My Evolution

Huntsman: Secret Liberal

2011-05-26T14:56:00.004-04:00

Right after Obama was inaugurated in Feb of 09, Jon Huntsman Jr., governor of Utah, struck me as a totally reasonable conservative. It still seems true:

Obama's Speech.

2011-03-28T23:44:00.005-04:00

It wasn't enough. It was too vague and didn't answer any of the specific questions I had -- I don't know that it actually said anything new that hasn't been said by other administration officials in the last few days. Maybe, I just now realize, this is because the administration itself doesn't HAVE any more specifics to give. If so this is really worrying. Lets hope it isn't.

To start. Some of the specific questions I have for Obama:

- What are the military's specific orders/goals?

- What happens if things go bad and the coalition or the opposition asks for a renewed American military involvement?

Going through the speech, my impressions:

First, it seems that the U.S. has taken sides in this civil war. It's not just a humanitarian mission:

- Obama says Clinton will meet with opposition leaders. We're not recognizing them yet, but is this a step in that direction? Clinton isn't meeting with Gaddafi representatives, I imagine.

- We will "assist" the opposition. What does that mean? Financially? Will we arm them? Political support?

- The coalition forces will keep the pressure on Gaddafi and protect civilians. But I wonder, when insurgents are not part of an organized army, how can we tell the difference between insurgent soldiers and civilians? Aren't insurgents just everyday people who are fed up and pick up guns agains Gaddafi's actual professional forces?

Second, the main reason in Obama's mind seems to be classic American exceptionalism:

To brush aside America's responsibility as a leader and - more profoundly - our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.

This is the crux of the problem, it seems to me. I want to avoid mass slaughter, but am I prepared to act put my country reputation, finances, and lives and risk unexpected, murky results and possible getting trapped all for -- very noble -- altruistic reasons? Right now I think the answer is "no."

One reason that does give me pause is that doing this will help the gains in Egypt and Tunisia, and maybe even across all of the Middle East. We certainly DO want peaceful democracies to grow in those countries, and probably a Libyan nightmare would certainly hurt that.

Finally, one other reason why I think Obama did this: This is an example of how he thinks America should act militarily.

... [In cases like Libya] we should not be afraid to act - but the burden of action should not be America's alone. As we have in Libya, our task is instead to mobilize the international community for collective action. Because contrary to the claims of some, American leadership is not simply a matter of going it alone and bearing all of the burden ourselves. Real leadership creates the conditions and coalitions for others to step up as well; to work with allies and partners so that they bear their share of the burden and pay their share of the costs; and to see that the principles of justice and human dignity are upheld by all.

We LEAD we don't dictate. We work with others to keep an international peace. We expect others to help out however they can. This is the anti-Iraq war.

Ok, some things that are ok. BUT still, there are big unanswered questions:
- what's the involvement of troops going forward?
- if there's more violence will we intervene? What happens if the opposition or coalition asks us to use our military again?
- we will "assist the opposition" HOW???

Why I Love Bob Gates.

2011-03-27T23:42:00.002-04:00

On Meet the Press this morning:

DAVID GREGORY: Secretary Gates, is Libya in our vital interest as a country?

SECRETARY GATES: No. I don't think it's a vital interest for the United States...

It's always a bit of a shock to hear a government official say something so simply and directly.

In Egypt, Not The Army I Expected

2011-01-30T16:04:00.003-05:00

The most striking thing about the amazing events in Egypt has to be the behavior of the army. I'm so used to armies, especially in autocratic countries, being reactionary, tools of the government, instantly seeking to impose martial law, etc. Yet in Egypt right now the army, while not actually fighting for the public, is providing cover for them and even advancing on the police, on occasion. It's quite an amazing thing to contemplate and to me makes it much more likely for Mubarak to resign -- how can he remain president with so little power over his country?

Obama: A Human Being.

2011-01-23T21:44:00.006-05:00

A very quick thought on Obama and the Jared Loughner shooting. My impression is that the speech Obama gave on the shooting, besides consoling the country, can have some positive effect for Obama himself. Because it is so civil, so non-partisan, so full of intelligence and genuinely tries to wrestle with the tragedy the way many people are wrestling with it, the speech can remind the public, conservatives included, that Obama is not some far-left inhuman monster. That he is a human being like them and that maybe the picture that has been painted of him these last two years is just wrong. Going forward, the image of the president as reasonable leader, who is liberal, but not out to ruin the country, will hopefully re-emerge. Actually, now that I think about it. With these last two months of accomplishment, this has already begun.

Meaning vs. Experience

2011-01-23T13:15:00.005-05:00

A nice explanation (from an astrophysicist of all people) of a Joseph Campbell quote I read long ago: "People don't want the meaning of life, they want the experience of life." This has always been one of the central truths in life that I can see. From the article:

Spirituality, at its best, points us away from easy codifications when it shows us how to immerse ourselves in the simple, inescapable act of being. Science at its root is also an expression of reverence and awe for the endless varied, resonantly beautiful experience we can find ourselves immersed in. So knowing the meaning of life as encoded in a religious creed on a page or an equation on a blackboard is not the issue. A deeper, richer experience of this one life: that is the issue!

So, can we stop thinking that discussions about science and religion have to focus on who has the best set of facts?

The Campbell quote is in the article. It's nice to see somebody mention him. He doesn't get enough recognition, in my opinion.

We don't know the facts yet.

2011-01-08T23:07:00.004-05:00

This is the first post in quite a while. A lot of people have been reacting to tragic shooting of Congresswoman Giffords by pointing out the language of violence coming from the right for the past year or more. While I agree that it's reckless and the Limbaugh's and Palin's of the world don't seem to have any idea the kind of atmosphere they are creating, it's not clear how much Loughner was influenced by that atmosphere. From some of what we know he there are both right and left wing ideas in his life, and a former classmate knew him as "pretty left wing". We don't know the facts and my feeling is that some of the reactions are just a touch jumping to conclusions.

NYC, by way of Taxi Driver.

2009-10-17T23:22:00.001-04:00

Here's something great. A comparison of locations from Taxi Driver and those same locations today.

No Time for Boring Things Like Governing

2009-07-09T10:50:00.004-04:00

My take on why Palin is resigning is that there is not much more here than meets the eye. Many are guessing that a woman who has been surrounded by scandal and sensationalism since she was tapped to be VP would never run away from a fight unless the scandal was a quantum leap in difference from all the others, that there is some huge revelation right around the corner. Certainly possible, but my guess is that she simply got tired, bored and frustrated with governing. She seems like an extremely unserious person, one who's sense of responsibility to Alaska is overwhelmed by her personal issues with the media and her own love of self. She probably realized she didn't really need this crap, knew she could make tons of money writing books or speaking and would be able to dedicate herself to whatever self-loving career would come next. Being governor may have become a waste of her time.

A related, but slightly different take -- which I also think could be true -- is from Dahlia Lithwick, at Slate:

If you think of Palin as someone who never felt herself to be fully heard or understood, not truly politically realized in the eyes of the American public, her rage toward the country, the media, and those of us who fail to love and understand her is easier to comprehend. Think of an American visiting France who believes that if he just speaks louder, he will be speaking French. Palin has done everything in her power to explain herself to us, and still we fail to appreciate what she is all about.

I do have to say, the one thing that speaks for an approaching scandal is the fact that her press conference was so quickly thrown together that not even Fox News was given advance warning. When Fox News is out of the loop, I do have to wonder if she was trying to hide something.

Obama and Russia

2009-07-09T09:31:00.002-04:00

An interesting interview on Obama's trip to Russia. This seems to me to be a story that hasn't gotten much play, but has long term import. The Russia-U.S. relationship is a key relationship with many issues that don't make the daily front pages, but have the potential for huge impact: nuclear proliferation, NATO expansion, conflict in Georgia (like last year) and the Ukraine, U.S. missile defense. One of the things that I've been most happy about with Obama is his long-time interest in banning nuclear weapons. He worked on legislation as a senator and made it a central point of one of his major speeches in his first trip to Europe. It really matters to him. To me, it seems like an issue no one thinks about much, but is always lurking in the background. One day it rears it's ugly head and we'll all realize that these two countries have thousands of weapons capable of wiping humanity off the face of the earth.

Stephen Cohen on Obama and his advisors:

the original sin was committed by the Clinton administration when it decided to treat Russia as a defeated power and broke promises made to Russia by Reagan and H.W. Bush, like NATO expansion and the bombing of Serbia. Those policies were made by members of the Clinton administration.
Obama has surrounded himself with these people, beginning with Mrs. Clinton herself. Biden was a Clintonite, Richard Holbrook, McFaul, Jim Jones was the head of NATO during Clinton administration, Robert Gates. Can these people look at what’s happened in the ’90s and say, “We pursued the wrong approach to Russia. We’re going to advise the president to change course”? Not likely. So that leaves us with President Obama. Can he transcend his own advisers?

This ties in with what I think is the overall questions about Obama in general. What are his core issues? What is he willing to fight for? How much is he willing to push an issue that isn't on the national radar and that his advisors are skeptical about?

The Daily Show... From Iran!

2009-07-08T17:30:00.003-04:00

My first post is a cheat, but so what? Jason Jones, fearless foreign correspondent for the Daily Show was sent to Iran just before the election. He managed to come back with a week of great segments. To my mind they seem like the kind of thing that the MSM could do more of. This one is my favorite:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Jason Jones: Behind the Veil - Ayatollah You So

thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Economic Crisis

I'm Back. Finally.

2009-07-08T17:13:00.002-04:00

When last time we met and I said I was going to take a "bit of a break", well... clearly, I lied. It was a very big break. I don't think it's worth it to get into why it was so long. It's enough to say that it was too long. I will also say that writing a blog at any serious level, keeping up with the news -- and what's written about it -- and doing anything else that takes time is freakin' tough. So I need a long-term strategy if I want to keep this up: For now, I'm going to write 1 post a day and only in the mornings. Hopefully this should be enough to keep people interested and myself sane. Blogging can be compulsive. It's an act that needs to be kept tightly under control. We'll see what happens.

A Bit Of A Break

2009-03-22T23:01:00.004-04:00

It's been quite obvious these last few weeks that I have not managed to spend the time much time on this blog. There are so many things to write about and I am constantly thinking about new post ideas, but there are simply other priorities in my life right now to suck up my time, namely my job and a script I am writing. More generally, I have been reorganizing how I spend my time recently and the upshot is that I don't have the time to stay up-to-date with the news the way anyone who wants to write a half-way decent blog has to. That's certainly one consequence of the media-rich world we live in: too much to read, not enough time to write. Anyway, with this post I am simply making official what has already happened: the frequency of posting will continue being very light for several weeks, if not completely stopped.

However, it's important to say that this is not the end of My Evolution. I get a tremendous amount of enjoyment from it (I hope whoever is reading this gets some too, especially if you're still reading it after all these months that it's been up!) I hope to pick it up again when my job is over -- in four weeks -- and my script done -- hopefully by June 1st. This is just a break, a hiatus. This blog tracks my political evolution, and in the end, that will never stop.

-- Axuve

Stewart On A Roll

2009-03-10T18:11:00.003-04:00

Many people wondered if Stewart would become less funny without Bush to take shots at. What they (and I) forgot is that, even with Bush gone, the absurdity, stupidity, arrogance, and denial of the rest of us remains. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. Here's another devastating take-down of CNBC and one of its resident blowhards, Jim Kramer.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

In Cramer We Trust

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Economic Crisis

Brooks's Challenge

2009-03-10T10:25:00.005-04:00

David Brooks column today seems to me like a real challenge, not only to Republicana, but to Democrats. I want to write a lengthier appraisal tonight, but for now I'll just say that it's likely that, with this column and his Moderate Manifesto, he is giving voice to a not-insignificant group of centrists, from both sides, who, while they know that certain extreme things need to be done in this crisis, are still skepitical of the response so far. While these centrists (I'm one of them) think the Republicans are incapable of looking at the world through anything but Reagan-colored glasses (thus offering no plan and no thoughtful challenge to the Democrats), they are a little worried that the Democratic response has not been focused enough on the here and now. Obama's budget, from what Brooks argues, possibly makes too many assumptions about economic conditions over the next year, and consequently, is swinging for the fences when the better play is to go for a double. I disagree with Brooks in that some problems, like health care, simply can't wait to be fixed and are part of the overall problem (as the Obama Administration itself argues). But I think he offers a useful counterpoint to Obama's desire to want to do everything at once. It's a an argument that would have real resonance in the country, I think, Will the Republicans make it? Of course not.

First You'll Learn Something. Then You'll Laugh. Then You'll Be Infuriated.

2009-03-06T00:02:00.006-05:00

I will put up a few posts this weekend, but for now enjoy these two pieces of fine media on the financial crisis. The first is the latest episode of This American Life. They have already produced some of the most lucid reporting on the financial crisis that I've seen with the episodes: The Giant Pool of Money and Another Frightening Show About the Economy. Now they have another episode on the collapse of the banking system. I can't say how it is as it just came out this week and I haven't had a chance to hear it, but I'm sure it's great. It's called, simply, Bad Bank.

The second piece is from last night's episode of The Daily Show. Stewart tears into CNBC for some of its atrocious coverage of the sub-prime crisis.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

CNBC Gives Financial Advice

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Joke of the Day

The Ruler Of The Galaxy, Revealed

2009-02-27T13:42:00.003-05:00

My previous post made me think to google "Republicans for Palpatine". Along with this OK merchandise, one of the results was also this. The resemblance is uncanny.

Republicans May Live In The Muggle World...

2009-02-27T13:35:00.006-05:00

But they don't really want to be a part of it:

I found this sticker here.

Epistemological Modesty, Ctd.

2009-02-26T16:15:00.003-05:00

Three for three. George Packer also critiques Brooks along roughly the same lines as Sullivan.

Brooks pits a rigid, abstraction-loving liberalism against a wise, experience-loving conservatism. But recent American history has shown the truth to be closer to the opposite. We are where we are because the ruling conservative ideology of the past few decades refused to face facts, like the effect of private insurance on health-care costs, or the effect of deregulation on investment banking. Facts drove the Republicans out of power.

Obviously, I just like these three guys a lot. For my money, Sullivan, Packer and Brooks together have their collective finger on the pulse of Obama and his relationship with the country and with history.

Epistemological Modesty, Ctd.

2009-02-26T16:00:00.003-05:00

Andrew Sullivan has a good post which pulls back on Brooks worry and skepticism. He has more patience than me and makes some good points.

I don't think it's fair to conflate a practical plan to tackle [the financial crisis] in all its aspects with a utopian and rationalist approach to remaking the world. The truth is: the world has already been un-made. Obama has no choice but to think big. Americans understand this, as anyone outside the Washington cable-chatter cocoon would. Although I cannot see through the unknowns any better than David can, it does seem to me that so far, the main criticism of Obama's plans - on foreclosure, the banks, the stimulus - is that they may not be bold enough. And addressing long-term fiscal health at the same time is not an over-confident over-reach. It's a recognition of reality.

Epistemological Modesty

2009-02-26T15:21:00.004-05:00

David Brooks in his column from Monday articulates a big fear I have about Obama's agenda: the potentially vast difference between his enormous ambitions and what a complex, top-down organization like the U.S. government is actually able to achieve, the difference between what we would like to do and what we can know and effectively achieve.

The political history of the 20th century is the history of social-engineering projects executed by well-intentioned people that began well and ended badly. There were big errors like communism, but also lesser ones, like a Vietnam War designed by the best and the brightest, urban renewal efforts that decimated neighborhoods, welfare policies that had the unintended effect of weakening families and development programs that left a string of white elephant projects across the world.

Brooks then talks about some of the 20th century intellectuals that pointed out liberalism's faults:

These writers... had a sense of epistemological modesty. They knew how little we can know. They understood that we are strangers to ourselves and society is an immeasurably complex organism. They tended to be skeptical of technocratic, rationalist planning and suspicious of schemes to reorganize society from the top down.

Though he goes on to point out that Obama's people have a policy humility that the creators of previous social-engineering failures did not, he is still worried by the tremendous scope of Obama's agenda. And, I have to say that I agree a bit. Though I am a liberal and have more faith that we've learned how to do top-down social change, listening to Obama's speech on Tuesday, the scale of the ambition just got to me: millions of jobs created, radical changes in health care, energy and education, new climate change policy, cutting the deficit in half, tax cuts for the middle class, and a promise not to raise them (during what time period, it's not clear). He even hopes for a cure, literally, for cancer. I mean, come on!

I do think Obama can't be timid. Now is the time for bold plans -- the problems we face are simply not problems that can be postponed. The world is already broken. And some of the things he wants to do, like re-vamping health care, might be part of the solution, placing the country on a better long-term path to health (in the case of health care by, I think, dealing with costs that will eventually strangle us if left alone.) Still, I'm a little skeptical -- can we really take seriously the idea that taxes will not have to be raised on the middle class at some point in the next eight years? But, as Brooks notes, the stakes are too high, and we all have to hope that Obama proves the skeptics wrong.

Brooks: The Republicans Response Was "Insane"

2009-02-25T09:52:00.002-05:00

I've been watching David Brooks on the Newshour for years and I've never seen him this upset about anything, let alone his own party.

Quote Of The Night

2009-02-24T21:57:00.003-05:00

"For seven years, we have been a nation at war. No longer will we hide its price." - President Barack Hussein Obama.

It Can't be "Empty Words"

2009-02-24T19:05:00.004-05:00

Jon Huntsman, Jr., the Republican governor of Utah, seems to not be in the tank with the Limbaughs of the world.

He also said in his Washington Times interview:

"Our moral soapbox was completely taken away from us because of our behavior in the last few years," he said. "For us to now criticize analogous behavior is hypocrisy. We've got to come at it a different way. We've got to prove the point. It can't be as the Chinese would say, 'fei hua,' [or] empty words."

The U.S. needs a healthy, innovative opposition party that is disagrees with the party in power, and can counter it with something new and substantive to offer. Huntsman seems to make some general sense and he seems like he could be constructive. Andrew Sullivan feels he is one to watch. He may have a point.

A Good Faith Effort Is What I Want

2009-02-24T11:15:00.006-05:00

The media has criticized Obama for the failure of his bipartisan gestures towards Republicans. But I've felt for a while that this gets the essence of bipartisanship wrong. And in this week's profile of Rahm Emanuel in the New Yorker, he gets at the real essence:

[Emanuel's] task has been made no easier by Obama’s desire for bipartisanship, which Emanuel argues the press has misunderstood. “The public wants bipartisanship,” he said. “We just have to try. We don’t have to succeed.”

Yes. What's important here is for Obama to show a good faith effort to work with the other side. If the other side simply wants to be the Party of No, that's their problem. Obama gets this and, as a recent Times poll shows, it's working: he has a job approval rating of 63%. More specifically, people feel that he has been working in a bipartisan fashion, but that he should still stick to his policies. For some reason I get the impression the cable news media has not been able to understand this, but this has never been very complicated to me. For the public, being bipartisan simply means debating constructively in the way that most people hold up as an ideal in their own lives when working through their own issues. It doesn't mean that you can't follow your own individual (i.e. partisan) goals, it just means you have to be reasonable and respectful in how you achieve them.

New York: Back From The Depths!

2009-02-23T22:36:00.004-05:00

I'm currently reading "How the Crash Will Reshape America" over at The Atlantic, describing the vast changes that the financial crisis is likely to make across the country. I'm not done yet, but It's opening section has optimistic things to say about my hometown and its future. In these frightening times, that's a good thing to have, so here you go:

...the financial crisis may ultimately help New York by reenergizing its creative economy. The extraordinary income gains of investment bankers, traders, and hedge-fund managers over the past two decades skewed the city’s economy in some unhealthy ways. In 2005, I asked a top-ranking official at a major investment bank whether the city’s rising real-estate prices were affecting his company’s ability to attract global talent. He responded simply: “We are the cause, not the effect, of the real-estate bubble.” (As it turns out, he was only half right.) Stratospheric real-estate prices have made New York less diverse over time, and arguably less stimulating. When I asked [famous urbanist Jane] Jacobs some years ago about the effects of escalating real-estate prices on creativity, she told me, “When a place gets boring, even the rich people leave.” With the hegemony of the investment bankers over, New York now stands a better chance of avoiding that sterile fate.

I'm Back, With Conan

2009-02-22T20:27:00.004-05:00

So sorry for the lack of posts recently. Staying late and working on weekends doesn't mix well with consistent blogging. But now I'm rested. While I come up with my next post (hopefully tonight), here's an inspired video from Conan O'Brien. On his final Late Night show he said it was his favorite of all the things he ever did. I remember seeing it years ago and thinking it was pretty great. Enjoy.

I'm going to live in Canada!

2009-02-12T00:30:00.003-05:00

Fareed Zakaria on why Canada is getting through the financial crisis in much better shape than the U.S.

Don't Let Me Down, Barack

2009-02-06T10:20:00.005-05:00

In his column today, David Brooks picks up the idea that I suggested here, that Obama's greatest impact will be on the process of governing and not policy substance.

Barack Obama is a potentially transformational figure. In political style and intellectual outlook, he is unlike anything that has come before. On matters of policy substance, however, he’s been pretty conventional. The policies he offered during the campaign matched those of just about every other Democrat.

It's a good column. Brooks goes on to notice that the moderates in Congress, that are trying to trim and focus the stimulus, present a real opportunity for Obama:

The big news here is that there are many Democrats who don’t want to move in a conventional liberal direction and there some Republicans willing to work with them to create a functioning center. These moderates — who are not a party, but a gang — seemed willing to seize control of legislation from the party leaders. They separated themselves from both the left and right.
...Obama didn’t plan them. He didn’t create them. He isn’t yet leading them. But the gangs could be the big new fact in domestic politics. If nurtured and used creatively, they can be the lever by which Obama transforms the landscape of government and creates a broad postpartisan coalition.
We’ll see if he seizes this opportunity, or whether it’s just business as usual.

I agree. This is a real test for him.

Jiggle It

2009-02-06T00:03:00.002-05:00

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Joe the Political Strategist

Daily Show Full Episodes
Funny Political Videos

Important Things With Demetri Martin
More Funny Videos

Ahh, JTP. So many laughs. So many tears.

Obama Includes Atheists... Again!

2009-02-05T23:54:00.003-05:00

I think my sometimes inordinate support of Obama comes from the fact that he is able to say things like this:

There is no doubt that the very nature of faith means that some of our beliefs will never be the same. We read from different texts. We follow different edicts. We subscribe to different accounts of how we came to be here and where we’re going next – and some subscribe to no faith at all...

Amazing. That's the second time he's acknowledged, with respect, the nonbelievers among us. Read the whole post where I got this. It's good.

Who Is Gary Ackerman?

2009-02-05T00:48:00.003-05:00

This is both great and very sad. It's SEC officials being questioned on the Madoff scandal by Rep. Gary Ackerman.

Embarrased

2009-02-03T21:03:00.004-05:00

I just re-read my last post and I was suddenly embarrassed when I realized that it's just wrong to pronounce Michael Steele a "token", at least right now. To vote for a black man to take on one of the top jobs of real responsibility in the Republican party speaks more highly of that party than that word. Steele will have real responsibility and that's not nothing. In the end what matters is what he does with that responsibility. Will he -- and the party -- really reach out to minorities? Time will tell. That will determine whether or not he's a token. For now, I think it's commendable that Republicans were able to elect him; at least some people realize they have a perception problem.

It was a bad, stupid post.

Republican Party Suicide Watch

2009-02-03T01:38:00.004-05:00

Isn't it nice that in Michael Steele the Republican party picked a face that makes it look all inclusive and forward thinking to head the RNC? Well, if there's anyone that thinks that he's more than a token and empty symbolism, check this evidence out:

First, Steele himself says in an interview with Wolf Blitzer and says that "Not in the history of mankind has the government ever created a job." Hmm... I guess the Federal Highway System, government scientific research, and all government agencys run themselves. This is just one small data point -- a media talking point -- but it's telling: it's simply not an attempt to tackle our economic problems seriously. (YouTube video here.)

Then a new poll shows that the Republican party looks to Sarah Palin as a role model. Nothing more needs to be said about that.

And now (the coup-de-grace!) Joe The Plumber... sigh... is the featured guest at a key weekly strategy meeting of conservative Capitol Hill staffers. I suppose they will plumb (sorry, couldn't help it) his deep, keen political insights, because being a war correspondent is the least of his talents.

When I read stuff like this, it's hard not to think that the Republican party is not just heading for that cliff, they're accelerating towards it.

State of Play

2009-01-25T22:25:00.004-05:00

From reading Andrew Sullivan, yesterday I watched a BBC series from 2003: State of Play. I watched the first three episodes (there are six total) and so far it's really great. A thriller about a British Minister and his journalist friend and the initial sex scandal that mushrooms into a case of high-level government corruption. It has great acting, a tight script, and an intense, yet naturalistic tone. Plus it's got Bill Nighy, who makes anything better. It's for anyone who is interested in politics and media.

My Inauguration

2009-01-25T16:22:00.010-05:00

Here are some of the photos I took last Tuesday. (Click on the pictures for a hi-res version.)

The streets of DC at about 4:30am.

L'Enfant Plaza subway station, just a few blocks from the National Mall.

Arriving at my spot on the Mall. I was about as close as anyone could get without having a ticket and I was still about half a mile away.

The sun coming up around 7am.

The view with my telefoto lens. They still look like dots!

Obama and Bush approaching the Capitol in their motorcade and the resulting cheers. The smallest glimpse of Obama, Michelle, Biden, or the Obama girls would make the crowd go wild.

Taking the Oath.

It's over!

Thoughts Are No Longer Private

2009-01-24T19:37:00.004-05:00

Here is an interesting and creepy report from 60 minutes on new techniques for identifying specific thoughts within our brains. Will the last private area in our lives soon fall? It looks increasingly likely that it will. Gulp.

Not Disheartened. Still Disappointed.

2009-01-24T13:00:00.004-05:00

Commentor Invisible Man gently chided me for my previous post expressing my disappointment over the nomination of lobbyist Bill Lynn to the Pentagon. Alright, I'll calm down... just a little. I would have to say that I'm not seriously disheartened yet with Obama for doing this. I still have faith that his recent executive orders represent meaningful change. But, the degree of that change now has to come under some question. It is disappointing that a big show is made of enacting ethics and transparency rules and then just two days later those rules are waived. And not waived for someone in a small position, not waived for someone who really just has minor ties with lobbyists, but waived for someone about to enter a top position in the administration and who is intimately connected to a major defense contractor. From the Huffington Post:

[Raytheon] and its subsidiaries are a major force on Capitol Hill, having spent more than $14.5 million on federal lobbying activities during the six years Lynn was working there, according to a review of lobbying records. Raytheon worked to lobby the House, Senate, DARPA, Defense Department, Energy Department, Treasury Department, State Department, and others on issues ranging from long-range guided munitions, sea based missile defense and joint standoff weapon systems.
The government outreach efforts seemed to pay dividends. Raytheon Company received more than $54 billion in contracts from the federal government during that time period, according to fedspending.org, a project of OMB Watch. This doesn't include the potentially billions more that the company was awarded as a subcontractor or part of a group contract.

Isn't this exactly the kind of person that the rule was meant to cover? So far, I haven't read of any adequate explanation from the White House other than that Lynn is "uniquely qualified."

Holy Crap!

2009-01-23T23:41:00.002-05:00

See more funny videos and funny pictures at CollegeHumor.

Only Two Days And He's Already Disappointing?

2009-01-23T23:11:00.003-05:00

This is truly surprising, stupid, and deeply disheartening. There is no way that Bill Lynn, former lobbyist for huge defense corporation Raytheon, is the only person that is qualified to be Deputy Secretary of Defense.

An Impulsive Prediction

2009-01-23T01:45:00.003-05:00

I just finished writing a bunch of posts on Obama's first two great days and the impressive executive orders he's signed. Then I glanced at two Times columns from today (Krugman and Brooks) expressing disappointment at his economic stimulus plan. This ties into a feeling I had during the campaign that Obama was strongest when it came to questions of process (I can't remember examples right now -- it's very late!) So, here's an impulsive, will-probably-be-proven-wrong-within-a-week prediction: the Obama administration's greatest achievements will be in the area of process, not legistlation. More than anything else it will have a lasting impact on the government's methods rather than its substantive goals.

Director of Nat'l Intel Nominee Won't Say That Waterboarding is Torture

2009-01-23T01:17:00.002-05:00

Though he does say that neither waterboarding, nor torture will happen on his watch. Weird.

It's Already Paying Off!

2009-01-23T00:53:00.002-05:00

This is interesting. An example of the kind of real security benefits ending torture and closing Guantanamo could get us.

"On Our Terms"

2009-01-22T23:59:00.004-05:00

Today was a great day: Obama signed executive orders that close Gitmo, review military trials and ban torture across the government.

Obama then said this:

The message we are sending around the world is that the US intends to prosecute the ongoing struggle against violence and terrorism and we are going to do so vigilantly, we are going to do so effectively, and we are going to do so in a manner that is consistent with our values and our ideals ... We intend to win this fight, and we intend to win it on our terms.

"On our terms." That is the central, essential idea when it comes to the fight against terrorism: Fighting terrorism the way that Bush did -- a lack of due process, the use of torture, black sites, extraordinary rendition -- was to fight on Al Qaida's terms. It was to let this group, a bunch of fanatic thugs, determine the nature of the fight, to fight on its level, with its principles, and not ours. What Bush and Cheney never got was that the great challenge of terrorism -- all terrorism -- is that conflict happens not just on a physical level, but on a moral and propagandistic one. Terrorists aren't just a threat because they might use illegitimate weapons and kill civilians, they are a threat because of how they tempt governments to respond. Getting a government to overreact is a victory for a terrorist group -- it is one of the chief weapons of terrorism -- because overreaction undermines a government's legitimacy and/or popularity. It undermines the principles on which it is based. We end up doing to ourselves what Al Qaida never could alone. Fighting terrorism while keeping our principles denies this weapon to our enemies. This is what Obama gets.

With these, as well as yesterdays ethics and transparency orders, the first two days have been way beyond what I hoped. I want to emphasize that it is still early, and we won't really know how serious Obama is about these policies until they colide with real world situations (already the ethics rules are encountering some challenges and not coming out totally clean.) But so far there is good reason to be optimistic.

If This Turns Out To Be True Then He Is The Anti-Bush

2009-01-22T13:34:00.005-05:00

This is a pretty striking for a president to say:

Going forward, anytime the American people want to know something that I or a former president wants to withhold, we will have to consult with the Attorney General and the white house counsel, whose business it is to ensure compliance with the rule of law. Information will not be withheld just because I say so; it will be withheld because a separate authority believes my request is well-grounded in the Constitution. Let me say it as simply as I can: transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.

Obama said it yesterday when he was signing his first executive orders regarding transparency and ethics rules. I think someone should ask both him and AG Eric Holder what they each think about executive priviledge. It will most probably arise at some point and that, it seems to me, will be a key test of the new transparency.

A Moment In History

2009-01-20T16:23:00.004-05:00

So I forgot to mention that I am right now in Washington D.C. to watch the inauguration. My friends and I got up at 3:30 am, walked through a city empty of cars, but full of people at 4:30, then sat down in my very good spot on the Mall near the very front of the public section. It's been a humbling and moving and fascinating day to see the ritual of a powerful democracy peacefully change its government. I hope to write more about this day when I get back to NYC, but for now I'll say that he has lived up to the moment. In his inaugural speech he did exactly what I hoped he would: He spoke honestly -- even gravely -- about the world we live in and finally did what presidents should always do: treated us like adults. He demanded a lot from us. I only hope that we -- and he -- can rise to the challenge.

The Inauguration Show

2009-01-19T14:37:00.003-05:00

If you want to get even more of an Obama-inspired glow than you might be feeling this week, or, if you feel nothing, but still wonder why everyone is so excited, then listen to last week's episode of This American Life: The Inauguration Show.

I'm Starting To Like Chuck Todd

2009-01-17T19:57:00.003-05:00

Right now I am listening to a really fascinating interview Chuck Todd did last week on Fresh Air. Todd has some great, surprising insights into the Clinton, McCain and Obama campaigns. Even though there was a lot of day-to-day ups and downs, there were telling details from the very beginning of each campaign that set in motion their respective fates.

The Obama Express

2009-01-17T15:42:00.007-05:00

Today, Obama started his inaugural Whistle Stop tour in Philadelphia. Once he got to Delaware he picked up Joe Biden:

Obama is shaping up to be a master of political theater. The association of these images with classic images of Lincoln or Roosevelt waving to adoring crowds from a train can't help but get me excited. It's also a reason to be extra vigilant. As we all know from Bush, who used it well, whistle stop tours, YouTube videos, backdrops can all be used to manipulate and distract just as much as to inspire.

I'll Miss His Speeches Most Of All

2009-01-17T15:38:00.002-05:00

The final montage of Letterman's Great Moments in Presidential Speeches.

We'll Never Get Rid Of It Now

2009-01-16T12:12:00.005-05:00

This is Obama's official portrait that will hang in Federal offices. Notice that he's wearing a U.S. Flag lapel pin. Sigh. Including this silly little pin on the official portrait means that it has now become a permanent part of the theatrics of presidential politics and a necessary sign of Obama's patriotism. So many months ago he fought the good fight to not have wear such a vapid symbol, but you have to pick your battles, I guess. Sigh.

Holder: Waterboarding is Torture

2009-01-15T12:41:00.005-05:00

In his senate hearing today, Eric Holder, nominee for Attorney General, was clear and unequivocal on: waterboarding, the geneva conventions and unlimited commander-in-chief powers.

The end is key: the president acts most forcefully and powerfully when his actions are consistent with "congressional intent". One of the Bush administration's worst elements was its use of signing statements to broadly interpret the laws Congress passed to its liking and ignore what Congress intended if they thought it went against Bush's commander-in-chief powers -- powers that the administration itself defined as nearly limitless. A sad, tragic chapter in U.S. history is ending. Yeah, baby!

Some Stimulus Skepticism

2009-01-15T12:14:00.005-05:00

The issue of how big the stimulus should be is something I've been wondering about lately. Over the last 15-20 years I've become more a little more skeptical of the government's ability to create effective and efficient programs, of its ability to intervene in society and in the economy without there being large, unforeseen consequences. It's not that I think that government stimulus is wrong, it's just that the economic, political, social, and cultural forces that the government is interacting with here feel too complex and uncontrollable for things to go as planned.

Regarding this, Megan McArdle, economic blogger over at the Atlantic has a good post:

I'm becoming extremely concerned about the stimulus, for the following reasons:

1) Where is the strong evidence that the kind of truly massive stimulus people like Krugman are pushing for will do anything but provide a very temporary respite before the economy slumps back, more indebted and no better off than before? The chief complaint about the two historical examples we have, the Great Depression and 1990s Japan, is that such stimulus was not sufficiently tried.

2) What about the permanent income hypothesis? If we make the stimulus spending temporary, I presume we have the same problem we do with tax cuts--rational consumers will save most of the extra income. If we make it permanent--that's a different, but bigger, problem than we have now.

3) We are a nation of net dissavers, which contributed greatly to the bubble. Can we really prolong this?

The last point is key, it seems to me. Eventually, we'll have to pay for the massive debt we've been and are incurring -- it's unavoidable. Is the stimulus simply postponing a prolonged belt-tightening? The idea is that the stimulus fixes a situation that has become a crisis, putting us in a place, afterwards, where we can be austere and save, but do it in a more gradual and less harmful way. I agree with this in general -- I think a large stimulus in necessary -- but, the question is, for me, can the public, and the government, be counted on to behave this way once the crisis is over in a few years? Instead us doing the saving that we need to do will we just go back to our spendthrift ways and the whole thing starts over again?

Dept. of Making Amends

2009-01-15T11:04:00.003-05:00

I missed this when it happened a few days ago. Obama has asked V. Eugene Robinson to deliver the invocation at Sunday's "kickoff" inaugural event. Robinson is an openly gay Episcopal bishop in New Hampshire. The Obama people claim that this was in the works from before the Rick Warren flap -- so it wasn't a reaction to it -- but, it is still a welcome move. For me it goes a way to getting over the Warren pick and for regaining some (but not all) of my faith in Obama.

Rick Warren yesterday, in a statement that shows why he's not at the Dobson end of the evangelical spectrum, praised the selection of Robinson and Obama's desire to "be the president of every citizen."

(By the way, how weird is it to call the first inaugural event the "kickoff" event? U.S. culture does love its sports)

Letterman's Great Moments In Presidential Speeches

2009-01-15T10:38:00.002-05:00

Taken out of context (probably), but still.

Prankster-In-Chief

2009-01-13T14:16:00.001-05:00

You know Bush really wants to do this stuff.

Reassurance

2009-01-13T11:53:00.006-05:00

From early on, one of the reasons I supported Obama was because he favored net neutrality: maintaining the internet as an open medium, allowing anyone to access and use it freely, and privileging no one group (or giant telecom) over any other. (Background on net neutrality here.) The internet is the new global commons; its role in free expression and uncensored debate should remain sacrosanct. Today, Obama's pick of Julius Genachowski to head the FCC signals that he intends to deliver on this issue. Genachowski helped develop Obama's telecom positions.

I feel like Obama is on a role here, reassuring me that on key issues where I thought he might waffle he will actually deliver. First, there is this appointment. There is also Dawn Johnsen as the new head of the OLC, the Panetta appointment to CIA and Robert Gibbs clear answer as to whether or not Obama will repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell: "Yes." (The answer comes at about 4:15 on the video.) All through the campaign I was concerned that Obama would back off from controversial, undiplomatic stances or stances unfriendly to business that he didn't really need to take to get his primary agenda done. Now, he's not President yet, and we still need to see what he actually does. But, these recent decisions are unequivocal good signs that he intends to back up his campaign promises with action.

The "D" Word

2009-01-13T09:09:00.003-05:00

This is kind of scary. Respected economist Tyler Cowen lists the eight reasons why he thinks we are in a depression:

1. We have zombie banks.
2. There is considerable regulatory uncertainty in banking and finance.
3. There is a negative wealth effect from lower home and asset prices.
4. There is a big sectoral shift out of real estate, luxury goods, and debt-financed consumption.
5. Some of the automakers are finally meeting their end, or would meet their end without government aid.
6. Fear and uncertainty are high, in part because they should be high and in part because Bush and Paulson spooked everyone.
7. International factors are strongly negative.
8. There is a decline in aggregate demand, resulting from some mix of 1-7.

He goes on to describe how we are handling, or not handling, each one.

A Little Honesty Is So Refreshing

2009-01-12T00:04:00.003-05:00

Paul Krugman in today's Times:

On Saturday, Christina Romer, the future head of the Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, who will be the vice president’s chief economist, released estimates of what the Obama economic plan would accomplish. Their report is reasonable and intellectually honest.

Though Krugman is liberal, so he's inclined to agree with them, he's also a bit sour on the Obama plan, which makes me believe in the report's overall honesty more. After eight years of obfuscation this is a very welcome change.

Bill Moyers Brings His Humanity To Gaza

2009-01-11T13:12:00.002-05:00

Bill Moyers is, hands down, one of the most thoughtful, compassionate, independent and engaged journalists working today. This essay on the tragedy in Gaza, with with he ended a recent episode of his PBS Journal show, musters all his insight to remind us of the humanity of this calamity, and treats the war with all the care and seriousness that is the exact opposite of a political culture that instead treats life and death, in his words, as "abstractions of policy".

Also, his essay reminds me of one of the essential truths of terrorism and how it applies in this case, that the whole point of terrorism is to get your enemy to over-react. Terrorism is the tool of a weak actor who, on purpose, fights outside of convention by attacking civilians in order to cause fear in the population and get the enemy government to use so much excessive force that it deligitimizes it's actions, either domestically or internationally. That is, the Israeli massive assault is exactly what Islamic militants want Israel to do. By Israel bringing so much suffering to the Gazans it makes the prospect of real peace that much harder and furthers the goals of extremists.

"War on Terror": Worst Phrase Ever... And Still Being Used, Ctd.

2009-01-11T12:25:00.003-05:00

Continuing with my ruminations on fear of terrorism and the U.S. society, here is a blog post from the excellent James Fallows. As bloggers say, here is the "money quote":

Yes, the 9/11 attacks were a disaster of historic proportions. Yes, some group, somewhere, will probably manage to attack the United States again. But many, many societies around the world face an ongoing risk of attack. Life is dangerous. Over the long run, we judge societies by how they bear up under such threats (and, of course, what they do to contain them.) Compared with the Brits, the Indians, not to mention the Israelis and I bet also the Iraqis, our security theater makes us look like chickens.

"Is it just me? Or does Bernstein look like Dustin Hoffman?"

2009-01-10T14:35:00.004-05:00

I love the comments on my blog, probably because those who write them are people I know. But, generally speaking, I hate comments. This video, showing live comments to a Leonard Bernstein performance, shows why:

When Will You Just GO AWAY!!

2009-01-09T22:41:00.005-05:00

Our favorite Joe, Joe the Plumber (and by favorite I mean HATED) is now going to Israel as a... war correspondent!! I wonder what goes through John McCain's head when he sees what he's created?

"War on Terror": Worst Phrase Ever... And Still Being Used, Ctd.

2009-01-09T21:26:00.003-05:00

It also doesn’t make me happy that Panetta talked about the “very dangerous time” and “a time of great peril” that we live in. It’s subtle, but the sense that that language creates in us is that we are all besieged, that a terrorist attack is always imminent, and that we should always be afraid. Well, sure an attack could happen, there are people who want to hurt us, that’s clear. Though I think it’s an open question just how much danger we are in, any threats we do face are threats we will have to live with for decades -- they are not going away. What we need is to not be afraid, to know that if we do get attacked we will go forward, we will get through it. We need, especially, to realize that, to some extent, living with terrorism is simply part of the reality of living in the globalized, open society that is the United States in the 21st century. It can be mitigated, made scarce, but not eliminated. It is the “new normal” The Obama administration needs to communicate the reality that we live in without making us feel that something could happen this very second, that since there are threats out there, we need to develop a certain amount of toughness. It’s time that the government acknowledge the world that we live in and figure out a way to get past the fear tactics of the Bush administration. Bush created a color-coded terror-threat level (when was the last time we saw that?), engaged our fears and ended up turning us into scared children, with the administration as the parent we all have to trust and depend on. Obama should expect us to be able to handle certain tough truths about the world and then treat us like adults.

"War on Terror": Worst Phrase Ever... And Still Being Used

2009-01-09T21:24:00.002-05:00

One of the good things that John Edwards did during his campaign one year ago (already one year ago!) was reject the idea that the US is engaged in a Global War on Terror – GWOT, in military-speak. He called it a “bumper-sticker” phrase, something that is used to sell a government agenda, but that is ultimately simplistic, counter-productive and wrong. I couldn’t agree more: as many people, including Joe Biden, have pointed out, “terror” is a tactic, one used by many different groups for many different reasons. There are Islamic groups, Colombian groups, Chechnyan groups, etc. each one with a different political goal. Even the Islamic groups themselves are not a monolithic block, some groups, like Hamas, having more local concerns than global groups such as Al-Qaida. Using one phrase to group all these groups under the same term: terror, lumps individual problems into one big problem. Worse, by declaring “war” it seems to say that all these fights require the same level of aggression and unrelenting commitment from us. I hate the term.

During the campaign I was skeptical that Obama would banish the term from use. When the Democratic candidates were all asked one year ago if they believed that a GWOT existed Obama said yes. When he was on Bill O’Reilly in the fall he said he believed a we were in a War on Terror. Now that he’s won I’ve been eagerly awaiting to see what would happen (especially with Biden as veep). So far I’m pretty disappointed. Today Obama named Leon Panetta to head the CIA and in the press conference he said used the damn phrase: “I commit to consulting closely with my former colleagues in the Congress to form the kind of partnership we need if we’re to win the war on terror". It’ll be sad if Obama keeps this up once in office, but I’m afraid it could be part of his political caution and pragmatism where he doesn’t want to get into useless a fight with conservatives over it, and where maybe he thinks it’s politically useful to keep it to show his hawkish credentials (and of course, maybe he actually believes it). It’s this kind of small, but telling detail that makes me wonder how bold he will be. I’m still hoping that they will slowly sweep it under a rug and then just get rid of the damn thing.

Are The Cogs Are Coming Into Place?

2009-01-06T12:20:00.005-05:00

Former spy Robert Baer on the Panetta pick:

Leading Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee Jay Rockefeller and Dianne Feinstein have already criticized the choice of Panetta, claiming the CIA needs to be led by an experienced intelligence professional. But right now political clout, and the ability to be a strong advocate for the CIA, far outweighs the virtues of being a professional spy, someone who knows the difference between a "live drop" and a "dead drop." A professional from the ranks would be eaten up by Hillary Clinton at State or Bob Gates at Defense. Or end up like Bill Clinton's CIA Director Jim Woolsey, shut out of the White House, ignored and irrelevant.

If this is what the Obama team is thinking (and we don't know this) it strikes me as further evidence of Obama's interest in forming a balanced executive branch where all its parts actually work together and where each department will get its voice heard.

Panetta On Torture

2009-01-05T17:59:00.003-05:00

From an article he wrote for the Washington Monthly early in 2008.

Those who support torture may believe that we can abuse captives in certain select circumstances and still be true to our values. But that is a false compromise. We either believe in the dignity of the individual, the rule of law, and the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, or we don't. There is no middle ground.

We cannot and we must not use torture under any circumstances. We are better than that.

We still need to see how he answers specific questions now that he'll have actual responsibility over gathering intelligence. Skepticism should be maintain, always, and in the end, nothing really counts more than action -- we've seen a lot of honorable talk in the past. But still, I think things are looking up.

The Hits Keep Coming: Panetta at CIA

2009-01-05T17:18:00.004-05:00

Leon Panetta gets named to head the CIA. It concerns me a little that he has no hands on intelligence experience, and there seems to be little actual information on his intelligence opinions, but he is someone who had nothing to do with the intelligence policies of Bush-land and so represents a clean break. Connections to things like wiretapping and torture were the kind of thing that sunk Obama's first choice, John Brennan. On top of the Johnson pick at OLC, it's like icing on the cake. As Andrew Sullivan notes, and I echo (with realistic hope): This is a good day for America's soul.

Good News On The Most Powerful Position You Never Heard Of

2009-01-05T16:35:00.003-05:00

The Office of Legal Counsel, in the Justice Department, is extremely powerful, yet little known. It’s lawyers basically give legal interpretations as to what the executive branch can and can’t do. They define the legal position of the administration. This is the office that was much misused during the Bush years and that created the legal structure for the administration. It’s here that Bush’s extremely broad, uncontrollable presidential powers were defined. It’s here, where John Yoo worked in 2001, that torture was redefined and started to infect our policies.

Today Obama named Dawn Johnson, Professor of Law at Indiana University, to become the head of the OLC. Here are some quotes from an article she wrote at Slate.com:

we must regain our ability to feel outrage whenever our government acts lawlessly and devises bogus constitutional arguments for outlandishly expansive presidential power. Otherwise, our own deep cynicism, about the possibility for a President and presidential lawyers to respect legal constraints, itself will threaten the rule of law--and not just for the remaining nine months of this administration, but for years and administrations to come...

OLC, the office entrusted with making sure the President obeys the law instead here told the President that in fighting the war on terror, he is not bound by the laws Congress has enacted.

And another Slate.com article

I'm afraid we are growing immune to just how outrageous and destructive it is, in a democracy, for the President to violate federal statutes in secret.

This is someone who does not mince words. She seems to genuinely be deeply outraged at Bush's trampling all over the constitution and the rule of law.

Of all the issues that Obama would face, executive power was one I was most worried about. Maintaining the US as a country where even the president has to respect the law, even when it’s difficult, is one the most important challenges we face. When it comes to deciding what is or is not legal for a president to do, precedents set have very lasting consequences way beyond the administration where they happen. Johnson really seems to get all this. This is really good news.

Yoo and Bolton: Presidential Power should Be Limited!

2009-01-05T16:29:00.002-05:00

Gee, now that we’re about to get a president who will probably enact foreign policy that they disagree with, all of a sudden John Yoo and John Bolton rediscover the importance of treaties and their ability to be “a bulwark against presidential inclinations.” These are the same people who argued for unlimited executive power in foreign policy, one of whom (Yoo) wrote the original torture memos allowing the most extreme techniques? Apparently it was Bill Clinton who misused legislative loopholes to get what he wanted when Congress opposed him! I suppose when they called on the idea of the Unitary Executive, that was purely to be faithful to the Founding Father’s constitutional intentions. But, oh wait! Reading the article, all they seem to care about is preventing the United States from actually having to make treaties and not getting its way all the time. Like when I wonder? Like when the US might become a member of the International Criminal Court. And I wonder why they would care that US officials could be internationally tried for war crimes?

(And why, oh why does the New York Times feel the desire to publish op-eds by a war-criminal??)

Dipping My Toe Into The Middle East Debate

2009-01-05T15:57:00.001-05:00

First post of 2009!

The holiday season has made me late for everything, and so I am for the attack on Gaza, but still, a post is in order. I’ve actually wanted to write one for several days, but I hesitated. Nothing with this conflict is simple or clean, and it’s always best to learn as much as possible before spouting off on the Middle East (this is true with any subject, of course, but here there is just so much more to learn and every detail seems to count for more).

In 2005, Israel pulled out of Gaza, though it has blockaded it since June 2007. Since 2007, Hamas is the government of the Strip. (I know I’m just giving facts, but this is actually for MY benefit, to get things straight in my head). Since the end of the cease-fire on December 19th Hamas had been launching rockets into southern Israel, hoping to pressure Israel to end the blockade. So far there have been around ten Israeli deaths vs. about 500 Palestinian deaths. The stated purpose of the attack is to fundamentally change the security situation for southern Israel. Since the initial air attack was not able to fully destroy Hamas’ ability to do this, a ground invasion has started. Israel plans to keep this up for days, maybe weeks.

From a simple moral calculus, Hamas launching rockets into Israel is unjustifiable and Israel has a right to defend itself, it seems to me. So, at the simplest level, the assault makes sense. It’s logical, even counting the massive discrepancy in power. But, the sticking point has to be: what are the ultimate consequences of the attack? Does the attack increase Israel’s long term security and the possibility of peace between the two groups? This doesn’t seem clear to me at all. If anything, it looks like a probable net loss for Israel. To permanently eliminate the threat of rockets into Israel, how far does Israel have to go in hurting Hamas? Does it leave it severely wounded, and destroy it’s ability to obtain military resources? That seems to mean destroying mosques, colleges, government buildings, and routes that supply regular goods to the Gazans as well as military hardware to militants. It means pushing more people of Gaza into the arms of Hamas and making more Arabs around the Middle East enraged with Israel. If wounded, even severly, Hamas will probably still declare a moral victory for simply having survived the assault. That’s how an asymmetric war – between two actors of vastly different capabilities -- works. Israel is fighting on the physical level, but Hamas is fighting on the moral level. And, it’s hard to believe that, if Israel leave Gaza with Hamas defeated, but not destroyed, the rockets won’t eventually be once again landing in Israel.

Then, does it stay inside Gaza? Occupation may be the only way to guarantee that no more rockets are launched. Does Israel depose Hamas and have to once again become responsible for over one million Palestinians? No one in Israel wants this, from what I’ve read.

So what then? Israel has rejected a cease-fire, so that’s out. It seems to me, from my very layman-esque perch, that the only real solution to this is for a third party to come in and cause intense pressure on both sides – political, diplomatic, economic pressure. But the Bush Administration isn’t going to do it. They’re blaming Hamas for breaking the cease-fire. So that leaves Obama, and he has remained quiet. My hope is that this is only because he’s being careful to observe the one-president-at-a-time rule, and taking the time to form a coherent response and strategy that he can reveal after he becomes president. It’s my hope, but I’m a bit skeptical – Obama has made fairly hawish statements in the past, regarding Israel specifically, so I think it’s anyone’s guess as to where he comes down.

Mick Franken

2009-01-05T00:05:00.002-05:00

So it's looking increasingly likely that this guy is the new senator from Minnesota:

A Comic Masterpiece At The Walter Reade

2008-12-30T21:09:00.005-05:00

Even for a broadly-defined blog, this doesn't really fit into it, but so what. Monday the 5th of January the Walter Reade Theater in Lincoln Center is screening Play Time, Jacques Tati's stunning comedy about the sleek, modern world of Paris and the crazy humanity that lived in it. Everyone who reads this blog should go see it. I've found one review here. The Criterion Collection synopsis is here:

Jacques Tati’s gloriously choreographed, nearly wordless comedies about confusion in the age of technology reached their creative apex with Playtime. For this monumental achievement, a nearly three-year-long, bank-breaking production, Tati again thrust the endearingly clumsy, resolutely old-fashioned Monsieur Hulot, along with a host of other lost souls, into a bafflingly modernist Paris. With every inch of its superwide frame crammed with hilarity and inventiveness, Playtime is a lasting testament to a modern age tiptoeing on the edge of oblivion.

The Rick Warren Controversy

2008-12-29T20:17:00.004-05:00

I thought I’d say something about the Rick Warren-Obama inauguration flap. Obama has assigned the invocation at the ceremony to Reverend Rick Warren, pastor at the Saddleback church in California. This has gotten a lot of criticism because Warren was one of the main supporters of Prop. 8 in California. Warren is completely opposed to gay marriage and has equated it with incest and polygamy. (Melissa Etheridge claims he told her he regretted that choice of words and it's not the way he thinks. I’m a bit skeptical. Has he publicly disavowed these statements?)

I find the selection upsetting. To choose this man as the primary pastor presiding over the inauguration feels like a slap in the face not just to homosexuals, but to the principles of basic equality under the law. Obama has said that selecting Warren is about unity, about including people in a national conversation that others might disagree with. I get his point. True unity for the country means engaging people with whom you passionately disagree with and Rick Warren is a such a person. Unity, and real change, Obama is saying, is wrenching. I think, to have included Rick Warren among other pastors would have been exactly the right thing to do. He is an important member of the evangelical community and represents beliefs held by a sizeable percentage in this country. But giving him such a prime position is to associate him too closely with Obama’s vision for the entire country. I acknowledge that for Obama unity is an extremely important value. But I think that for me, basic rights are a bit more weighty on the scale. The decision feels against the spirit of inclusion and basic civil equality.

That said, I reserve final judgement on Obama. Symbols matter, but they are still only symbols. Obama’s ultimate test will be what substantive changes for gay rights he will achieve. If he were to get rid of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and even legalize civil unions, then none of this would matter.

I want to say something else about Rich Warren. In that video that I linked to above, Warren is also asked this:

Q: Which do you think is a greater threat to the American family? Divorce or gay marriage?

Warren: That’s a no brainer. Divorce. There’s no doubt about it.

Q: …So why do we hear so much more, especially from religious conservatives, about gay marriage than about divorce?

Warren: Oh, we always love to talk about other sins more than ours.

“A no brainer”! “We always love to talk about other sins more than ours”! I know he's still being intolerant of gay marriage, he still considers it a sin, but still, these are not statements I expect to hear from a figure on the religious right. Rick Warren is an interesting figure in American evangelical movement. I remember reading a New Yorker article on him a few years ago and he seemed like someone who was trying to move past the issues normally associated with the religious right. He focuses on poverty, HIV. He truly practices what he preaches: he reverse tithes, giving away 90% of what he makes. He seems much more reasonable, and positive, than someone like James Dobson or Jerry Falwell. He is not pathologically, and creepily, obsessed with issues of sexuality like others seem to be. Warren represents a more hopeful future for religious conservatism in this country. He is someone who needs to be engaged, not pushed away.

Physics for Presidents (And Citizens, Too)

2008-12-29T19:33:00.004-05:00

I recently found an interesting video called Physics 101: What Our Next President Needs to Know. It’s a lecture at UC Berkley given by Robert Muller. It’s a good primer for the science behind some of the most important issues of our time: nuclear terrorism, global warming, etc. The guy is a good lecturer, it’s not too technical, I don’t think, and it also addresses some of the misinformation regarding this stuff. You’ll learn things like:

- Radiological terrorism – a “dirty nuke” – is extremely hard to do and the fear is overblown. The most likely impact of a radiological bomb is to slightly increase the rate of cancer death rather than massive death at the scene.

- A straightforward explanation of why the World Trade Center fell.

- Spy satellites are increasingly useless at spying.

- The global warming that has occurred over the past 200 years until 1957 is actually not attributable to humans. It is only since 1957 that human activity has contributed to global warming.

- NYC does not have to worry about flooding due to rising sea levels. (Phew!)

- No matter how green our economy becomes, it will never be enough to solve global warming. The only way to really fix the problem is to pay developing countries to use green technology.

The professor starts talking at 7:20 and the video lasts about an hour. I know it’s a lot, but if you have some time I recommend it.

Machine In The Ghost, Ctd.

2008-12-29T18:00:00.005-05:00

Before my little hiatus I posted this video:

I called it entrancing, fascinating and prophetic and was disturbed by the way, from what I saw, it depicts a human body under the control of external electronic signals. But a few commentors have taken me to task, and added some interesting nuances.

According to one commentor, we’ve even been able to induce emotional states in animals through electrical stimulation -- the kind of human/technological integration in this video is nothing new. That's true, of course. For a long time we have had heart pacemakers, brain pacemakers, cochlear implants, and more recently brain implants that allow for control of things such as robotic arms and computer interfaces. (Here is an interesting 60 Minutes report that shows some of the state of the art)

But I do maintain that the fact that, to me, it looks like his face is seemingly taken over by the music is a bit creepy. (I should say here that some people on YouTube have wondered if the effect is even real. I think it is. Watch some of his other videos, here, and here. It doesn’t seem possible for someone to control his face to this degree.) Pacemakers, cochlear implants, these affect involuntary systems inside the body. People that are able to control a robotic chair by thinking (as in the 60 Minutes video) are still in control of what they are doing. My point here is that this artist has voluntarily given up control over his muscles and lets them do what they will in response to the music. The feeling is one of willing surrender to overwhelming forces. One way that I look at it is as a metaphor for a future where humanity starts giving in to technological forces that it doesn't fully understand.

Commentor Invisible Man, however, does make an interesting and more hopeful point: the artist composed the very music that is being used to drive the electrodes that contract his muscles. So, in this sense, the artist is still in ultimate control over everything and his face becomes his instrument. Conceptually it isn’t that different than a singer or a dancer. In this case the control is just roundabout and indirect, but he is still in ultimate control. What this artist is doing is, I think, both a disconcerting and a reassuringly human use of technology. It points in brand new directions of how we can express ourselves, directions in which our own biology is plastic and malleable. I can imagine lots of very weird, freaky variations on this example. What if someone were playing this music live and had someone else hooked up by electrodes. Imagine a music and dance troupe: Four people make up the band, and play music normally. But then there are two other people, one of whom is the instrument for the other. One person plays the other like a puppet, interpreting the music that the regular band plays! A completely new kind of human performance!

I think I just blew my own mind.

Caroline Kennedy... Worse Than Palin

2008-12-26T21:02:00.004-05:00

Back to politics. The more I read about Caroline Kennedy running... I'm sorry, presenting herself, for Clinton's soon to be vacated senate seat, the more pissed off I get. She's never run before for anything, claims she isn't running a campaign, claims that raising a family is a qualification for the office (these are mostly from this New York Times article) , and then says something like this today in an interview with NY1:

Dominic Carter: Okay. If [Governor Patterson] doesn't select you, will you run, right around the corner in 2010?

Caroline Kennedy: Well, if he doesn't select me, I would support the person that he does select. You know, I would love to do this, I feel like I have a lot to bring, and I would love to deliver for the people of New York. But, there's, you know, many ways that I can serve, and I can, and as I have been doing.

[and later]

Carter: ...There is also some people who perhaps may have not known Caroline Kennedy if her last name was not Kennedy we would not been having this conversation.

Caroline Kennedy: Well if my last name was not Kennedy maybe I would have run for office a long time ago. I don’t know.

As long as one person is selecting me then I'd be happy to serve. If the whole state selects me, then I'm not really interested. It seems like she wants to become a senator without going through the actual process of running. A once in a lifetime opportunity came up for someone with a famous name to bypass the democratic process and she took it. Wow, she must be so qualified she can't take the chance of mucking about in the tawdry world of electoral politics!

Sara Palin ran for city council, mayor and governor before running for... shudder... the vice-presidency. This is worse than Palin.

Of All the Charlie Browns In The World, You're The Charlie Browniest

2008-12-26T18:10:00.004-05:00

My other Christmas related post (this was the first) is about my favorite Christmas music ever. It probably won’t be too surprising that it’s the soundtrack to the Charlie Brown Christmas Special. Not only is it intensely nostalgic, reminding me of so many winters watching the show as a kid, but it, alone among all the Christmas music I can think of, captures the grey, mixed feelings that is an unavoidable part of the holiday and of winter in general.

On a first pass, Christmas is a time of seeing family and giving gifts, of “holiday cheer” (I think it’s clear by now that what I’m talking about is the secular celebration of Christmas). And yet, there’s a flip side to that: the extreme commercialism and consumerism, the feeling of loneliness, the feeling of being out of place, of not getting invited to Christmas parties, that sense of forced cheer. The fact that it happens during the cold and short days of winter only intensifies everything. This is what the Charlie Brown Christmas soundtrack says in spades. To listen to it is to become Charlie Brown trudging through the snow, wondering why no one has sent him a Christmas card and yearning for something deeper from the season than pink, plastic trees. Now, my attitude doesn’t descend to his level of despair. Yes, I go to parties and get and give gifts and feel authentically cheerful. But, not all the time. The bitter cold, the disappointment when you get a gift you don’t really want, the sense, when it’s all over: “is that all there is?” It's all inevitable. A Charlie Brown Christmas is about reflecting on this. It reminds me that the holiday can sometimes get you feeling a bit down precisely when it’s supposed to pick you up. It expresses that sentiment back to you and becomes your companion in melancholy.

(NPR has done a few reports on the soundtrack over the years. They're good and they are here and here.)

It’s a Gap Christmas Flashback

2008-12-26T14:07:00.004-05:00

I’ve always loved the Christmas season. I love the nostalgia it makes me feel for my childhood. I love the communal experience of it, how everyone shares in it in one way or another, the general feeling of warmth and community with my family and friends. And, I love how this feeling is extended when it’s incorporated into pop culture at-large. (If this post makes some people throw up for my shameless sentimentality, I’m sorry, but I’m sentimental about this) If it’s well done (that is, tasteful, not like a recent commercial where Santa Claus tries to buy sleigh, I’m sorry, car insurance. Groan!). One of my favorite examples of this is a series of commercials that Michel Gondry (director of the very good Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind) created for the Gap in 1999.

Like the best Gap commercials, they are 30 second expressions of pure pop fun done in the most elegant way. They never stoop so low as to mention what is actually being sold (though, of course, the instant association of the brand with a broad cultural feeling is the point). They bring together a big-sounding version of the song Sleigh Ride (conducted by John Williams, I think) with, unexpectedly, yet wonderfully, Ice Ice Baby by Vanilla Ice. To top it off, the kaleidoscopic images of people dancing and skating is so playful, and done with such freedom, that, to me, they feel joyful. These commercials are quintessentially modern without sacrificing a genuine Christmas feeling. I watch them every year.

Where Have I Been For Two Weeks?

2008-12-26T09:57:00.003-05:00

I think if there is one iron rule of blogging it’s probably this: you have to keep writing! Unfortunately, I have violated that rule in a big way, not posting anything since December 10th (and even then, it was a pretty lame post: Joe The Plumber?? Ugh!). Well, I am back. Hopefully, there are still one or two loyal readers left. I use Google-Analytics to track how many people read the site and I’ve been dreading checking the latest numbers. For a blog that is just the personal opinions of a political layperson, I’m frequently surprised that it’s more than just a few good friends who seem to read it -- for the last month it’s averaged about 18 visitors per week, peaking at 28 one week (who are these people?!) So much has happened in the last few weeks – Madoff, Blagojevich, the final Obama cabinet picks, the auto bailout, the Mumbai fallout, the shoe thrower – and I haven’t commented on any of it. I just hope that this time away hasn’t permanently lost me my “base”.

To quickly mention why I’ve been away: First, I’ve been working a lot on the other main occupier of my time: a film script, which I’ve been working on for a year. Secondly, it’s the season of Christmas parties, and this year I’ve gone to more than in any other. Christmas parties mean a fair amount of drinking, and that, alas, does not go well with the focus that I like to bring to the blog. But now, that’s all done with. My head is clear and the posts will start to flow. But, I want to just dip my toe in first. Two Christmas-related, non-political and media-laden posts are in order.

Joe The Plumber, Class Act

2008-12-10T11:46:00.004-05:00

Joe Wurzelbacher says that he was "appalled" by McCain on the campaign trail. He almost left the campaign bus at one point, but he thought Obama would be a lot worse. Palin, however, was the "real deal." God help us.

Shiv-seki

2008-12-10T00:47:00.011-05:00

On Monday morning Obama announced that he has chosen retired General Eric Shinseki to be Secretary of Veterans Affairs. I don't know what the Secretary of Veterans Affairs does exactly, but as far as the symbolism goes it is an impeccable pick. Shinseki was the guy who told the country that the Bush administration was living in a fantasyland when it came to preparing for Iraq. He is the one who went before Congress and said that it would take, "something in the order of several hundred thousand soldiers" to occupy Iraq successfully. He is the one who, as Obama said on Meet the Press on Sunday, "was right."

Also, I think it's great to know that Shinseki was able to speak truth to power and eventually have his dignity restored. I would like to think that he been chuckling to himself a lot lately.

Morever, the pick illustrates Obama's deft political ability or, as James Fallows writes so well, his, "extremely refined aspect of sticking in the shiv." Obama can keep his rhetoric bipartisan and classy, his demeanor lofty and presidential, while still grinding the faces of all those responsible for the awful pre-war planning in the dirt. He doesn't need to say anything about what the previous administration did. He doesn't need to list and go off on their massive failures. The pick says it all.

"Revenge is a dish best served cold." (An Old Klingon proverb, I believe.)

What The Hell Is This??

2008-12-09T23:49:00.003-05:00

So I just googled my name, something I haven't done in a long time, and this site comes up: http://www.axuve.com! What the hell is going on here? It's a very strange site that claims to be about foreign currency calculators, though, in reality, I think it's just some hacking site: other than explaining the different types of calculators out there it doesn't do anything; it has one sub-page -- axuve.com/axuve.html -- that I clicked on and took so long to load I stopped it for fear the site was doing something to my Mac. It also has space for you to sign up for a newsletter at the top, but it doesn't mention the newsletter at all in the body of the text. I would think that if it was designed to get you to enter in your email and name then the page would actually ask you to fill in your name and email. Weird. But weirdest of all... why is there a site out there with my name as its domain?? And it's the first thing that comes up in a Google search! Is this some ploy to get people who are looking for trapped in an internet scheme? Is this a trap for me somehow?? Any of the people who visit this site know a way to find out more about this site? It's very disconcerting.

Machine In The Ghost, Ctd.

2008-12-05T18:18:00.005-05:00

A few commentors have wondered what is so "prophetic" about my previous post. Well, what I'm thinking is that the video points to the way in which human biology and technology are coming together. We are all familiar with prosthetic limbs, pacemakers, artificial hearts, etc. But within my lifetime, I think I will see a much deeper level of integration between the two, particularly involving digital information technology. We may one day augment our own mental abilities with computer chips. At that point, where the boundary is between man and machine becomes blurred, it seems to me. For those people who choose to incorporate this kind of technology into themselves, will it be accurate to describe them as human beings? Will their technology be dictating their actions to some degree? At least, will the fact that they incorporate so much technology into themselves make their behavior unrecognizable to non-technological humans? It's a huge question, and a huge subject, but it seems to me that the fact that technology will change our behavior so much that it becomes a major determining factor in that behavior is inevitable. We will be subject to technology in ways we can't yet imagine.

And this brings me back to the video. What is so interesting and disturbing and prophetic about it is that, in it, computer technology controls human muscles, not the other way around. The human being is subordinate here, the medium by which the music and the technology expresses itself. When the music really gets going, the expression on the guys face is almost one of being overwhelmed by the electronic pulses making his face spasm, like a swimmer out at sea giving in to the constant barrage of waves that bat him around.

Machine In The Ghost

2008-12-04T00:41:00.003-05:00

This has go to be one of the most entrancing, fascinating, prophetic, and disturbing videos I've ever seen on the internet.

The National Security Team

2008-12-02T00:45:00.006-05:00

So we now have Obama's national security team, and for the most part, I like it. Gates staying at Defense is a strong choice, from what I've read. He has started to turn the department around, he actually respects and listens to the military more than Rumsfeld ever did, and seems able to work with people instead of maneuvering around them. I believe he comes from the classic realist school of foreign policy, so the Iraq War is something that he would probably have been skeptical about from the beginning. And yet he has also come to understand the inescapable reality of the 21st century where America will need to be deeply involved in the world for the foreseeable future. Retreating inside fortress America and worrying about narrow economic and military interests is not an option.

Eric Holder seems like perhaps an excellent choice. Here is someone capable, and more importantly, someone who might actually care about the law, the constitution and executive power, someone who has pointed out that the Justice Department must stand with some distance from the rest of the White House, and who said today that Justice plays a, "unique role," in the administration and that, "it is incumbent those of us who lead the department to ensure not only that the nation is safe but also that our laws and traditions are respected." I'll take it with a grain of salt until I see actual results, but he feels like a clean break from Bush enablers like Gonzalez and Mukaskey.

Of James Jones I have read little except that he's opinionated and another foreign policy realist who's come around to seeing things a little differently, like Gates. He should not be the failure that Rice was. He will hopefully have the strength to wrangle the heavyweights Obama has chosen.

Lastly, of course, is Clinton. My feelings about her as Secretary of State are mixed. She has star power and intelligence and toughness, all of which help her new job. But she was a terrible manager of her campaign and is a... Clinton, which always means ego and potential for distracting, high drama (and it always means Bill!). On that tack I hope Obama knows what he's doing. I really, really do. And, on substance, while I initially wondered why he chose her, I'm starting to see that it fits with Obama's foreign policy beliefs and general character. During the campaign, they were never that far apart on policy, but there were some interesting, and telling issues where they differed, and where I agreed with him more: on Cuba, where he was for greater openness and rapproachment, on nuclear proliferation, where he was more clearly for significant change (I think), and on the initial vote to go to war, of course. These are not major differences, at least not now (though they disagreed on the vote for war, that's not a barrier to them agreeing on getting out), but still they made me wonder if the two saw eye-to-eye on that as much as they should.

After listening to Obama today, it occurs to me that to focus on these issues is to miss the forest for the trees and ignore who Obama is. He and she may have differences on some things, but as he said today, on the overall course U.S. foreign policy should take, they are in, "almost complete agreement." The point here is that what he really cares about is the overall shape of his foreign policy. The other, individual issues are simply not that important to him. He's focusing on grand strategy, as is his tendency: Obama has always tended to "go big" on issues and ignore or compromise or postpone dealing with smaller issues. Even if he would like to, say, have a closer relationship with Cuba, he has too many other problmes of global scope on his plate to have his main goals disturbed by a regional issue. On the broad strokes, I bet Clinton really does agree with him and that is why he chose her and she accepted. She has always been a bit of a hawk, but he has also made somewhat aggressive, or just plain agressive, comments: on killing jihadists inside Pakistan, on Russia invadeing South Ossetia, on the issue of Jerusalem in any Israeli/Palestinian agreement. When it comes to overall foreign policy I think he's actually a pretty pragmatic realist who wants diplomacy to work, but has no problem using physical force when necessary. (Obama has been known to admire George Bush, Sr.'s foreign policy, and has received advice from Brent Scocroft.)

Finally, part of the reason for agreement I think might also be that, because things are in such a bad place right now for the U.S. in the world, the different branches of U.S. foreign policy (minus the crazies -- isolationists or neoconservatives) have come into closer agreement on what that policy should be. Both progressives, liberal hawks and realists all feel that we must: pull out of Iraq, repair our international relationships, shift more of our resources away from military spending and more towards aid and diplomacy, and take greater action on issues such as climate change, energy security and nuclear proliferation. The previous eight years have just made these issues very clear and a rough consensus has emerged. At least for now. If Obama is successful and a good part of these issues is taken care of, then, ironically, I wonder if more cracks will start to show as everyone's differences become magnified. It's entirely possible that this team works precisely because the U.S. is in such a bad place that what we have to do to get out of it is obvious to everybody. What happens later is a different story.

Mumbai Motivation

2008-12-01T10:31:00.003-05:00

At Counterterrorism blog there is an interview discussing the motivations behind Mumbai. I don't know this guy's reputation, so, just skimming it I don't know how authoratative he is, but his analysis is very plausible. I should have seen it, knowing what I know from my class: First, this is about sparking a war between Pakistan and India. Second, this is about sparking such a war so that pressure is relieved from Pakistan's Western front, where Pakistani soldiers are fighting jihadists. Third, Al-Qaeda is probably involved in this at some level -- if not at the operational, planning level, then at the inspirational, global strategy level. This kind of attack, whether directed by Al Qaeda or not helps its overall mission, and, as I mentioned, helps its current state of health in Pakistan by potentially making the Pakistani forces that are fighting it withdraw to go fight along Pakistan's Eastern border in a conflict with India. The whole point of terrorism is to create an overreaction from the countries involved.

Oui Nous Pouvons!

2008-12-01T00:25:00.005-05:00

Sheesh! Sarkozy is just shameless! A reader of Andrew Sullivan's blog sent this in to him from Paris.

My Italian Twin

2008-11-30T20:32:00.005-05:00

Apparently, I haven't been living my life in New York City. I've actually been living in Florence. Click on this picture to get a better view:

I'm No Terrorism Expert But..., Ctd.

2008-11-29T17:44:00.002-05:00

A column in today's Times is a great place to start understanding what happened in Mumbai. It seems that it is about Indian issues, about the clash between traditional religious ideology and the new, business-oriented, cosmopolitan India that it opposes. Mumbai is the commercial center of India, the center of Bollywood filmmaking, a place that attracts international travellers and Indians with dreams of making it big: "Just as cinema is a mass dream of the audience, Mumbai is a mass dream of the peoples of South Asia."

And all this worldliness is anathema to the fundamentalist religious traditions in India, both Muslim and Hindu:

In today's Mumbai... Hindu and Muslim demagogues want the mobs to come out again in the streets, and slaughter one another in the name of God. They want India and Pakistan to go to war. They want Indian Muslims to be expelled. They want India to get out of Kashmir. They want mosques torn down. They want temples bombed.
And now it looks as if the latest terrorists were our neighbors, young men dressed not in Afghan tunics but in blue jeans and designer T-shirts. Being South Asian, they would have grown up watching the painted lady that is Mumbai in the movies: a city of flashy cars and flashier women. A pleasure-loving city, a sensual city. Everything that preachers of every religion thunder against. It is, as a monk of the pacifist Jain religion explained to me, “paap-ni-bhoomi”: the sinful land.

I'm No Terrorism Expert But...

2008-11-28T01:13:00.004-05:00

Commentor "Frank" asked me what I thought about the Mumbai attacks because he, " heard you hold some expert knowledge in the field of terrorism.' Right off the bat, let me correct you. I have NO expert knowledge in terrorism. I took one course in the subject at Columbia over the summer. I can tell you what I think, but it's really only half a degree above a lay-person.

First, from the reports I've read, here and here, it's not yet clear who did this. What I think we do know so far is that the attackers were young men, that the targets were the Indian elite and U.S. and British foreigners, that the attacks were dramatic and involved direct action by terrorists rather than timed explosives as in previous attacks, that they were fairly sophisticated in their planning, that a little known group, Deccan Mujahadeen, has claimed responsibility, though this group may not exist. The Indian Prime Minister has implied that Pakistan is linked to the attack and this may be true. The issue of Kashmir is a big one for India and Pakistan -- apparently Pakistani intelligence runs an organization named Lashkar-e-Taiba associated with Kashmir and maybe they helped plan this attack, though this group has denied it.

This is what occurs to me: Making the target the commercial capital of India, elites and foreigners, and making it such a big and sophisticated attack, using a direct attack instead of bombs, these are all strategic choices aimed at escalating the degree of notoriety and getting international media attention. Modern terrorism is pretty much defined by the use of modern media, which multiplies the effects of limited actual violence to make a small event into a really big one. Why do these militants want the attention? Maybe it's a show of force and makes militants get taken more seriously; maybe it ups the profile of the issues involved like India's growing economic power, it's elite classes, India perhaps becoming "owned" by foreigners (I'm just guessing here); maybe it is really about internal politics -- just anger filled Muslims saying, "no one is safe, not even the elites; maybe it's an attempt to globalize a local grievance by Indian Islamic militants playing to a global Muslim audience. The fact that U.S. and British citizens were taken hostage is interesting since these are the two main countries involved in Iraq. Maybe this is a way for Indian Muslims to exploit the Iraq War, getting their local situation noticed by a global Muslim community angry over Iraq.

Also, commentor Frank seems confused by the fact that the attacks were not suicide attacks. Well, yes, many attacks throughout the world are suicide attacks, but many are not -- the Madrid and London train bombings weren't, for example. There could be many reasons why they're not: greater possible damage; a longer event -- and longer media coverage -- as hostages are taken and held for days; the particular character of a group which rejects suicide terrorism, perhaps. There are many possible reasons.

Transformational Change

2008-11-22T17:51:00.003-05:00

In my previous post I mentioned some of the big, ambitious changes I thought Obama might make. Here is a little information on what I think these new policies might look like. It's late, so for now I'm just going to put up the quotes without commentary.

First, I said he would re-orient our national security towards global issues. In a New Yorker from October, Obama and McCain's foreign policies were contrasted. It discusses a group of foreign-policy Democrats who call themselves The Phoenix Initiative. Among them was Susan Rice, being considered for a top spot in the new administration. They wrote a report about a new vision for U.S. foreign policy:

“This report,” Rice writes in her preface, “breaks away from such traditional concepts as containment, engagement, and enlargement and rejects standard dichotomies of realist power politics versus liberal idealism.” It “offers bold and genuinely new thinking about America’s role.” The report lists five top “strategic priorities” for the United States. The first three are issues that governments, or even international organizations, can’t handle on their own: counterterrorism, nuclear proliferation, and, taken together, climate change and oil dependence. The other two are regional: the Middle East and East Asia. The report barely mentions great-power diplomacy, the traditional core concept of statecraft. It is not just post-Cold War but post-war on terror and, arguably, post-American hegemony. (It makes a point of describing the war in Iraq as a bad idea, rather than as a good idea poorly executed.) It speaks of “interconnectedness” and “diffuse power.” It isn’t dovish or sanguine, exactly—those top three strategic priorities are all threats—but it definitely does not envision American military power, or even power combined with diplomacy, as the only effective tool of foreign-policymaking.

Well before the Phoenix Initiative’s report came out, Obama was using similar themes in his speeches.

I also mentioned that Obama would put energy policy at the center of everything. I got this by reading an interview he gave to Joe Klein at Time Magazine. It's long and very interesting, but the key part (or "money quote" in blog terminology) is here:

The biggest problem with our energy policy has been to lurch from crisis to trance. And what we need is a sustained, serious effort. Now, I actually think the biggest opportunity right now is not just gas prices at the pump but the fact that the engine for economic growth for the last 20 years is not going to be there for the next 20, and that was consumer spending. I mean, basically, we turbo-charged this economy based on cheap credit. Whatever else we think is going to happen over the next certainly 5 years, one thing we know, the days of easy credit are going to be over because there is just too much de-leveraging taking place, too much debt both at the government level, corporate level and consumer level. And what that means is that just from a purely economic perspective, finding the new driver of our economy is going to be critical. There is no better potential driver that pervades all aspects of our economy than a new energy economy.

I was just reading an article in the New York Times by Michael Pollen about food and the fact that our entire agricultural system is built on cheap oil. As a consequence, our agriculture sector actually is contributing more greenhouse gases than our transportation sector. And in the mean time, it's creating monocultures that are vulnerable to national security threats, are now vulnerable to sky-high food prices or crashes in food prices, huge swings in commodity prices, and are partly responsible for the explosion in our healthcare costs because they're contributing to type 2 diabetes, stroke and heart disease, obesity, all the things that are driving our huge explosion in healthcare costs. That's just one sector of the economy. You think about the same thing is true on transportation. The same thing is true on how we construct our buildings. The same is true across the board.

For us to say we are just going to completely revamp how we use energy in a way that deals with climate change, deals with national security and drives our economy, that's going to be my number one priority when I get into office, assuming, obviously, that we have done enough to just stabilize the immediate economic situation.

What Does "Change" Mean?

2008-11-22T16:20:00.004-05:00

So last night I was talking with a friend about the Obama transition. He was surprised when I told him that I liked the pragmatism and results-oriented nature of his appointments so far. We started talking about Obama's campaign slogan of "change" and I talked about how it was always over-blown and even called it "propaganda". But, I wasn't thinking at all when I said that and since then I've been thinking about what that slogan actually meant. So here goes.

I think the slogan is accurate. First, on a basic level, the simple act of electing a Democrat, any Democrat, after eight years of Bush constitutes "change": practically any Democrat would enact a least a few policies which would be significantly different from what Bush did. Obama definitely fits that bill even if he were to do a few simple things he promised, like getting us out of Iraq and a middle-class tax cut. So "change" can simply mean, "not Bush" and, to many people, perhaps independents and Republicans that voted for him, it did.

I would say that during the campaign sometimes "change" did come to mean more than what he acutally believed, and people thought that he basically wouldn't act like a politician. The simplistic quality of campaigning did make some people think it was going to be COMPLETELY different if he was president. That we would pull out of Iraq immediately no matter what, that would keep his promise to take public financing, that he would talk only of unity and "post-partisanship", that he would do the town-hall debates with McCain over the summer (I hoped for that). Obama should be faulted for that, but to expect otherwise was always unrealistic. Obama is still a politician, and one known for his caution and pragmatic nature.

As a pragmatist who is not an idealogue he seeks out people who are similar, and who care about getting things done. H wants people who have the ability and experience to navigate the very difficult Washington bureaucracy to enact policy. Yes, these are not fresh faces. But that's a plus. The Obama transition is very aware of not falling into the same pitfalls as the Clinton transition, where fresh faces were installed who ended up causing significant chaos and ineffectiveness at the beginning of the Clinton administration. From as far back as May of 2007, when I read this New Yorker article, I've always believed that Obama believes in evolutionary, not revolutionary, change. So, to me that means he is cautious in his campaign and doesn't take unnecessary risks, and for his administration picks very smart, capable pragmatists. This won't please everyone and doesn't always mean Change: he might move slower on Iraq than some people would like, or not try to enact some big policy goals right away; his possible appointment of John Brennan as head of the CIA is an example of a moderate choice that doesn't represent significant "change" -- John Brennan has been an apologist for torture, rendition and illegal domestic surveillance. It disturbs me very much.

But, while he's cautious, Obama is also a strategic thinker. He sees the big picture and I think is aware of the historical moment we're in. The financial and economic crisis, the success of the surge and new agreement with Iraq to pull out all troops by 2011 have come together to create an opportunity -- a big opportunity, I think. If these things hadn't happened his administration might be less ambitious. But as of now -- and I strenuously want to point out that not much has happened yet, besides appointing people and some policy proposals -- I think he is hoping to make BIG change happen. Rahm Emanuel has indicated that they plan to "throw long and deep" on policy and that "you never want a serious crisis go to waste":

Obama I think is planning to, indeed, "throw long" and...
- Not just pull out of Iraq, but change our foreign policy orientation away from individual states and towards global issues: climate-change, globalization, terrorism.
- Put energy policy at the center of U.S. policy as it relates to the economy, national security and climate change.
- Enact some form of universal health care. simply achieving this would be a dramatic change from what we've always known (and one step closer to.... socialism!!)
- Change the tax code to improve middle class incomes, which have stagnated this decade, and , I think, even since 1975.

While Obama is a pragmatist and is skeptical of revolutions, it doesn't mean that he thinks BIG change is impossible. It's just that he is cautious and careful about how he goes about it. Two examples from his own life are instructive here. First, the decision to run for president. His election is one of the most improbable political events in our history. For him to decide to run was a huge risk in many ways. But he read the winds of history right and he won. Second, his response to the Reverend Wright controversy. He decided to tackle the issue with a nuanced, landmark speech on race instead of something more conventional, something that said this is no big deal, or didn't really get into the issue of race. He gambled and it payed off. Obama is capable of being something other than cautious. He represents change, but also potentialy Change. He can take risks. He takes them when they are a good, strategic decision. I think that kind of moment may have arrived, and I think he is going to take it.

Holder Reassures

2008-11-21T00:50:00.003-05:00

Though I am troubled by the more and more certain appointment of John Brennan as head of the CIA I am reassured by the fact that Eric Holder will probably become the Attorney General. Holder seems to have a great record speaking out against executive power, torture, renditions, warrantless eavesdropping and Guantanamo.

Cosmo Brown Changes My Mind

2008-11-20T23:56:00.005-05:00

Commenter Cosmo Brown makes some sharp points about my last post and the Team of Rivals concept that's been floating around regarding Obama's cabinet. The concept is being thoughtlessly and uncritically talked about. As Brown notes, the point should be, how will dissent be dealt with between Obama and the cabinet members as well as among the cabinet. Lincoln has been hailed as a political genius for setting up his administration this way, but an op-ed in the Times today calls that seriously into question: what Lincoln did was neither new nor effective. It shows the big pitfalls of having rivals hanging around who have grievances and don't trust their relationships with the president or the rest of the cabinet. On this last point, Thomas Friedman has a great column on how, when it comes to a secretary of state, trust is essential. "When it comes to appointing a secretary of state, you do not want a team of rivals." He points out that the best, most powerful secretaries of the past few decades have been Baker and Kissinger. Any foreign leader who talked to them knew that by talking to them they were talking to the president. Thinking in this light, Clinton as secretary of state seems problematic: It's hard to imagine Obama and Clinton having a trusting relationship. They don't seem to be close, they had a sometimes bitter primary fight, Hillary might let her resentment get the best of her, and then, as always, there's Bill (that man is NEVER going away!)

In addition, she has revealed herself to be, with her health care plan in the early 90s and with her Presidential campaign, to be a terrible manager, breeding mistrust between her and Congress in her health plan and mistrust among her staff in her campaign. It doesn't bode well for her ability to manage an effective government bureaucracy and inspire loyalty among State Department staff.

So far it should be said that they seem to be behaving somewhat, at least in the fact that Bill has fairly readily given the Obama transition team all the information that it has asked for (and apparently would give more without much hesitation). Still, I'm a little worried. Clinton has abilities, and star power, which could be important -- I can imagine a world-famous person like herself would have greater status and pull with foreign leaders than a Madeleine Albright or Warren Christopher. (She is also very knowledgeable about the Middle East, at least according to Jeffrey Goldberg). Still, it remains to be seen whether she can really work under Obama and keep her ego in check. Will she undermine him? That may be a little extreme (she wants to succeed for herself as much as him), but will she really work as a loyal team player? Does she even see the issues in basically the same way as he does?

Lastly, Steve Clemons has a more positive view of this whole thing here. It makes some decent and some mediocre points, and I'm still skeptical.

Teams, Of Transitions And Rivals

2008-11-18T01:00:00.003-05:00

From everything I've read so far, I just have to say that I have been very happy, even excited by Obama's transition process: He is focusing first on the White House staff, not the Cabinet (a mistake Bill Clinton made); he has appointed a total player, wonk and loyalist as Chief of Staff who seems to be about getting things done and knowing how to do it in a place like Washington; he has already begun to signal or outright state what his first priorities will be (the economy and energy); and, by the fact that he is considering having Gates and Clinton in his Cabinet he is assembling a "team of rivals" Linclon-style, which I love. This is a man who is not afraid of having a lot of strong and differing advice around him. Though it just occurred to me that Bush's cabinet looked this way at first -- remember that Rumsfeld the heavyweight was brought in to counter Powell the heavyweight -- it feels like Obama's choices, if they are Gates and Clinton, go much farther. First, Gates is a Republican, so this is a true oppositional voice. Also, he is a holdover from the Bush administration. Obama wants the whatever wisdom the Bush administration has accumulated inside his administration (unlike the Bushies who seemed to do everything the opposite of Clinton). Second, Clinton is a mega-star, known the world over. Her reputation and level of fame rivals his. To have someone who he ran against in a harsh campaign in his cabinet is a sign of real maturity. In this context the pick of Emanuel also looks good: such strong personalities need a strong hand to control them. In the first four Bush years Condi Rice got steamrolled as National Security Advisor (of course, it didn't help to have Cheney doing whatever he wanted). A strong chief of staff seems to signal a strong desire for centralized decision-making.

"America Doesn't Torture", Ctd.

2008-11-18T00:39:00.003-05:00

Yesterday I wrote about how I was relieved to hear on 60 minutes that Obama plans to end torture as U.S. policy. It was clear and unequivocal and it is still heartening. But, I also noted that John Brennan, former head of the National Counter Terrorism Center is in possibly in line for Director of the C.I.A. and has supported torture in the past. This morning I thought it would be enough if Obama were to make himself clear. Maybe it will be, but Andrew Sullivan reminds me that this is such a key issue, and such an issue rife with potential for equivocation, that appointing a person associated with the Bush administration on this, even if the extent of the association and support is probably not the way to go. I say probably because I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Obama -- he seems to be assembling a "team of rivals" cabinate, a team that will allow for diverse opinions, so perhaps he wants someone to challange him even on controversial intelligence and torture.

But, still, I am a little queasy: torture is a bright line for me. It's not something to be debated. It can only be rejected completely and in crytal clear ways. Some of Brennan's interviews (like this one with CBS's Harry Smith, which can be found on Glenn Greenwald's site) don't give me hope:

Mr. BRENNAN: Well, the CIA has acknowledged that it has detained about 100 terrorists since 9/11, and about a third of them have been subjected to what the CIA refers to as enhanced interrogation tactics, and only a small proportion of those have in fact been subjected to the most serious types of enhanced procedures.

SMITH: Right. And you say some of this has born fruit.

Mr. BRENNAN: There have been a lot of information that has come out from these interrogation procedures that the agency has in fact used against the real hard-core terrorists. It has saved lives. And let's not forget, these are hardened terrorists who have been responsible for 9/11, who have shown no remorse at all for the deaths of 3,000 innocents.

These are exactly the same types of answers supporters of torture have been giving for years.

Also, there's this article from the AP on how Bush officials who authorized torture are unlikely to see prosecution from an Obama Justice Department. This is completely expected. As a very practical and political person, Obama would not want his administrations energies sucked up by something so controversial as that, especially since it would probably lead to a direct confrontation with some of the most powerful former Bushies. I'm not sure how I feel about this myself: I don't want Obama's administration absrobed by this one issue so much it can't accomplish anything, but I think getting to the bottom of this is part what it means to live under the rule of law, plus it would set a precendent making it harder for future administrations to abuse power. I guess I think it should happen, but I won't cry a lot if it doesn't.

A New New Deal?

2008-11-16T20:13:00.002-05:00

Another very good answer from the 60 minutes interview with Obama. This one on his Economic policy:

Kroft: There's been talk on Capitol Hill and a number of Democratic congressmen have proposed programs that are part of sort of a new New Deal. The possibility of reviving agencies like the Home Ownership Loan Corporation.

Mr. Obama: Two points I'd make on this. Number one, although there are some parallels to the problems that we're seeing now and what we say back in the '30s, no period is exactly the same. For us to simply recreate what existed back in the '30s in the 21st century, I think would be missing the boat. We've gotta come up with solutions that are true to our times and true to this moment. And that's gonna be our job. I think the basic principle that government has a role to play in kick starting an economy that has ground to a halt is sound.

I think our basic principle that this is a free market system and that that has worked for us, that it creates innovation and risk taking, I think that's a principle that we've gotta hold to as well. But what I don't wanna do is get bottled up in a lot of ideology and is this conservative or liberal. My interest is finding something that works.

And whether it's coming from FDR or it's coming from Ronald Reagan, if the idea is right for the times then we're gonna apply it. And things that don't work we're gonna get rid of.

He's a pragmatic guy, non-ideological, and I love it.

"America Doesn't Torture"

2008-11-16T19:49:00.006-05:00

Watching tonight's episode of 60 Minutes, Obama just said that closing Guantanamo and ending a policy of torture will be one of his top priorities once he's in office. I still hold back judgement until we see some actual results, but it's the most clear and definitive statement I've seen him make. I'm feeling hopeful that this awful, terrible policy might come to an end.

(Countering this is the rumor that the future head of the CIA may be John Brennan, former director of the National Counter-Terrorism Center, has been a supporter of rendition and "coercive interrogation. We shall see where Obama's beliefs really lie.)

Against The Auto Bailout

2008-11-14T01:54:00.004-05:00

I think this might be the first thing that Obama does that I will disagree with. It remains to be seen what the deal that he wants looks like -- though, according to the Times, it doesn't look like Congress has the votes -- but even so, I'm very skeptical that saving the auto industry is the right thing to do. My gut reaction is to agree with David Brooks:

This is a different sort of endeavor than the $750 billion bailout of Wall Street. That money was used to save the financial system itself. It was used to save the capital markets on which the process of creative destruction depends.
Granting immortality to Detroit’s Big Three does not enhance creative destruction. It retards it. It crosses a line, a bright line. It is not about saving a system; there will still be cars made and sold in America. It is about saving politically powerful corporations.A Detroit bailout would set a precedent for every single politically connected corporation in America.

While I readily admit that I know next to nothing about the issue, it seems to me that the big U.S. car companies have been slowly dying for decades. This emergency bailout would merely postpone the inevitable. I mean, Honda, Toyota show how you can be a successful, innovative car company. Thomas Friedman wrote yesterday about how the vice-chairman of G.M. said that Prius-like hybrids aren't profitable. But things look differently when demand for oil is increasing and will keep increasing over the long term. I suppose the car companies would have said that high gas prices are a recent, unpredictable phenomena. But my guess is they'd be wrong. It's a no brainer to see that over the decades, as poorer countries industrialize they will demand more energy and oil prices will go up. The Big Three are guilty of short-term tactical business strategies based on things like SUVs and trucks (where the profit margins are higher, I believe) when they should have been preparing for the inevitable.

An argument for the bailout would be the ripple effect of letting a car company go bankrupt in the middle of a recession, and I guess that I'm simply ignorant of the effect of this on the already tough economies of Michigan, Ohio, etc. But it seems to me that the failure of these companies represents something that won't be solved by an emergency bailout. These companies need massive, foundational-level change in order to compete in the 21st century and, as I said, the bailout merely postpones the inevitable.