Tip of the Hat to Jon Stewart for devoting all of his last episode before The Daily Show's holiday break to the 9/11 responders bill--you can see the full episode here--saving the legislation almost single-handed. I'm not the only one singing his praises. First, the White House commended Stewart for his role in reviving the bill. Now, even the New York Times is making the comparison to Edward R. Murrow. (h/t)
And a related Wag of my Finger to the mainstream news who apparently forgot about the bill, along with their roles as journalists.
The recent thread of WikiLeaks sheds light on a foreign policy problem of nuclear proportions.
In the past week, thousands of important documents and information have been leaked from various U.S. government agencies on WikiLeaks.The leaks are controversial, not only for their sheer number, but for release of cables and conversations between U.S. and very high-ranking officials from other countries.The leaks even prompted Barack Obama to enact new sanctions on Iran today.These sanctions blacklist 10 Iranian businesses connected to the Islamic Republic’s national bank and shipping lines, as well as five executives of these businesses.
On Monday, November 29, 2010, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad referred to the leaked documents as “American psychological warfare that would not affect his country’s relations with other nations.”While Ahmadinejad and his administration might be crediting the U.S. bureaucracy with a bit too undeserved organizational skills by calling the leaks “organized to be released on a regular basis,” the leaked documents definitely confirm prevalent theories about the relations between Iran and its Arab gulf state neighbors and its aspirations for regional hegemony.
It is well-known that Saudi Arabia and Iran are vying for regional hegemony, with Iran’s relative conventional military power and sphere of influence giving it a strong edge over the Saudi kingdom.Not only does this allow Iran to influence the trajectories of Iraq and Afghanistan, thus extending its regional influence, its status as a regional hegemon tips the regional balance of power away from Saudi Arabia and other Arab states that have alliances with the United States.Feeling threatened by such expanding Iranian influence even in the face of decades of sanctions, it is hardly surprising that the Saudi regime harbors strong animosity for the Khamenei’s.However, it was previously unknown that the Saudi-Iranian enmity went so far that Saudi Arabian King Abdullah repeatedly begged the United States to “‘cut off the head of the snake’ by launching military strikes to destroy Iran’s nuclear program,” one of the final pieces of Iranian policy that would enable it to secure the role of an undisputed regional hegemonic power.In order to curb Iranian influence, the United States announced in October of 2010 that it will sell $60 billion worth of military aircraft to the Saudi regime.
Saudi Arabia is not the only gulf state feeling pressure to eliminate Iranian challenges to the current balance of power.King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa of Bahrain argued in favor of forceful action by any means necessary to eliminate the Iranian nuclear program.Bahrain, a tiny kingdom on the Persian Gulf that is home to the American Fifth Fleet’s naval base, has been feeling Iranian pressure and influence for years.In July of 2007, Iranian advisor to Khamenei Hossein Shariatmadari stated that “The public demand in Bahrain is the reunification of this province with its motherland, the Islamic Iran.”An unnamed senior Omani military official (Oman being the country that helped secure the release of American Sarah Shourd from Evin Prison), is cited in a correspondence as unable to decide which would be worse – “a strike against Iran’s nuclear capability and the resulting turmoil it would cause in the Gulf, or inaction and having to live with a nuclear-capable Iran.”In a December 2005 meeting with American military commanders, United Arab Emirates defense chief and crown prince Mohammad bin Zayed of Abu Dhabi lobbied for American military action against Iran either “this year or the next.”Bin Zayed also expressed fears of a nuclear Iranian state, declaring that “any culture that is patient and focused enough to spend years working on a single carpet is capable of waiting years and even decades to achieve even greater goals.”
While Cenk Uygur, host of The Young Turks, on MSNBC Live is not the best interviewer, the answers provided by Doctors Juan Cole and Trita Parsi in this brief interview are very informative and discuss the fears of changing regional balances of power.
Meanwhile, tensions in the region build as Israeli public opinion and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu perceive a growing, intolerable Iranian nuclear threat.Ehud Barak and prominent members of the Israeli intelligence community argue that Iran is not an existential threat nor is Israel the primary target of Iranian ambitions.Even Syrian president Bashar al-Assad argues that Iran will not use a nuclear weapon against Israel, stating that “an Iranian nuclear strike against Israel would result in massive Palestinian casualties, which Iran would never risk.”However, Iranian weapons purchases from North Korea does little to convince the public and Israeli politicians writ large of this understanding.Netanyahu views the WikiLeaks as something positive for Israel, confirming his suspicions about Iranian nuclear ambitions and showing the extent to which Israel and Arab states share a strong mutual interest in preventing Iranian hegemonic aspirations.
Tensions continue to escalate between these states and power blocs in the Middle East.Yesterday, two prominent Iranian nuclear scientists, both professors at Tehran’s Shahid Beheshti University, were attacked in different parts of Tehran.Assailents on motorcycles managed to attach and detonate magnetized car bombs to the cars of scientists Majid Shahriari and Fereydoun Abbasi, the former killed and the latter injured with his wife.Shahriari was involved in a major project with Iran’s nuclear agency, and Abbasi is a member of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and listed as one of several involved in secret nuclear activity in a 2007 U.N. resolution.Abbasi was formerly an expert for Iran’s Defense Ministry and a top specialist in nuclear isotope separation.The Iranian regime currently blames Israel and the United States for orchestrating these attacks.Intelligence analysts blame Mossad for the 2007 death of top Esfahan uranium plant scientist Ardeshire Hassanpour.In January of 2010, Massoud Ali-Mohammadi was also killed, but it is unclear whether his death was related to his support of Mir Hossien Mousavi or an Israeli/American operation; he also died in a car bombing similar to that of Shahriari.
The WikiLeaks available thus far clearly confirm the fears of Arab gulf states and seem to perpetuate Israeli public opinion and Netanyahu’s threat perceptions of Iran.In moving forward from the latest sanctions on Iran, the United States must decide how to manage these states’ interests to balance with its own in the Middle East and avoid yet another military conflict that would have, in Barak’s words, “unacceptable collateral damage,” on all sides.
President Obama has canceled his trip to the Golden Temple in Amritsar, which was supposed to be one of the stops on his up-coming trip to India. Apparently, the administration canceled this portion of the visit out of domestic political concerns that Americans would see images of President Obama in the traditional Sikh head-covering necessary to enter the temple and interpret this to mean that he is a “secret” Muslim. Aside from the fact that Sikhism and Islam are two completely different religions with completely different histories, cultures, etc., the cancellation and concern of the ignorant reaction of the American people point directly to the ridiculous bigotry of the American public towards Muslims and those perceived to be Muslim.
First of all, this is the Golden Temple. It’s insanely beautiful, and it's an important piece of India. If you are lucky enough to have the opportunity to go there, how could you ever pass it up?!?
Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a president, on a state visit to another country, participating in and experiencing important elements of the cultures of that country. It is crucial for building stronger relations and developing understanding between the two countries. India is an extremely diverse country and having the opportunity to learn about the cultures and hopefully educating the American public through exposure, all while continuing to foster stronger positive relations, is amazing – definitely not an opportunity to be squandered. And again, the Golden Temple is beautiful.
That the White House has to be worried that 1) most Americans apparently don’t know what Sikhism is, and 2) the American public is so unreasonably fearful of Islam or things that “look Islamic” are absolutely ridiculous. Today, Juan Williams was fired from National Public Radio for his comments on The O’Reilly Factor, espousing his fear of Muslims (thank you, NPR!). What was even more concerning than his comments were the comments of readers, posted below the story, that felt that he was correct in his statements and that the statements made were not bigoted or hateful. It seems that the best way to combat such pervasive ignorance, fear, and hatred is through exposure to improve cross-cultural understanding. Who better to lead such an initiative than the President of the United States?
The fact that a substantial proportion of Americans believe that Obama is a “secret Muslim” is reminiscent of John F. Kennedy’s comments regarding the freedom of religion in the United States when he was campaigning in 1960. President Kennedy stated that there are far more critical issues facing the country and that “they are not religious issues, for war, hunger, ignorance, and despair know no religious barrier.” Obama has emphatically and publicly stated that he is a Christian, but honestly, it should not matter at all, nor is it any business of the American people. In the words of President Kennedy:
...It has become necessary for me to state once again, not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me, but what kind of America I believe in. I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute…and where no man is denied political office because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him…today I may be the victim, but tomorrow, it may be you, until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped apart...
The American public is infected with an epidemic of fear, arising from ignorance and the lack of interest in at least attempting to understand different cultures and religions. For those Americans who cannot appreciate the freedom of religion and are seemingly incapable of tolerance, what is it about this country that you just don’t get?
His Holiness XIV Dalai Lama, the spiritual and secular leader of Tibet in exile, came to Emory University from October 17 through October 19, 2010. Emory University runs a science initiative with His Holiness in India in order to integrate western science into the traditional monastic education for monks and nuns living in the community-in-exile. His Holiness has always been known for his cosmopolitanism, and feels that this long term project is crucial for improving understanding of the world from both religious and scientific worldviews. This project is extremely important and proves how scientific and religious worldviews are compatible and able to enhance each other’s understanding of the world around us. The integration of two different disciplines and approaches creates a much more holistic way to understand how human beings function and interact with their surrounding environment.
Below, please watch the press conference with His Holiness and the president of Emory University. In addition to answering questions on the interaction between religion and science, His Holiness addresses the relationship between spirituality and secularism, politics, and the importance of fostering open societies.
Furthermore, His Holiness, humanitarian/actor Richard Gere, and Pulitzer Prize-winning writer Alice Walker discuss the interaction between art and spirituality. Although it is a short clip, it raises some interesting points and offers a new approach to art.
Recently, a billboard in Grand Junction, Colorado, became noticed by a larger audience.The billboard features offensive caricatures of Barack Obama and encourages its viewer to vote “DemocRAT.” David Williams of Real Aspendescribes the billboard:
…The billboard depicts “President Barack Obama as a terrorist, a gangster, a Mexican bandit and a gay man. The four ‘Obamas’ [are] sitting around a table with playing cards showing only sixes bunched in groups of three.
“Also on the table is a copy of the Declaration of Independence, a liberty bell, a toy soldier and a statue of Justice holding a balance.
“Beneath the Obama caricatures are numerous rats, some of which are labeled as the IRS, trial lawyers, the EPA and the Fed. Sitting above all that is a line, ‘Vote DemocRAT. Join the game,’ which is positioned between two vultures, one of which is labeled the U.N. and the other with the name Soros, a reference to George Soros, a major national Democratic financial supporter.”
It is clear from the illustrated scene that the billboard is a racist and homophobic commentary on Barack Obama, personally, and his administration’s leadership. While I am not questioning the rights of the artist or the unnamed group that paid him to display these hateful images, but rather the dangerous attitude that allows for this type of representation and bigotry towards many different groups. While criticizing a leader is perfectly acceptable, the criticism should be directed towards things other than the leader’s race, religion, or sexual orientation.Criticism of policies is very different than a racist and hateful caricature and the latter should not be accepted as a legitimate piece of discussion about the first.
"Try to learn instead of burn, hear what I say." ~Jimi Hendrix
The "war on terror" has been compared to the Cold War, and while I think historical comparisons can obscure important nuances, the comparison makes sense in at least two ways. First, invading a country and imposing a government on it is going to be seen as imperialist, even if it's well-intentioned. And second, both wars are fundamentally wars of ideas.
Al-Qaeda's idea is obvious: Western liberal democracy is incompatible with Islam and must be fought. Looking at our history, our idea is also obvious: Islam and liberal democracy are compatible.
There are those who would cede the first point to al-Qaeda, who believe that our idea should be, 'Yes, democracy and Islam are incompatible, but it is Islam that must be fought.' But a war of ideas can not be won by force; it can only be won by persuasion. And the more we act like we are at war with Islam, the more Muslims will be at war with us.
A war on Islam is not a war that we can win, nor should it be a war that we want to fight. No, we win the war on terror by encouraging moderate Muslims to say and say it loudly, "Al-Qaeda, you are wrong. We do not need to fight democracy but to foster it. We reject your ideas, and you are not the true face of Islam." But if we continue to lump in our moderate friends with our extremist enemies, we undermine our allies and we lose the war.
Nineteen years ago, Troy Davis was convicted of murdering an off-duty cop and sentenced to death. Last week, after Davis' latest appeal, a federal judge ruled that "the evidence presented by Davis' attorneys at a June hearing wasn't nearly strong enough to prove he's innocent." As reported before, the case is especially egregious because:
There was no physical evidence; the weapon was never recovered. The case rested entirely on eyewitness accounts. All but two of the witnesses have since recanted their testimony, some of whom say they were coerced by police. And one of the two witnesses who have not changed their story is the best alternate suspect.
Whether or not Troy Davis is innocent, there are at least serious doubts of his guilt. And the fact that the state of Georgia could be executing an innocent man is more than enough of a reason to severely restrict the application of the death penalty, if not abolish it altogether.
Recently, there has been a lot of controversy surrounding the construction of the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque," actually an Islamic community center located not on Ground Zero itself, but two blocks away. Newsweek magazine summarizes the background of the project in its August 8th, 2010 feature article by Lisa Miller, with an excerpt below:
Locally, the fight over the mosque has been more than ugly. Its founders—a well-known interfaith activist and spiritual leader named Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf; his wife, Daisy Khan; and a downtown Manhattan real-estate developer named Sharif El-Gamal—originally called their project Cordoba House, after the medieval town in Spain where a Muslim caliphate fostered one of the most vibrant periods of interfaith flourishing in history. But critics seized on the name as a signal that Rauf and the others had Islamic hegemony in mind, and the founders changed the name to the generic Park51 (based on the site’s street address)...
Park51 was born several years ago, the vision of Rauf, Khan, and El-Gamal. In 1997 Rauf and Khan founded the American Society for Muslim Advancement, an organization devoted to interfaith work and promoting the cause of moderate Islam. In addition, Rauf had been the imam, or pastor, of a mosque in Tribeca, just 10 blocks north of the new, controversial site, for nearly 30 years. El-Gamal had his office nearby and prayed there frequently. The mosque, which still exists today, is a tiny storefront wedged between a bar and a French bistro. On Friday afternoons—which for Muslims is like Sunday morning—congregants overflow onto the sidewalk.
Frustrated by the cramped quarters, El-Gamal, an American born to a Polish mother and an Egyptian father, was inspired to improve facilities for Muslims downtown—and, after 9/11, to show his friends and neighbors “a new face of Islam, the voice that is not heard.” He bought the building at 45–51 Park Place two years ago for $5 million, and together with Khan and Feisal sketched out a plan. They would demolish the existing building and put in its place a deluxe, multipurpose center big enough to house a swimming pool, a gym, exhibition space, conference rooms, day care, a senior center, and a 500-seat auditorium. It would accommodate all the downtown workers—lawyers and laborers—who wanted to pray on Fridays; it would have an interfaith board and interfaith programming; and it would present to the world a moderate, peace-loving, diverse, ordinary Islam. As of last week, El-Gamal says, they had gotten all the necessary city approvals to begin construction on Park51, though lawsuits are still pending. The budget for the proposed construction is $100 million, which Khan says they hope to raise mostly through a bond offering.
The site is huge, nearly 100,000 square feet. Standing in front of the building, you cannot see Ground Zero; tall buildings entirely block the view. Khan says they chose it because it was big enough and it had the right zoning. Moreover, it was symbolically advantageous. “We want to provide a counter momentum against extremism,” says Khan, who spoke to me in her office. (Her husband was out of town.) “We want peace, and we want it where it matters most. This is where it matters most.”
However, responses to the project have been severe. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert weigh in on some of these reactions below:
Finally, President Barack Obama stepped up and directly addressed the issue, stating his emphatic support of religious freedom and tolerance for all beliefs.
To borrow a phrase from Stephen Colbert, Obama nailed it. If there is anything that the United States should have learned in the past decade, it is that straying from the fundamental principles outlined in the Bill of Rights and the subsequent abuse of these principles has caused more harm than good to American interests. If the United States really wants to improve relations in the Muslim world, demonstrating tolerance of Islam and all religious beliefs has to start at home. Furthermore, the problems in any faith lie at the extremes. It would behoove the American public to recognize this and work to support and encourage moderates who are interested in interfaith work in order to diminish the influence that these extremists can have on a population.
Tolerating this (and other) Islamic Center(s) is not something "extra" that Americans have to do - it is part of what comes with living in a country that draws strength from its diversity, even if the American people need occasional reminders of this. In the words of the late American author Kurt Vonnegut Jr., "The purpose of human life, no matter who is controlling it, is to love whoever is around to be loved," (Sirens of Titan).
A few days ago, in a Europe fearful of "Islamization," the lower house of the French Parliament voted to ban burkas and most other face-coverings. The ban is plainly about protecting French identity from the apparently un-French burka. A few might say it is to protect women from oppression -- and indeed, any man found to have forced a woman to cover her face will himself face up to a year in jail and a 30,000-euro fine -- but even women who freely choose the burka will be fined.
No, the ban is about French unease with the Islamic covering. I expect most Americans would agree with me; the libertarian argument that people should be allowed to wear what they want would hopefully carry the day. And yet the French debate on the burka reminds me of the American debate on gay marriage. Both are portrayed as threatening, but the bans have less to do with real threats to French society or heterosexual marriage than they do with French or heterosexual insecurity. And they should deal with their insecurity in a way that does not oppress a minority.
As a student going through the ridiculous process of pulling applications together for law school while spending the summer in Europe, American education is giving me a headache. Every time some European asks me to explain what the process is like or how much it costs, they all think that I am lying when I tell them that I am paying well over $20,000 per year at my public university. They then think that I am rich or how else could anyone afford such costs without scholarships (in a university with 47,000 students in a state constantly cutting funding for public education, it is nearly impossible to get a substantial scholarship; most financial "aid" comes in the form of loans). If by some chance they did believe me when I told them what undergrad costs, they absolutely lose it when I tell them the price of law schools (public and private) that I am hoping to apply to (at least twice as much). When I ask them how much they pay for school, they say that they are paying for one of the highest tuition prices - 1,000 to 2,000 euro per semester (at today's exchange rate of $1.2935/euro, that is about $1,300 to $2,590).
While the United States' university educational system does have merits in the freedom that students have to really study whatever they want (financial concerns aside, of course), it is absolutely ridiculous that a country that constantly stresses the need for educated professionals still supports a system that throws students and their families into thousands of dollars in debt before the students even have a chance to earn any money. My European friends cannot even fathom the idea that many Americans save for college since birth and that this is still not sufficient.
Although taxes in many European countries are higher than in the United States, providing and supporting quality education in public universities for all students is considered a fundamental right. Thus, it is made a priority and families are not indebted because they have children that need a university education.
I do not have any thorough policy prescriptions here, just an observation on how insane the undergraduate and post-graduate educational system is (open to ideas, here). While Americans generally do not like paying such high taxes, reforms definitely have to be made to ensure that the taxes we are paying are being used efficiently. And if someone had to raise my taxes in order to support universities, I would not mind paying it, as the cost of attending would probably decrease. Until some reforms are made, I will be looking forward to dropping more money on law school apps and then hiding in law school deferring student loans for a few more years.
I am aware that this is sort of old news.However, since I have been busy lately and this is still an important on-going problem, I will write my blog post about it anyway.This began as a reaction to an op-ed in the New York Times, by Princeton doctoral candidate Elliot Hen-Tov and Princeton professor of Near Eastern Studies, Bernard Haykel.With the recent tightening of the newest sanctions on Iran this past Thursday, July 1, 2010, it is important to revisit this issue.
First, back to the op-ed from last month.In order to make any real headway on US-Iran relations, it is absolutely essential that each side really understand the other.For prominent scholars of prestigious universities, this also holds true.Which is why this article must be revisited – the Princeton people have it wrong.Their main assertion is that “Iran… stands to lose much influence as Turkey assumes a surprising new role as the modern, democratic and internationally respected nation willing to take on Israel and oppose America.”While parts of this statement are correct, the article represents a flawed understanding of Iranian politics and its relationship to the United States.Principally, it does not really matter for the United States (or Israel for that matter) what type of fiery rhetoric Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad uses – it is generally not directed at American or Israeli audiences anyway.The poll quoted by the authors, although irrelevant to their article, proves this point.The two major regional powers in the Middle East are Saudi Arabia, whose regime is a strong US ally, and Iran, whose regime clearly is not.When Ahmadinejad makes his statements in “support” of the Palestinian cause, he also does so bearing in mind that this can also play on Saudi Arabia’s weaknesses.Iran can claim to be the true supporter of Muslims in peril (despite a substantial number of Palestinians being of Christian or other backgrounds) while simultaneously making the Saudi regime appear weak to its people by alluding to its close relationship to the USA.In this manner, the Iranian regime hopes to remain dominant in the region over Saudi Arabia and the other Arab states.
Ahmadi-casual-Friday-nejad is not some “irrational, rouge leader” as realist IR theory would have us believe.The Iranian government’s support of Israel is mostly a domestic campaign to give the regime the appearance of standing up to the hegemonic rule of the United States and then Israel.Given the vastly superior military forces of both the USA and Israel, Iran would not risk attacking Israel.So, while these authors note that Turkey is seen by Palestinians as a much closer ally than Iran, it is crucial to understand that Iran’s political exploitation of this crisis is mostly for the purpose of bolstering domestic support for the regime and is targeted to domestic and Saudi, not international, audiences.
Secondly, I take issue with the Islam in Turkey being called “more liberal and enlightened.”Again, this is a fundamental mis-characterization of reality.While Saudi Arabia and Iran might be self-proclaimed Islamic states and Turkey a self-proclaimed secular state, the notion that any one regime is any more or less liberal/enlightened than the other is absurd when further examining their actual policies.In Iran, women are obligated to wear hijab at all times; in Turkey, there are laws making it illegal to wear the veil in some public places.Forcing people to appear secular is no better than forcing people to appear pious – these are merely two extreme ends of the spectrum.In a liberal Islam, it would seem that one would have the ability to choose without being compelled towards either end of such a spectrum.Furthermore, the fiercely secular and authoritarian policies enacted by the Turkish government can be just as bad as the authoritarian policies of Iran.
Returning to the sanctions and Turkey’s vote (along with Brasil), it is not really that much “against the United States” for Turkey to vote against the sanctions.The United States, while allies with Turkey, is far stronger allies with Saudi Arabia in the Middle East.Saudi Arabia, with the United States’ help, has stronger military and economic ties to the USA, and it is closer to the other Arab states in the Middle East than Turkey is.With Turkey looking to gain membership to the European Union, it is smart to keep its options open for markets in the Middle East for the EU, but if push came to shove for the United States, I would bet that it would retain Saudi Arabia as its ally over Turkey.Anyway, Iran and Saudi Arabia are focused on each other and Turkey is focused on the EU, so it really does not matter for Iran what Turkey says – although its vote was nice anyway.
As stated in the BBC article, the sanctions imposed in June were not very substantial.This would suggest that the Obama administration is just reacting initially to [uneducated] domestic pressures in Congress to appear to be doing something about the Iranian nuclear program.While it is good that these sanctions were not substantial, it is also extremely damaging to any potential for improving diplomatic relations between the United States and Iran, only serving to prove Ahmadinejad correct when he claims that the United States is really not interested in changing the status quo.Bolstering domestic support for the current Iranian regime is the last thing that the United States should be doing.
In a more recent development, Nom Chomsky acknowledges that Iran poses a serious threat of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, despite citing sources earlier on in the article that discuss Iran’s relatively weak military capabilities; he just proposes different solutions instead of the United States “reinforcing [its] control of the vital Middle East oil-producing regions.”However, with Iran, this is not a valid argument either.Georgetown scholar Mehran Kamrava and University of Colorado professor Nader Hashemi are both of the opinion that Iran does not want to actually acquire a nuclear weapon.If Iran were to obtain the technology and actually produce a nuclear weapon, this would push Iran into a whole new realm of military prowess in which it would find itself on the bottom, easily bested several times over by the United States, Israel, etc.In other words, Iran can be a relatively strong conventional military power in the region, especially when compared to Saudi Arabia’s military on its own (aka minus USA support), but it would lose this advantage if it entered the nuclear arena and would find itself in a situation it cannot win.Thus, even the idea that Iran’s nuclear program to gain such knowledge is the most serious threat is absurd.The best solution would be to focus on finding common ground and interests within the Middle East between Iran and the United States (two really good examples here are Afghanistan and Iraq… hint, hint State Department) and go from here to rebuild diplomatic ties.
Speaking of best solutions, July 1st was not one of these.The New York Times reports that President Obama signed a law in one of the few moments of consensus in Congress during his administration that “imposes penalties on foreign entities that sell refined petroleum to Iran or assist Iran with its domestic refining capacity. It also requires that American and foreign businesses that seek contracts with the United States government certify that they do not engage in prohibited business with Iran.”As stated several times before, the solution is to OPEN not close relations with Iran.This means diplomatically and economically. As Ahmadi-I-say-crazy-things-that-people-should-not-listen-to-nejad stated on June 28 that he would like to resume nuclear negotiations with the United States in August, giving the United States yet another opportunity to resume meaningful dialogue, the Obama administration missed it again and chose to respond to domestic pressures.This is where the State Department people need to step in and fix it.
Caving into absurd, ill-informed domestic pressures from a Congress that cannot even agree if sick people should get help to be less sick is certain to make the problem worse, not better.The Obama administration needs to focus on its priorities, improve its image in the Muslim world and the Middle East by closing Guantanamo and playing a meaningful role in improving the situation between Israel and Palestinian territories, and respecting the sovereignty of Iran and its government despite the outcome of the 2009 presidential elections.It is certainly not an easy task and will take time to produce the change promised by the Obama campaign, but it will be easier to accomplish with greater understanding of the nuances of regional politics in the Middle East and when the United States takes an active stance by following through on some good faith measures and working with Iran as a regional power in Iraq and Afghanistan.Both the United States and Iran have a lot to gain from improving relations with one another and since the United States remains the global hegemonic power in this system of uni-multipolarity, it must responsiblytake the first steps to initiate this process.
Your recent "Perspective" is an interesting example of empty political posturing. You express your opposition to a cap-and-trade program that would regulate CO2 emissions, which you call a "job-killing National Energy Tax." Yet you also want to promote renewable energy to reduce both our dependence on foreign oil and pollution to the environment.
I agree that we should encourage clean energy, but how exactly do you propose to do this? We could discourage carbon-emitting energy sources by taxing them or instituting a cap-and-trade program, but you clearly believe that would kill jobs. Alternatively, we could subsidize clean energy, but we would have to institute a "job-killing" tax to pay for it to avoid being irresponsible and increasing our national debt. Or we could mandate that utilities must produce a certain proportion of their electricity from renewable energy in a one-size-fits-all regulation. But that would ignore regional and other differences and would not allow companies to behave as rational, economic actors.
As your constituent, please tell me how you plan to promote clean, renewable energy. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too just because it's an election year.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."
~Daniel Patrick Moynihan
In an article bemoaning conservatives' apparent disconnect from reality, Paul Waldman writes these two paragraphs and puts them next to each other, apparently unironically:
Ascribing the most nefarious of motives to our political opponents is standard fare, of course. But basing your political arguments not on what those opponents have done or have proposed to do but on what they "would" do, frees you from the need to keep a hold on even the slightest tether to reality. Who needs evidence of the other side's evil, when you can just imagine what lies in their hearts?
Imagination also has its psychic rewards. Take the Tea Partiers. The vast majority would probably say that Barack Obama, that vile socialist, has raised their taxes. The truth, however, is that Obama cut taxes for 98 percent of working families with the stimulus bill. You could argue that those tax cuts weren't a good idea, but you ought not to be able to argue that they didn't happen.
So to sum up: Paragraph 1: Basing your arguments on what your opponents would do frees you from reality. Paragraph 2: Tea Partiers would say that Obama raised their taxes, but it's not true.
Waldman's only justification of this is Tea Party Nation leader Judson Phillips refusing to admit that most Americans' taxes decreased under Barack Obama. Does Waldman bother to mention a New York Times poll where a majority (52% to 42%) of Tea Partiers say that the amount they pay in income taxes is fair? No, there's no sign that Waldman even looked at it.
I am sympathetic to the argument that conservatives' reliance on straw men comes at the expense of facts. But that doesn't mean that liberals should emulate it.
Much has been said about the American Power Act, introduced to the Senate on May 12. It would incentivize more offshore drilling and nuclear power. It would limit the EPA's capacity to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. And it does not nearly reduce greenhouse gas emissions enough.
Some of these complaints are misleading: For instance, the American Power Act only limits the EPA's ability to regulate under the Clean Air Act because it establishes a cap-and-trade system for large carbon emitters. EPA would deal with these emitters under the American Power Act, while still reserving the ability to regulate other emissions, like automotive emissions, under the Clean Air Act.
And in spite of these complaints, the American Power Act deserves our support. It finally sends a signal that the United States will regulate greenhouse-gas emissions. Such a signal is needed for entrepreneurs to invest in researching and implementing green energy. Indeed, it is precisely what they are waiting for.
And yes, it does not reduce greenhouse-gas emissions enough. But it is much easier to establish the cap-and-trade framework and adjust later on. And as Joe Romm reminds us, this is exactly what happened with the Montreal Protocol and the Clean Air Act(s).
Yes, the bill is flawed and we should lobby the Senate to improve it. But those flaws should not prevent us from taking the first real step to fight global warming and passing this bill.
The Obama administration is considering joining the Ottawa Treaty, which bans the use of land mines. Which are of no use in the counterinsurgencies we're fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. The only place they would be useful is in the ironically-named demilitarized zone between North and South Korea. But control over those mines has been transferred to South Korea. Not to mention that "technological advances have enabled the Pentagon to create explosives that function like mines but are detonated remotely, making them permissible under the treaty."
There is even enough support in the Senate for ratification. Sixty-eight senators have signed on to a letter calling on Obama to join the ban. (67 are needed for ratification.) There is no reason not to do this.
The dome that BP had placed over one of the oil leaks from the downed Deepwater Horizon rig has apparently failed. The reverse funnel was moved after being clogged by methane hydrates, compounds that consist of methane and other hydrocarbons trapped in the crystalline structure of ice. BP hopes either to melt the hydrates by pumping warm water down to the dome or to thin them out using methanol. Both practices are risky as both methanol and the hydrates are flammable. A sudden thaw would precipitously release methane, causing an increase in pressure and potentially an explosion much like the one that took down the rig originally.
And as if the revelations that BP was exempted from conducting an environmental impact assessment and lobbied against stricter safety measures weren't enough, Democracy Now examines the role of BP--then the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company--in the overthrow of Mohammad Mossadegh and the Iranian republic:
BP is lowering a dome into the Gulf of Mexico in an attempt to capture oil leaking from the Deepwater Horizon rig that sank over two weeks ago. The dome would work like a funnel in reverse; oil would rise to the top of the dome and be pumped to a ship on the gulf surface.
BP was apparently exempted from conducting an environmental impact assessment on the rig after it was concluded that a massive oil spill was "unlikely." Now this is probably true; according to American Petroleum Institute director Erik Milito, "There have been in excess of 30,000 Gulf of Mexico wells drilled in the last 40 years and there hasn’t been a major spill [ed: I'm gonna let him finish, but Ixtoc I was one of the greatest spills of all time.] so I’d say the safety rates were good." Still, the fact that there is at least some probability of a significant oil spill should require an impact assessment.
Meanwhile, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has responded by calling for a "pause" in pursuing legislation on climate change. According to The New York Times, Graham "said that the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico had heightened concern about expanded offshore drilling, which he considers a central component of any energy legislation. Mr. Graham also said that Democratic insistence on taking up immigration policy before energy had chilled his enthusiasm for any global warming measure."
Returns are in from Britain's parliamentary election, and the net result? No party has a clear majority, but the Conservatives have a 306-seat plurality. Labour has 258 and the Liberal Democrats have 57. So how will the horse-trading play out?
There are three main mathematical possibilities:
The Tories and Lib Dems could form a government.
The Lib Dems could ally with Labour instead, but at least two other parties would also have to join in.
The Conservatives could theoretically form a government without the Lib Dems, but would need at least four other parties to do so.
Would these miscellaneous other parties side with the Tories or with Labour? I'm not sure. The largest other parties are regional parties like the Scottish National Party (6 seats), Plaid Cymru (3) of Wales, and Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party (8; traditionally Tory) and Sinn Fein (5).
But by far the biggest playmaker is Nick Clegg and his Liberal Democrats. Clegg, a proponent of proportional representation, had indicated that the party with the most votes (i.e. the Tories) should get to occupy 10 Downing Street. But the Lib Dems seem the more natural ally of Labour.
What will happen? My prediction (and chance to look silly) is that the Tories will form a coalition with the Lib Dems after promising electoral reform. We shall see.
Just because this is what the Right sees whenever anyone talks about repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, doesn't mean that we shouldn't repeal it.
The nice thing about this is that military officers appear to be amused by it: According to spokeswoman Maj. Michelle Baldanza, "The brigade command team is happy to see that they...still have a good sense of humor and that morale is high."
"He's a citizen of the United States, so I say we uphold the laws and the Constitution on citizens...If you are a citizen, you obey the law and follow the Constitution. He has all the rights under the Constitution...We don't shred the Constitution when it is popular. We do the right thing."
I can't believe I'm saying this, but Glenn Beck is right. (Although Glenn does make other statements during that segment like favoring torturing non-citizens, when torture is ineffective and more importantly immoral and illegal under U.S. and international law.) Every citizen is entitled to Miranda rights save some legal exceptions like the public safety exception, which allows authorities to question terrorist suspects about whether they acted alone or if they know of other threats. In the case of Faisal Shahzad, the public safety exception was employed, then they Mirandized him and he continued to talk.
But John McCain thinks Mirandizing him was a mistake. And now Joe Lieberman is introducing a bill that would allow the State Department to revoke an American's citizenship if they are "a member of a terrorist group, even before trial or capture." They could then appeal the decision--and the burden of proof would at least be on the State Dept.--but if their citizenship is revoked before they have a chance to appeal, I don't see this working well in practice.
This should be self-evidently a bad idea. If the government can revoke someone's citizenship without sufficient judicial constraint, there is bound to be abuse. And if even if their citizenship could be revoked, the Supreme Court has ruled that they are still entitled to rights under U.S. law.
Last word:
The appalling behavior of John McCain and Joe Lieberman this past week underlines what a bullet this country missed by electing Barack Obama president...
Now recall that McCain and Lieberman were celebrated in Washington for their alleged maturity, wisdom, and elder statesmen experience. They are in fact adolescent hysterics, whose terrorized Manichean view of the world sees nothing but an existential struggle and the imperative to win it. We would have been electing Cheney to a third term. And we barely knew it.
If this whole Leader of the Free World thing doesn't work out, Obama could always host a talk show. Although, since he's funnier than Leno, it might have to be on TBS.
I want to get back to the timing of the blowing up, the explosion out there in the Gulf of Mexico of this oil rig. … Now, lest we forget, ladies and gentlemen, the carbon tax bill, cap and trade, that was scheduled to be announced on Earth Day. I remember that. And then it was postponed for a couple of days later after Earth Day, and then of course immigration has now moved in front of it. But this bill, the cap-and-trade bill, was strongly criticized by hardcore environmentalist wackos because it supposedly allowed more offshore drilling and nuclear plants, nuclear plant investment. So, since they’re sending SWAT teams down there, folks, since they’re sending SWAT teams to inspect the other rigs, what better way to head off more oil drilling, nuclear plants, than by blowing up a rig? I’m just noting the timing here.
Of course! It is a little too convenient that an oil rig explodes, dumping barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico right when environmentalists are starting to protest expansions to offshore drilling. Just like 9/11 was a little too convenient for an administration searching for a pretext to go to war with Iraq. They must have been inside jobs! What's that, Rush?
Well said, Rush. You are "a glittering jewel of colossal ignorance." Why don't you learn something about environmentalism or at least probability before you go off making claims without evidence? Last word from Justin Gardner:
For some reason…I don’t think folks who have spent their lives defending the environment would deliberately cause one of the worst environmental disasters in our lifetime just to get legislation passed that they felt was inherently compromised.
portmanteau: n. a word formed by merging the sounds and meanings of two different words, as chortle, from chuckle and snort
The best ones like "liberaltarian" are succinct, clever bons mots. Then you have ones like "listicle," which has less to do with wit than it does with smashing two words together. Hell, it's not even clear which two words have been smashed together; it sounds more like "list" + "testicle" than "list" + "article."
Four days ago, an amateur car bomb failed to go off in New York City's Times Square. A T-shirt vendor noticed smoke coming out of an awkwardly parked Nissan Pathfinder and alerted a nearby police officer. The authorities responded swiftly, evacuating the area and defusing the bomb.
Reactions have been oddly muted, nowhere near the frenzy after the underwear bomber Omar Abdulmutallab failed to blow up a plane above Detroit. My rationale is that the difference in reaction is due to the difference in terrorist methods. There is so much security around airplanes that the fact that Abdulmutallab got as far as he did represents a failure somewhere in the system. But there seems to be no good way to stop someone from parking a car bomb in Times Square. In this case, the system worked as well as it could.
Meanwhile, Adam Serwer at Tapped had beenpushingthe line that conservatives have been quiet because the suspect at the time was "a middle-aged white guy" instead of a radical Muslim. But now that a Pakistani-American has been arrested and has reportedly confessed, Republicans are still fairly silent.
Still, even though I'm not quite as cynical as Serwer--"If the attack was carried out by Muslim extremists, the conservative response will be that this would never have happened if Obama were still torturing people. If it turns out to be a domestic right-wing extremist, well, it'll be a tragic but understandable response to government tyranny."--I have to admit he has a point. Would Scott Brown have said, "No one likes paying taxes obviously," if a Muslim had flown a plane into a building with IRS offices instead of Andrew Joseph Stack III?
"When we understand that slide, we'll have won the war." -General Stanley McChrystal
A recent New York Times article outlines the problems with the armed forces' reliance on PowerPoint: The complexity and interconnectedness of the war cannot be adequately presented with slides. Either you overwhelm your audience with visual complexity or reduce the problem to bullets. Either way, the details – the meaning – are lost on the audience.
The solution to this dilemma seems relatively straightforward. PowerPoint is best understood and best used as a visual aid. The slides should be reserved for pictures, maps, graphs, charts, and diagrams. That way, the complexity can be addressed in the oral part of the presentation. If a hard copy of the material is needed, it should be written up as a memo or report in Word.
Sorry, Defense Secretary Gates, it's the only way.
In a very confusing editorial in Saturday's New York Times, A.A. Gill argues that change is needed in Britain, but "the worst possible way to start changing it would be precipitously, after an inconclusive election, on the heels of a global financial calamity when the markets are looking for stability and firm direction." Gill echoes the paranoid, Tory line: "OH NOES! A hung Parliament will make Britain look weak and indecisive!"
Indeed, Gill's Tory bias is hardly concealed throughout the piece: Gordon Brown is friendless and ill-tempered. Nick Clegg is traitorously European. (He speaks five languages! His kids have Spanish names!) But Tory David Cameron is "personable" and "fresh-faced" "with emotionally winning oratory." "Your mother would like him." Indeed, Gill's biggest fear seems to be that a hung Parliament will lead to electoral reform, which will lead to "1000 years" of center-left government.
This last claim is laughable. Gill acknowledges that parliamentary districts are so hopelessly gerrymandered in favor of Labour that they could finish third in the popular vote but win a plurality of seats. The status quo already sounds like 1000 years of center-left government. Furthermore, the reforms advocated by the Lib Dems would base seats in Parliament on the popular vote. If post-reform Britain has a center-left government, it will be because a majority of Britons want a center-left government.
The point is this, Mr. Gill: If the broken system is not fixed now, when will it?
As J-Mad wrote yesterday, President Barack Obama delivered the keynote address at the University of Michigan's spring commencement. The speech was characteristically level-headed and reasonable. Obama acknowledged that he and his opponents have legitimate disagreements, while simultaneously asserting and rationalizing that some went too far. Obama also deftly gave a political speech that was still relevant to the graduates.
(Sorry, Bryan Flory, but the overarching theme of the speech was how to maintain our republic, which is relevant to every American and seems appropriate for a commencement. I will agree, however, that Governor Granholm's speech, which was basically "Thank you, Mr. President, for (fill in the blank)" x 10, was almost completely irrelevant to the graduates. The only part that was relevant was when she said, "Thank you for coming here instead of that school to the south.")
There were two points of Obama's speech that I especially liked. First, he rejected the false dichotomy between complete liberty and total tyranny. He pointed out the aspects of government that everyone, especially the limited-government zealots, takes for granted: public high schools and universities, roads and highways, police and firefighters, safety standards, etc. And he articulated his view of the role government should play: "Government shouldn’t try to guarantee results, but it should guarantee a shot at opportunity for every American who’s willing to work hard."
Secondly, Obama advised the graduates on what they--and all of us--should do to maintain our republic: Don't vilify others simply because you disagree with them. Expose yourself to a diverse group of people and a diverse group of opinions. (Both of which I will attempt to do on this blog and in my personal life.)
Marine One leaves Ann Arbor.
With Barack Obama, the University of Michigan has set a high bar for commencement speakers that frankly cannot be surpassed. But on behalf of the Class of 2011, may I say, "Jon Stewart, please!"
Today, President Barack Obama entered the Big House, packed to the brim, to send the 2010 graduating class of the University of Michigan off into the world. After being presented with an honorary doctorate of laws degree, he delivered a commencement address focusing on the need for each graduate to be a good citizen, treating others with respect and civility, while continuing to constantly broaden his or her horizons in order to guarantee the health of the United States for future generations. The pragmatic address had many words of wisdom for the graduating class, as well as their peers, friends, and families in the stands, for the future. The speech was decidedly non-partisan and employed a common Obama theme of unity while embracing diversity. Below, please find the video of the commencement address and some highlighted passages. For the full text, please click here.
Highlights:
"On the last day of the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was famously asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got -– a republic or a monarchy?” And Franklin gave an answer that’s been quoted for ages: He said, “A republic, if you can keep it.” If you can keep it. Well, for more than 200 years, we have kept it... Through periods of great social and economic unrest... it has allowed us slowly, sometimes painfully, to move towards a more perfect union. And so now, class of 2010, the question for your generation is this: How will you keep our democracy going? At a moment when our challenges seem so big and our politics seem so small, how will you keep our democracy alive and vibrant; how will you keep it well in this century?"
"There are some things we can only do together, as one nation -– and that our government must keep pace with the times... this notion...hasn’t always been partisan."
"But what troubles me is when I hear people say that all of government is inherently bad. One of my favorite signs during the health care debate was somebody who said, 'Keep Your Government Hands Out Of My Medicare' -- which is essentially saying 'Keep Government Out Of My Government-Run Health Care Plan.'"
"When our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity, it ignores the fact that in our democracy,government is us."
"So, class of 2010, what we should be asking is not whether we need 'big government' or a 'small government,' but how we can create a smarter and better government."
"The second way to keep our democracy healthy is to maintain a basic level of civility in our public debate...we can’t expect to solve our problems if all we do is tear each other down...The problem is that this kind of vilification and over-the-top rhetoric closes the door to the possibility of compromise. It undermines democratic deliberation. It prevents learning..."
"For the truth is, our nation’s destiny has never been certain. What is certain -– what has always been certain -– is the ability to shape that destiny."
Wolverine received his B.S.E. in civil engineering from the University of Michigan in 1950 and was one of the engineers who worked on the Mackinac Bridge. Following its completion in 1957, he immigrated to France and became friends with Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre. Ten years later, he formed the psychedelic rock band Camille Sans Saints, which had a major hit with “Le homard veux me manger.” For more...
J-Mad is the leader of The Federalists. In addition to being the most fly correspondent for WP, J-Mad is co-owner of CSAir, Inc., and senior partner in the infamous Robbem & Runn law firm. Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. and J-Mad are BFFs and were in each other's Five, despite neither one having T-Mobile service. J-Mad will be president someday so watch for the announcement to be made on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Also, FREE TIBET
Clarence Garside is a simple man of simple raising and simple pleasures and...oh heck...he enjoys being part of the mile high club that you only wish you could attend. He is the founder of CSAir and along with J-Mad, they'll rule the airline industry. Eventually, he will get that plane he's always wanted, but for now he must enjoy being a Golden Eagle. By the way...in case of a water landing your Wolverine may be used as a flotation device.
