in the US was abysmal. Not only did they have little to no mention of the events in Iran (and no expert panel to discuss/analyze), zero stations broadcasted Netanyahu's speech yesterday in which he backed a Palestinian state. I did happen to catch a story on Fox about the increase in the number of large jellyfish in our oceans. Embarrassing. Here is Megan,

One of Andrew's readers asks where the MSM is on Iran. The New York Times and numerous internet sites have wall-to-wall coverage, including Andrew's sterling work. Other outlets practically ignored the biggest story currently going on in the world over the weekend...

But I think Andrew's reader's question is ultimately a business story. Why doesn't the MSM have more coverage? Because they don't have the manpower. The cable networks are hamstrung by the fact that they don't have much footage of what's going on in Iran. As I watch, they're showing a combination of shots of peaceful protests in Western countries, lying propaganda footage from Iran's state television system, and random b-roll of unidentified protests in some unidentified country that does not seem to be Iran. This is less than must-see-TV.The print media is hamstrung by the fact that they've slashed their foreign bureaus to the bone--and then amputated the bone. There are too few journalists in too few places to cover a big story like this.

Lipstick On A Pig

First, let me say that I am excited that I get to use that saying. It was so controversial in the 2008 election that it almost took on a sort of taboo.

I think Max Boot's analysis of the outcome of the Iranian "elections" is exactly right. While I was disappointed by the result - mostly because it was by definition undemocratic, as the mullahs choose the people who run anyway - Max Boot shows that there is a real silver lining, which provides a glimpse of a quintessentially neoconservative position. Here is Max Boot,

On the principle of “the worse the better” for our enemies–and, make no mistake, Iran is our enemy–it is possible to take some small degree of satisfaction from the outcome of Iran’s elections.

If the mullahs were really canny, they would have let Mousavi win. He would have presented a more reasonable face to the world without changing the grim underlying realities of Iran’s regime–the oppression, the support for terrorism, the nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs. He is the kind of “moderate” with whom the Obama administration could happily engage in endless negotiations which probably would not accomplish anything except to buy time for Iran to weaponize its fissile material.

But instead it appears that the mullahocracy was determined to anoint Ahmadinejad the winner–and by a margin which no one can take seriously as a true representation of Iranian popular will. Ahmadinejad is about the worst spokesman possible to make Iran’s case to the West–a president who denies the Holocaust, calls for Israel’s eradication, claims there are no homosexuals in Iran, and generally comes off like a denizen of an alternative universe. Even the Obama administration will be hard put to enter into serious negotiations with Ahmadinejad, especially when his scant credibility has been undermined by these utterly fraudulent elections and the resulting street protests.

That doesn’t mean that Obama won’t try–but he will have a lot less patience with Ahmadinejad than he would have had with Mousavi. And that in turn means there is a greater probability that eventually Obama may do something serious to stop the Iranian nuclear program–whether by embargoing Iranian refined-petroleum imports or by tacitly giving the go-ahead to Israel to attack its nuclear installations.

Bibi's Speech

My early reaction to Bibi's big speech today - which I regret to say was broadcast on exactly zero stations in the US, from what I can tell - is that Obama's approach to the Palestinian question has scored a minor victory. For Bibi to declare publicly his backing of a demilitarized Palestinian state is a credit to Obama's early pressure on him to be proactive (he has never done so in the past). When I find a transcript of the speech I will post it, or post a link on the comments if you know where one is.

Its been a very eventful weekend, and the coverage in the US has been abysmal. I think people are unsure of what to make of all the news and are letting the dust settle. Additionally Iran has largely put the clamp down on information flowing in and out of the country.

Tiananmen + Twitter = Tehran

IRAN: A Nation Of Bloggers from ayrakus on Vimeo.

Wow

A truly amazing story.

Juan Cole: Iranian Elections A Sham

Juan Cole has assembled a list of evidence that the elections were a farce.

The National Iranian American Council Liveblog Of Elections And Aftermath

For The National Iranian American Council's Liveblog of the Iranian elections and aftermath go here.

They have translations of the Farsi Twitter streams which are interesting.

It seems that SMS and social networking sites are down throughout Iran, as well as much of the cellular networks.

I am intrigued at how the big minds will interpret these events for the future of Iranian-American relations. Internal strife in Iran might just be disruptive enough to prevent effective diplomacy by the US and the West regarding Iran's nuclear program (could this have been a ploy by the mullahs all along?). And if Ahmadinejad loses his legitmacy he may be much more free-wheeling with his hate-filled speech. He cannot run for re-election after this term (presidents cannot hold more than two successive terms, though there is no limit on total terms in office) and therefore is less beholden to the public, if he ever was anyway.

Ultimately I think we are headed for a military confrontation in Iran at some point down the road, if things remain as they are or worsen. A lot will depend on how these next few days and weeks play out.

Obama And State Secrets

Jake Tapper at ABC reminds of us the about-face that Obama is engaging in re state secrets. Double standards anyone? No, of course not...

Iranian Elections Update

Tehran is burning.

Apparently, Mir Hossein Mousavi, Ahmadinejad's main rival in the elections, has been arrested. Read the story here.

Here is some footage from today's protests in Tehran. It's clear that the fraudulence of the election in apparent to many Iranians, and they aren't happy about it. Four more years of Ahmadinejad's anti-semitic and hate-filled rhetoric may make them a potential target.

Iranian Elections

-- Picture from June 13, 2009 Protest in Tehran from user Mousavi1388 on Flickr


I've had some requests for my thoughts on the Iranian elections. It's worth remarking that the amount of coverage these elections are getting in our media is probably unprecedented. Ahmadinejad has captured our attention, despite his minimal real power. His incendiary talk about Israel and Jewish people and the West is reprehensible. And many of the Iranian people whom he is supposed to represent know that he does them great ill. If his threatening overtures toward Israel continue, the lives of many innocent Iranians will likely be in serious danger.

I have to say that I am not surprised in the result, as Ayatollah Khamenei had thrown his support behind Ahmadinejad euphemistically by urging Iranians to vote for the most anti-Western candidate. And whatever the Ayatollah wants, he usually gets.

I would be very surprised if the election wasn't rigged. Admittedly, there were no polls to provide even a rough estimate of the candidates' respective popularity. But the speed with which the election results were delivered was incredibly suspect. I guarantee Iran's electoral infrastructure isn't half as modern as ours, yet the results were returned in an amount of time only slightly longer than an American national election. It's always a tragedy when repressed peoples' voices around the world are stifled.

It's times like these when I feel an incredible love for my country and all the privileges that come with living in the greatest country on earth. I look at places like China, Iran, Cuba, and NorKor and I am filled with anger. Humans are not meant to live in chains. We yearn to be free. When will these people figure it out?

Frum On Levin

I am an admirer of David Frum. He has positioned himself as perhaps the right's Arianna Huffington with his new blog/community at New Majority. It's good site, although I find its layout a bit unappealing and inefficient. Nonetheless, Frum has an incisive review of Mark Levin's book Liberty and Tyranny. Levin, for those who don't know, has a radio program and personality in the spirit of Limbaugh's - angry and mostly unsophisticated. Frum understands the challenges facing conservatism better than anyone, and his review tackles some very interesting topics.

Disenchantment With The GOP

After reading this, I have to say that I am not surprised by this.

I'm working on trying to iron out some thoughts about the differences between the organizational hierarchy in the two parties. I think conservatives are very much at a disadvantage by the fact that many of the people who are de facto leaders in the party are unelected (think Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Sean Hannity and others). There are fundamental differences between the parties in their grassroots compositions: Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity's roles within the American conservative universe are far different role than that of anyone on the left (I'm thinking Arianna Huffington, Olbermann, Maddow, Jon Stewart, DailyKos folks etc. - Am I forgetting anyone who might make a better comparison?). Further, I think most elected conservatives are much more beholden to the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity et al because of their domination in the world of grassroots conservatism. This is highly unsustainable, as the polarization of the American polity grows, people like Limbaugh & Co. are driving significant numbers of voters away with their rhetorical slime and unsophisticated worldviews. This is nothing new of course, it's been said before. But in order to win again, the dominance of the right's pundits and entertainers needs to be choked off or else I think we are doomed.

And for the nonsense that these fools like to spread about how shutting down the likes of Limbaugh would be sacrificing true conservatism: give me a break. Not one of those drunken morons has read a page of Edmund Burke and so they should stop mouthing off about true this or true that.

For the record neither Sean Hannity nor Rush Limbaugh have a BA. Why are they on the airwaves doing political analysis of highly complex issues? Shouldn't we demand more from people who have such influence?

Conservatives And Abortion

The tragic murder of Dr. Tiller a week and a half ago highlights one of the widest divides in American politics - the issue of abortion. Ross Douthat, another person who will undoubtedly play a huge role in shaping the future of conservativism (and another Times columnist - I'm really squandering my conservative street cred by endorsing these hyper-moderate incrementalist Times guys) has written a really important article about the future of the abortion debate. The article embodies that important opposition strategy - restraint.

A Way Forward For Republicans

The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court has brought some of the underlying challenges the Republican Party faces to the fore yet again. The dissent that has been expressed in regard to Sotomayor's nomination has been uncoordinated, often misdirected and sometimes needlessly extreme. The various reactions ranging from sane (i.e. John Cornyn) to insane (cue Newt Gingrich) to the bizarre (cue Rush Limbaugh) to the timid (presenting Mitch McConnell) represent the growing divisions in an already fractured party. There are a number of things that need to happen in order to build bridges over these ideological divides and to become a successful, more unified opposition party.

One of the main goals of the opposition party of course is to find a way back into the majority - to become the governing party yet again. Unfortunately, many Republicans are choosing to employ tactics that are further isolating them from the political center of the country (where elections are won and lost). One such example is Newt Gingrich's commentary that Sonia Sotomayor is a "racist," and the week and half that we have been rehashing it and his subsequent quasi-retraction. Newt plays an odd role in the party - one of currently-unelected-permanent-spokesman, welfare-reform-superstar, and 2012-potential dabbler, but he and others need to refrain from such knee-jerk nonsense.

It is clear that at this point the Republican party leadership - both de facto and de jure - have proven an uncertainty of what it takes to be an effective opposition party in the age of Obama. This is not entirely their fault. Obama represents a new paradigm in American politics. He is an unconventional operator in many ways, and the tired old (two "Obama adjectives") ways of thinking as the opposition will prove useless in the age of Obama.

One of Obama's greatest achievements to date has been the growth and unity he has brought to the Democratic party. Few things breathe life into a political party like a charismatic, studly young politician who orates incredibly well and promises the dawning of a new age in politics. Of course the political context Obama walked into made this narrative fairly easy to create. But Obama's personal appeal and his popularity are huge impediments to the opposition. They are not impossible to overcome, but you can't beat them by resorting to cheap tactics. He'll beat you every time. You need smart strategy, not one that unconditionally disapproves of Obama's proposals/nominations etc. (e.g. Sotomayor). Obama's appeals to the concept of "post-partisan politics", whether you think that it's a mythical idea or not, makes strict party-based opposition a little more difficult. Sotomayor is an example of a judicial nominee that the GOP should ultimately be able to live with (and vote to confirm). The political capital we have for dissent as conservatives needs to be, you guessed it, conserved and spent wisely in the age of Obama.

I certainly had my initial doubts about Sotomayor's nomination. But I think most of those doubts were sparked by one of the stated criteria that Obama said he was looking for in a judge: empathy. I'm not sure why Obama chose to fight that fight (I find it hard to believe that Obama could have stumbled into a debate about the importance or relevance of "empathy" accidentally - I think this is one of his pet ideas and he wanted to make a stand for its importance on the Supreme Court). Had he avoided saying that he was looking for a judge with "empathy" I think he would have saved himself some serious ire. What's important though is that Sotomayor has undergone serious scrutiny by all manner of legal scholars and other relevant officials. And the consensus thus far has been that she has a very strong (and deep) record as a jurist and no serious flaws or red-flags. Her appointment obviously doesn't suit conservatives - but losing an election has costs and this is one of them.

When I look around the conservative universe for examples of relevant opposition I see David Brooks standing tall. Many would-be de facto conservative leaders have lambasted the Times columnist as a hyper-moderate bent on ruining "real" conservatism. But I actually look to him as a representation of the future of the party. His smart column on Sotomayor exhibits the best of Obama-era opposition strategy summed up in one word: restraint. Brooks illustrates that she is an entirely reasonable nominee and that she should be confirmed, despite ideological differences that do exist. Conservatives are going to have some bones with Sotomayor, but we lost the election and that's how it works. Fringe commentary like accusations of racism only serve to make us look desperate and crazy, not exactly selling points when it comes to winning elections.

Conservatives need to reorient themselves to the current political context and find a path to a strong and coherent opposition so that the midterms of 2010 are a true referendum on Obama's achievements (whatever those may or may not be). A continued Republican irrelevance (which in many ways was the plight of the McCain campaign - their increasing irrelevance throughout the later stages of the campaign) would surely deal conservatives a further setback.

Coming Soon

Yesterday I took a test that will likely have a significant impact on the trajectory of the rest of my life. That test is called the LSAT, or Law School Admission Test. Because of the significance of this test, I spent countless hours preparing and practicing. Consequently, I am very happy that it is now (hopefully) in the past. All that is to say that I will have a significant amount of time restored to my life that was eaten up by preparation over the last few months. And I hope to dedicate a portion of that time to this site with the introduction of some new features - one being some book reviews.

With this restoration of time comes a return to one of my favorite pasttimes - reading. And I have a serious backlog of books crying out to be read - and reviewed. Here is a partial list of books that I will be reading in the immediate future that I hope to briefly review and consider on this site (in no order):

1. Save the World on Your Own Time, by Stanley Fish (I hope this book is as good as I expect it to be)

2. Phantom Calls: Race and the Globalization of the NBA, by Grant Farred

3. Imagining the Future: Science and American Democracy, by Yuval Levin

4. The Tyranny of Dead Ideas: Letting Go of the Old Ways of Thinking to Unleash a New Prosperity, by Matt Miller

5. Real Education: Four Simple Truths for Bringing America's Schools Back to Reality, by Charles Murray

6. In Search of Jefferson's Moose: Notes on the State of Cyberspace, by David Post

So stay tuned for thoughts on these books - and check them out if you are currently experiencing a dearth of reading options. And if you have any suggestions, as always please send them along!

Thanks for reading y'all and I promise to make the site better in the months to come.

Update: Video Now Working

I realize that the post about why I love sports had video that wasn't working for much of yesterday and today. I reposted the video so it should work now. It's really worth watching - a very moving story.

The Umbrellas Of Tiananmen

The lengths China will go to in order to censor and control is really unbelievable (see video below for umbrella censorship at work). At first I was completely in shock that Chinese officials would act so ridiculously in front of Western media outlets' cameras. But then I remembered that for the Chinese government, the most important objective is preventing the dissemination of information and images regarding the Tiananmen massacre within their own population. From what I understand many Chinese people have little knowledge of what went on that fateful day almost twenty years ago. The images that we associate with Tiananmen (like the "tank man" seen below etc.) have never been seen by many Chinese because of the government's fear of another Tiananmen-like event.

A Day In The Life Of An Officer Candidate

My good friend OC Calhoun has written a really riveting post about recent events in his life at the Army's Officer Candidate School. He really has quite the knack for good narrative writing (or as South Park would put it - the mother f***** knows storyline!). I wish him a quick recovery!

Yes OC Calhoun, I'm comparing you to Mel Gibson, haha.

Quick Clarification

Just wanted to clarify something that stood out as I scrolled through my posts this week. I wrote a post earlier this week that was seriously critical of Obama's foreign policy. This piece was written in anticipation of Thursday's Cairo speech - which left me with a very different feeling (as my post about the speech probably made clear) than Obama's earlier trips abroad did as well as his approach to foreign policy heretofore. I have my serious qualms with Obama's foreign policies - closing Gitmo without a plan and with bad facts; a predisposition toward leniency with Iran that I just don't think time allows; a hypocritical continuation of Bush's counterterrorism policies without paying any credit to the Bush admin; and a general lack of consistent principles, or putting politics over principles (was going to release further detainee abuse photos, then changed his mind etc.). In the interest of brevity I'll stop there.

However, I feel like Obama's speech in Cairo, as well as some of his subsequent commentary (telling Ahmadinejad to visit a concentration camp and to stop "denying history") were in a way a turning point. I think Obama is feeling more comfortable in his position as Commander-in-chief, surely it takes a few months or more to get one's "groove" right as President. I think Obama is beginning to find his, and I do like aspects of what I see. Anyway, just wanted to clarify why one post talks about the Bambi-fication of our foreign policy, and the next mildly gushes about his Cairo speech. They are slightly exclusive positions so clarification was in order.

Why I Love Sports

There are so many incredible narratives in sports, not just the glory of victory or the agony of defeat. Lots of times there are stories that have little to do with winning or losing, that instead serve to inspire us in different ways. When you get a peek at what is beyond the bright lights, the superhuman athleticism, and the mega paychecks, there are some pretty beautiful and moving stories out there. I have always appreciated ESPN's SportsCenter for that reason: their efforts to tell the unconventional sports narrative that allow us to love the games, the players and the fans in new ways. Here is a fantastic short video from ESPN a few weeks back, that aired during the LA - Denver series.

Good End-Of-Week For BHO

I have to say that Obama's comment to Ahmadinejad this AM (you can watch it below) - that he should visit a concentration camp - was a wonderful thing to hear him say. Obama is putting the right amount of pressure in the right places.

I like when my President goes toe to toe with a cowardly anti-Semitic Islamist; it shows the lunacy and hatefulness of the Iranian president's position. Ahmadinejad's continued Holocaust denial is absolutely intolerable, and Obama is right to use his stage to call him out for it. The exchange begins at about the 3:00 mark. "I have no patience for people who would deny history." Good work Obama, keep it up. (I can be affirming when I need to be)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Obama In Buchenwald

Today, Obama is in Buchenwald. Here you can read Edward R. Murrow's report that filed from Buchenwald soon after the liberation of the camp.

Obama's Speech To The Muslim World

I just finished reading the text of Obama's speech - I tried to get up at 5:45 but that didn't happen since I was up late battle-tweeting with prulonmiller on Twitter. Before I launch into a mild critique let me just say this: I thought this was a strong speech. More importantly, I think we are beginning to see an effort on the part of Obama to use his Muslim connections as a strategic tool in his efforts to achieve foreign policy objectives. I think this is smart. Remember back in the campaign when it was taboo to say his middle name, Hussein? It's slightly ironic that this name, and the heritage that it represents, is now being viewed by many (myself included) as an incredible opportunity to reach out in new ways to populations around the world in hopes of sparking a dialogue that might bring about some serious reform. And it might serve to discredit and isolate the radical extremists who populate the fringes of what is otherwise a reasonable religion with a beautiful culture and history.

Obama's loose connections to the Muslim world as a basis for that world accepting America as not imperialist, or not at war with Islam (as were the popular feelings during the Bush years) is incredibly superficial. Nonetheless, these connections might mean something, and it is essential that we use what we have at our disposal in order to work at making progress in these regions. As someone who looks fondly upon the underlying principles of Bush's foreign policy-an unswerving promotion of democracy and human rights, and a belief in the utility of American power to achieve these ends-I admit that I am disappointed by the fact that many of these principles are not being continued (I can't say that I am surprised). I don't believe that an eloquent speech is going to make a serious impact when it comes time for, say, Hamas to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. It is going to have to be combined with actions of some sort - and I'm not sure I like what has been proposed thus far by Obama and his team (complete halt to Israeli settlement building, giving Iran more time to prove peaceful purposes for its nuclear program etc.)

But I am also not one to rule out a technique until it has been attempted and failed, and the verdict remains out on this strategy. Obama's unending rhetorical eloquence (that seems, when its at its best, to strike a wonderfully optimistic tone rife with feel-good compromises) coupled with the facts that Obama inherently has more credibility with these populations and his enormous global popularity, may yield some different and more positive results. And believe me, I am all for positive reform in the Middle East and throughout the Muslim world. I don't care how it gets done, so long as we retain our dignity as the United States of America, and we extinguish dangerous ideologies that threaten the stability of our country and our world.

All in all a good speech and a good strategy. I was pleasantly surprised at its balanced tone, and really hope, for the sake of our world, that good will come of these very serious efforts and overtures being made by our President. I can't stress that enough. These issues transcend the petty agendas of our politics, they are far bigger than that. Let us collectively hope that we can snuff out the self-perpetuating hatred and extremism that yield only death and destruction.

More thoughts to come. Feel free to chime in using the comments section.

A Long Seven Months

I nearly just fell out of my chair after reading this article from the Post. Giving Iran seven months to prove peaceful aspirations for its nuclear program is far too long. If their intentions are solely for electricity, they could prove that today. Somebody call up Hans Blix. Oh wait, Kim Jong-Il fed him to the sharks.





Seven months is an eternity. This strategy sucks.


Additionally it looks like Obama's European/Middle East Apology Tour 2009 just got started today when he uttered the following:

What we want to do is open a dialogue. You know, there are misapprehensions about the West, on the part of the Muslim world. And, obviously, there are some big misapprehensions about the Muslim world when it comes to those of us in the West.

Necessary question: Why are the misapprehensions on the part of those of us in the West "big" whilst the misapprehension on the part of the Muslim world are just simply misapprehensions?


The Obama School of foreign policy lacks a name at the moment (suggestions solicited), but it is summed up nicely by the idea that apologizing for one's country and its half-witted citizens coupled with the abandonment of sane and reasonable policies will yield the diplomatic results one pursues. It is most certainly not realism. The verdict remains out on this strategy. It's clear, however, that other counties (e.g. Russia and China) have heard the call of a wounded fawn in the woods. Does anyone else wish their president wasn't pursuing the Bambi-fication of the US, thereby greatly diminishing our ability to effectively encourage democratization, market-based economies and human rights throughout the world?





Re: Obama's speech on Thursday in Cairo: There are myriad issues with addressing the "Muslim world" from Egypt, not least of which is that 80% of Muslims are not Arab. I really hope that Obama elects to continue the tradition of pressuring repressive regimes (i.e. the Mubarak government) to pursue democratic reform and human rights improvements. And I hope he chooses not to make a shallow apology with hopes of some grand awakening to the kindness of the American spirit on the part of Arab Muslims. This is not a strategy for dealing with oppressive regimes. It is how you make appeals to children, not governments.

I think this t-shirt might need to have some dates added to it.

Guantanamo News

So as it turns out, most people in this country don't approve of the closing of Gitmo, according to a new USA Today/Gallup Poll (by a 2-1 margin). Even fewer (3-1) approve of the idea of bringing the dangerous extremists into prisons in the USA. I have to say I'm not surprised. This is an incredibly dumb idea and shows a dangerous lack of foresight in Obama and his team. It was incredibly easy to sign the piece of paper showing intent to close Gitmo, but the hard part is actually determining how to do it.

I've said this before, the reasons for closing Gitmo are not convincing (primarily that it contributes to terrorist recruitment). It may indeed stoke anti-American sentiments throughout Europe and elsewhere, but the reasons for this are seriously mistaken. Gitmo is an incredibly well-regulated facility that provides a very decent standard for its inhabitants. Yes, the legal issues regarding the detainees need to be ironed out. But that doesn't mean we need to shuffle these people around in our own prison system, or exert significant time and energy (and money) in order to appease a subset of the American population.

I hope Obama listens to the American people on this issue. We do not want these people here. And until there is a plan to deal with them he should stop wasting his own time and ours making empty declarations that are purely political and lack sustainable solutions.

If you want to read some good commentary on the Gitmo Myth (and the Torture Canard) - instead of just the same old Hope'n'change - I suggest this article which coincidentally has the same name. I'm not 100% sure if the link will work - it may be subscriber content only. If not, I suggest you subscribe to Commentary (for a modest $19.95). It's a great magazine (one of the few clear and coherent voices of Neoconservativism) and I sincerely thank my good friend OC Calhoun for the recommendation back in the good old days of college. Here's an excerpt from the article in case you can't access it:

On January 21, 2009, President Barack Obama issued his first executive order: He was closing the detention center at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba and calling a halt to the military commissions created in late 2001 to try terrorist suspects detained there. Like the startling opening chord of a Beethoven symphony, Obama’s action was intended to herald a new tone in America’s “war on terror” and a restoration of America’s moral standing. The response was electric. The facility at Guantánamo (Gitmo for short) had become “America’s most notorious prison,” as Fox News put it. In the minds of many, it was the American equivalent of the Bastille or the KGB’s Lubyanka prison: a dungeon used to isolate, intimidate, and torture generally hapless inmates, many of whom were innocent of any crime against the United States. Dana Priest of the Washington Post took to the paper’s front page to proclaim joyously that “with the stroke of his pen,” Obama had “effectively declared an end to the ‘war on terror,’ as President George W. Bush had defined it.” Now Obama could begin the process of rehabilitating America’s image around the world, the very image Gitmo had done so much to blacken.
_____________

Then several strange things happened. Obama’s order “closing” Gitmo actually left it open for a year, ostensibly until new arrangements could be made for the 240 or so inmates still detained there—though Obama admitted privately it might have to stay open longer than that. Later, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that, far from being “the Bermuda Triangle of human rights” that Human Rights Watch’s Wendy Patten had dubbed it, Gitmo was in full compliance with the humane-treatment provisions of the Geneva Convention. Meanwhile, the military commissions, which Human Rights Watch and others groups had denounced as a travesty of justice, were only being suspended for 120 days, pending a review—and, indeed, following that
review, will be reinstated almost exactly as they were before.

If one adds to this mix:

• the twelve separate inquiries into the abuses alleged by critics and former detainees at Gitmo that found no evidence of those abuses taking place;

• the revelation during the release earlier this year of the so-called “torture memos” that waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques had been applied to exactly three suspects in the course of eight years and had never been standard operating practice at Gitmo;

• the evaluation by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point that 73 percent of Gitmo detainees were “a demonstrated threat” to Americans;

• and, finally, the fact that the detention facility was created in the wake of a declaration by Congress in September 2001 that “all necessary and appropriate force” should be used “against those nations, organizations, or persons” [emphasis added] responsible for the attacks of September 11;

—one may be permitted to wonder why, exactly, the pressure to close the prison facility has been so intense and long-lasting.

The standard argument is that the public shift in attitude toward Gitmo was gradual, and reflected a growing disillusionment with the war on terror as the sordid details of how George W. Bush and his assistants chose to wage it came out, including the supposed secret use of torture. Once the detention center had become a cesspool of human-rights abuse, the evil spawned there then seeped into other facilities where prisoners in the Bush war on terror were being held, most notoriously the Iraqi prison at Abu Ghraib. In 2004, former Vice President Al Gore announced that Abu Ghraib “was not the result of random acts by a ‘few bad apples’: it was the natural
consequence of the Bush administration policy” of retaining and interrogating
inmates at Gitmo.

What this account and others like it fail to take into consideration are the aggressive and unending efforts of a cadre of lawyers, activists, left-leaning Democrats in Congress, and civil libertarians against the facility, its purpose, its goal, and its existence. These efforts began even before it was opened, in November 2001, and continue to this day. The anti-Gitmo forces worked tirelessly to shape the public perception that Gitmo was the red-hot center of an aggressive policy approach that led the leftist financier George Soros to declare: “The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush.”

The enemies of Bush and Gitmo have succeeded brilliantly. But in so doing, they have done grave violence to the truth about the Guantánamo Bay facility, have aided in the release of prisoners who have since committed acts of terrorism outside the United States, and may yet succeed in having Barack Obama’s government release young men with terrifying ambitions for murder and mass destruction onto the soil of the United States.