9.29.2004

Solidity

The Bible tells us that the believer will not be shaken. David writes in the Psalms and is quoted in Acts, "Because He is at my right hand, I will not be shaken." Hebrews 12 tells us we "are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken." And the familiar words of Isaiah 53 assure us that "'though the mountains be shaken and the hills be removed, yet my unfailing love for you will not be shaken nor my covenant of peace be removed,' says the LORD , who has compassion on you."

As believers, we sometime feel like these verses apply to us. Those are the times when, like Pedro says in his ESPN advertisement, everything is working. When God feels close, and when things are going well. We can't be shaken.

Problem is, neither can anyone else. Who gives up in good times? What building falls down in a quiet breeze? The idea of shakability does not refer to the easy times but the difficult. It's the building that can stand up to an earthquake or a (these days more apropos) hurricane that is well-regarded. Likewise, we believers will withstand not just the soft breezes of morning, but the dark clouds and whipping winds of night.

It is important to note that nowhere does the Bible tell us that we should try really hard not to be shaken. What building can adjust to strengthen itself against storms? As strong as a building is in good weather, so strong must it be when it faces the torrent. Rather than require of us what is impossible, God has promised permanence to us as a gift. We will not be shaken because He is the unshakable foundation.

On this Rock I stand.

We Got 'Em

According to the Associated Press, Major League Baseball has reached an agreement with Peter "The Devil Incarnate" Angelos and will move the Montreal Expos to Washington D.C. Where they'll play, what they'll be called, and who will own them is all up for grabs.

Remember the Alamo?

The apparently-not-disinterested Houston Chronicle is comparing Tom DeLay's gerrymandering in Texas to the Alamo, and Democrat Chet Edwards of Waco to its brave Texan defenders. Not as bad as an Israeli right wingnut comparing the new Disengagement Commission to the Nazi-backed Judenrat, but still a bit overstated. Then again, this is Texas, where "A Helluva Good House Race" can pass as an editorial headline, and the stakes are as high as the Big Sky.

Not only does the Cook Political Report list it in the "Toss-up" column, but the electorate of the 17th include a certain Mr. and Mrs. Bush. As hard as Edwards and Republican newcomer Arlene Wohgemuth try to define themselves, the election may be decided on broader concepts. Republicans see the battle as a referendum on their favored son in the White House, casting their bid to oust the incumbant in terms of national leadership. Democrats are rallying voters who are angry at the redistricting plan, and want to show the powers in Austin that 60% Republican registration doesn't guarantee them a victory.

Each candidate has raised about $1.5 million, but Wohlgemuth has less than half a million dollars on hand, while Edwards, with strong PAC funding, has over a million, having faced no primary.

InstantReplay is sympathetic to both sides; a lot more is at stake here than the pork that Edwards can bring home from his Appropriations and Budget committee seats. The President's Republican neighbors will be chagrined if they can't send an ally to the House. Likewise, Democrats who did all that was politically possible to stop the redistricting plan are hoping for a moral victory over a sleezy political act. The Republicans aren't entirely to blame for the cutthroat districting; Democrats engaged in it freely when they were in control. The sheer number of new seats made this decade's process the toughest fight in Austin since the Texas War of Independence. The Republicans may have won this battle, but ultimately the voters of Texas will lose the war.

Texas and forty-nine other states need to pass constitutional amendments to end gerrymandering. Call it the "Common Sense Amendment": new districts will be created by a nonpartisan commission and must include entire communities wherever possible and may not be more than twice as long one way as the other, with necessary exceptions. This type of tinkering is not unprecedented, and though it would likely be as rankorous and unpleasant as the current process, the results would be fairer to many voters. The current system, it has been said, allows politicians to choose their voters instead of voters choosing their politicians. Making districts shaped like lumps instead of lines would make reelection a bit more of a challenge, and would force candidates to represent a geographical region - as the Founding Fathers intended - not an ethnic or socioeconomic group carved out to fit the needs of tribally-minded legislature.

Addendum

I forgot one big item on my birthday wish list: Operation World. Unless they're coming out with a new edition sometime soon, in which case wait.

9.28.2004

Stoned Slackers

The Boston Globe reports...

Bill O'Reilly of FOX called the audience of Comedy Central's Daily Show "stoned slackers". The wonks came back with the numbers today:

Viewers of Jon Stewart's [The Daily Show] are more likely to have completed four years of college than people who watch "The O'Reilly Factor," according to Nielsen Media Research...

Comedy Central also touted a recent study by the University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey, which said young viewers of "The Daily Show" were more likely to answer questions about politics correctly than those who don't.

Comedy Central had no statistics on how many people watch "The Daily Show" stoned.

Where do I fit into all of this? I just spent the last hour glued to C-SPAN.

9.27.2004

Out of the Blue

Wisconsin is a safe Democratic state.

That statement would have been taken at face value four years ago, when Gore took the Badger State. Mike Dukakis even won Wisconsin. Now, however, in the wake of John Kerry saying how glad he was to be at the home of the Packers, "Lamburgh Field", he's fallen in the polls 38%-52%, which is a bigger gap than Kerry faces in a lot of Red states, like Mississippi and Tennessee. Older polls show a Bush lead as well. Wisconsin has come out of the blue and into the red.

Not only are Wisconsin's 10 electoral votes up for grabs, but the Senate race is becoming a contested affair as well. Popular Senator Russ Feingold is ahead of Republican Tim Michels, but one poll put the race as close as 50%-45%. Feingold's key will be hanging on to Bush voters as well as straight-ticket Democrats. Polls indicate that he's doing a good job of it so far, despite his opposition to the war in Iraq and other Bush centerpieces. What's not debated is that the race has become one of America's most expensive, with $13.4 million spent so far.

The liberal Feingold's overlap of popularity with Bush highlights the ingredients missing from John Kerry's campaign. Feingold has a history of integrity, he's a leader in the Senate, he's nationally known for bipartisan reform legislation, and he's clear on his position in Iraq. The presidential election is not a referendum on the Iraq War - the 35% of likely Feingold voters who plan to split the ticket and vote Bush can attest to that. Nor is it a referendum on economics or even homeland security. The American people want a leader, and the Democratic Party failed to give them a legitimate option in 2004.

InstantReplay will go out on a limb and predict that the sponsors of the McCain-Feingold bill will be facing each other in the presidential election of 2008.

Cultural Failure

"CNN Presents" hooked me tonight with a program on the failure of educational race integration to achieve parity in results. All the data show that education is the #1 factor in terms of socioeconomic outcomes, overriding other factors such as race, parental wealth, etc. Things get sticky, though, when you ask people how the problem of poor education among Black Americans should be addressed.

Unlike "Lou Dobbs Tonight" (yellow journalism at its worst), this CNN program presented multiple sides to the story, and allowed experts more than a soundbite's worth to make their point. The affluent Shaker Heights High School in Ohio was profiled. It's a community consciously on the forefront of racial integration and one of the best school systems in the USA. The interviewers talked to experts, teachers, parents, and students from that school and others, and let each voice their opinions on the roots and solutions to the problem.

To me, the program highlighted a cultural failure. A failure not of Black culture, but of Ph.D. culture. The experts interviewed displayed common sense relating inversely to educational level. Not all but many of the Ph.D.'s interviewed toed the relativist party line: nothing is Black America's fault. A Chinese-background prof at Howard, Dr. Wu, rejected the idea that Blacks' underachievement & Asians' overachievement has cultural roots, saying instead that slavery was to blame. He went on to decry the pressure placed on Asian students (sometimes leading to suicide) because of high expectations. Is it just me, or is that contradictory? Or should we lower expectations across the board, and let everybody shoot for a Gentleman's 'C'?

Anyone who has walked down a street or hung out in an urban neighborhood in America can tell you there are cultural differences between blacks, whites, Asians, and others. The intellectual community is direly needed to do what they do best: study objectively and diagnose problems on a broad level. Does the problem lie with black parents? CNN showed a stat that among college-educated families making $100 grand or more, blacks were 5 times more likely to watch 6 hours of TV a day. Does the problem lie with peer groups? There is a wealth of anecdotal evidence that doing well in school is derided as "going white" in some circles. Does the problem lie with the media? CNN flashed some lewd clips of music videos that may convince black youth that the road to success is in drugs and rap, not banking or biotech. This is a social ill that merits serious research, but the ivory tower is AWOL. Instead of taking a serious look at causes and effects in modern Black America, the majority in this program and elsewhere are unwilling to sacrifice their cultural relativism. Guess what - if all cultures are equal, then all socioeconomic outcomes are equal! If we refuse to repudiate the destructive elements in any culture or subculture, where is our moral authority to say that poverty, lack of education, and low life expectancy are "bad" outcomes? By relativists' logic, aren't those just part of an alternative culture, and therefore above reproach?

The most sensible people in the program were a group of bright black seniors at Shaker Heights High. They had formed a group aimed at creating a high standard for underclassmen. Specifically race-conscious, the goal is to annihilate the stereotypes by confronting them with success; not by arguing them away, favored tack of the intellectuals. The students dress in suits for meetings, and show an image of ambition and success sharply variant from that championed by either the rappers or the Ph.D.'s. They want to be free of unfair stereotypes - and they're willing to work to get there.

Twenty years from now when the Shaker Heights Class of '05 is out in the workforce, to whom will they be more grateful? Dogmatic Ph.D.'s, who let their intellectual objectivity fall prey to a postmodernist ideology? Or a group of men and women, age 17, who decided to wear ties and cufflinks instead of do-rags and expensive sneakers? Certainly, blame for the modern condition of blacks can be attributed at least in part to slavery and discrimination, but that provides scant fuel for a forward struggle. The question is not what put America's blacks where they are; the question is how do they move forward. And the Ph.D. establishment has completely dropped the ball.

9.25.2004

Bike Ride

Took a nice bike ride out to Vienna today. This is the time of year that it really pays to live in NoVa - it's like summer in Boston! Passed a guy wearing a Soxaholix t-shirt on the path... gotta respect that kinda fandom after a loss like last night's.

At the bike shop, I had my rear wheel trued and brakes tightened. It's nice to get somethin' for nothin'; this was my free 30-day tune-up.

I don't think I've ever run over a squirrel before. Honestly, I didn't see it, but you know how squirrels are - when they sense danger, they run to their favorite tree, even if that means crossing the street (or bike path) in front of said danger. So the squirrel wasn't in front of me, but after a felt a bump and something firm thwap against my pedaling foot, I looked behind and saw the poor devil scurrying away. The white trashy guy on the bike behind me just laughed and shook his head.

Par For the Curse

The Red Sox took most of the drama out of the pennant race by losing again today. Oh well. Let's not collapse; just play .500 baseball the rest of the way, and get set for a wicked assault on Minnesota (or whomever) in the Divisional Series. This week has hurt too much, and the playoffs aren't even at stake yet! I'm just going to relax and stop watching/listening to every game. It's too much stress and it's taking over my life. I don't want that. Until the playoffs, that is.

9.24.2004

Winning

This week in Boston, the team came very close to four-game sweep. The team played hard even when the bullpen caughed it up. They played hard in low-scoring games, they played hard in high-scoring games, and they really looked like a team that is ready for the playoffs. There were some managerial question marks, but the manager left no doubt that he was going all-out to win every game. The team is, of course, the Baltimore Orioles.

Contrast that with the Red Sox, who are darned lucky not to have been swept. Keith Foulke obviously had a lousy series, and the bats weren't as alive as they could have been, but I place the blame squarely in two places.

(1) The starting pitchers. I don't know what Derek Lowe has to do, but he has to do something. Likewise Wakefield. Schilling was a demi-god, of course, and I find it hard to criticize Bronson.

(2) Terry Francona. He's managing this game like it's a marathon. IT'S NOT A MARATHON, TITO, IT'S A SPRINT!! There are 9 games left, and he's lets recovering Byung-Hyun Kim pitch against two tough left-handers. He pinch-hits Ellis Burks (who admittedly got a hit). Terry Francona had given up on the Red Sox winning last night, and since he's the manager, the prophecy was self-fulfilling. Worse yet, in a tie game he brought on Terry Adams and then Ramiro Mendoza and later Mike Myers and Kim. Did I miss something, or do Keith Foulke, Mike Timlin, Scott Williamson and Alan Embree still play for the Sox? The first four relievers have an unweighted average ERA of 4.91; the latter four 2.89. Francona needs to go down to Foxboro and have dinner with Bill Bellichek, and learn something about the attitude behind winning. Winning isn't an accident. It isn't the long-term result of averages working themselves out. There's nothing I despise more than baseball professionals who take that approach to the game; they should be traded to Tampa. Baseball games CAN be won the same way football games are: by fighting for every run, having 13-pitch at-bats. Why do guys suddenly become tough when they're in a clutch situation? If Brian Daubach could fight off 6 pitches and then send a double down into the corner to win in extra innings years ago, why couldn't he do it with 2 outs, nobody on, third inning? Maybe I'm out to lunch, but I really believe that approach would win a team 10 more games over a season.

Or maybe, just maybe, they get paid the same amount for popping out on the first pitch, and it's just not worth the effort.

Conceptions of Limited War

Haaretz today has a fascinating editorial by Ze'ev Schiff on Israeli misconceptions associated with the Yom Kippur (aka Ramadan, aka October) War. It's a high-caliber intellectual article, and the first half is an arcane discussion of Israeli politics and dead politicians. The latter half - beginning with the subheading "Blind Spot" - is an interesting discussion of Egypt's strategic aims in the limited war, and the failure of Israeli intelligence at the time.

9.23.2004

Happy Birthday To Me

As I celebrate my 22nd birthday by coming to Boston in a few weeks, dozens of people have been asking me what I would like for my birthday. A fair question... so here's a few ideas.

Rwanda & France

AllAfrica.com has a headline that reads: Rwanda 'Turning' Its Back On French Language. The headline suggests a serious split with Rwanda's longstanding francophonic heritage, begun by the Belgian colonists. Not only does the article fail to mention the Belgians at all; the story (and the reality) fall far short of the dramatic expectations elicited by the misleading headline.

The reality? Rwanda has established a commission to investigate France's possible role in the genocide of 1994. In truth, I suspect both nations are at fault. The French certainly bear some fault in failing to do what was in their power to halt the genocide. Instead, they hemmed and hawed and did their best to keep a francophone government in place. However, the anglophones took over, and have promoted English a lot. This latest commission is more likely a smokescreen than anything else, seeking to shift blame onto France for a Rwandese-created genocide and shift focus from current problems to the horrors of the past. Paul Kagame is quickly becoming a dictator, and nobody inside or outside Rwanda has the heart to do anything about it - the risk of violence is too high to justify destablizing the political scene.

Introducing

Two new faces join the blogroll today. My friend Holly Jordan has some funny stuff and some good international affairs discussion on her new blog, though the color scheme is a bit rough. To the Election 2004 section, we add Sabato's Crystal Ball, on a recommendation from Garrett.

9.22.2004

Blog For Democracy

Props to the Iranian blogging cadre for their efforts to promote democracy. This type of ingrained attitude of free speech and strong civil society is what has always led me to believe that Iran is destined for democracy - and that the U.S. shouldn't mess around too much in the process.

Support democracy by visiting an Iranian blog today. As BBC notes, many have renamed themselves after the closed reformist papers Emrooz, Rooydad, and Baamdad, which themselves have taken refuge in the blogosphere:
Myself
BBoy - Emrooz
Iranian Prospect
Emrooz (Rooznegar)
Stop.Censoring.Us
Iranian Girl
Eyeranian
Emrooz | A Bigger Picture
faghat mikham begam dooset daram
Behnoud.com
EMROOZ (McEs, A Hacker's Life)
...and thousands more.

9.21.2004

Coming to Boston

Last time I came to Boston, I spent $90 on gas, and 17 hours on the road. This time I'm splurging: $96.70 airfare. That's from United Airlines, assuming they don't go out of business before Columbus Day weekend. Independence Air has similar prices for early weekday and Saturday afternoon flights. Therefore, none of you have an excuse not to come down and visit me.

Greenspan Gone?

Apparently, Alan Greenspan has confirmed the suspicions that he will retire when his term expires in January. Is this not on the front page of the New York Times because it's hardly news anymore, or because it broke too late for them?

The Washington Post and MSNBC both carry Nell Henderson's story that Greenspan - who is second only to Christ in his ability to calm storms with a single word - needed only a nod to indicate his upcoming resignation. The prognosticators are already out in force, predicting that Bush would appoint supply-sider Martin Feldstein, and Kerry would tag Robert Rubin, both in their mid-sixties. As the Chairmanship of the Federal Reserve has increasingly resembled a lifetime position, the papers feel compelled to report not only the economics backgrounds of the possible nominees, but their ages as well.

In other news, Greenspan eclipsed 'news' (?) of his own retirement by raising rates a quarter point. This might have a counterintuitive reaction in the stock market; even though a rate raise may slow business down, it also indicates that the Fed has confidence in the economy. So far, the result today has been more or less a wash.

Syrian Fear

Syria is taking the U.S. threat of invasion for real. In a good-faith response to pressure from the U.S. and Europe to get Syria out of Lebanese politics, the Syrians withdrew their forces from the population centers of coastal Lebanon.

This story is still developing, but the mere fact that there is a story testifies to the inordinate power of the United States in the Middle East. Syria is now completely surrounded by staunch U.S. allies; what will befall it either suddenly or gradually is anyone's guess.

Election 04 > The Presidency > The Issues > The Confusion

Normally, I try to avoid polemical politics. Therefore, I hope my left-leaning readers will not reject this blog out of hand; but John Kerry deserves to be fisked on this one.

BBC has the most straightforward version of this story, and they boil it down:

But on Monday, Mr Kerry - who voted to give President Bush the authority to go to war - said he would not have invaded.

He criticised the president for saying he would still have gone to war knowing that Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction.

"President Bush tells us he would do it everything all over again, the same way. How can he possibly be serious? Is he really saying to America that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to al Qaeda, the United States should have invaded Iraq? My answer, resoundingly: no -- because a commander-in-chief's first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe."

How can Kerry possibly be serious? Is this the same candidate who voted for the empowering resolution, and who said he would have voted for it 'knowing what we know now'? It's OK to change your mind, John, but would you please acknowledge that you've changed it? Or that you was just playin' wid us the first time?

If elected, what would you do? How can your plan for the war on terror be "smarter, more effective" and worth voting for if you can't consistently articulate it? Unlike Bush, you speak decent English - that's a tool you should use to communicate with voters!

Kerry promises to use four-point plan in Iraq, all of which are already centerpieces (and rather obvious ones at that) of the U.S. plan there. And the result, Kerry promises, of voting him in as Commander-in-Chief will be that "we could begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer and realistically aim to bring all our troops home within the next four years." We "could"? Not "we will"? In four years? We could in one year - we had better in four years! Mr. Kerry, if you think that America can endure another four years of serious occupation, you are sorely out of touch. Even Bush would get us out of there by then!

In other news, as Dick Cheney tries to dress down and pretend he has something in common with the American people, he ends up looking more and more like George Costanza.

Overheard on the T

"So I heard you got a new dog."
"Yeah, and I named him Sox."
"Why, because he has white feet?"
"No, because he always wets the bed in September."

9.20.2004

Lunch Hour

The highlight of my trip to the American History Museum today was the three mile roundtrip bike ride. It's such beautiful autumn weather here in the district, complete with photo-snapping Japanese tourists and construction obstructing some of the top sites.

The Museum wasn't shabby either - today I began a tour of "The American Presidency: A Glorious Burden". Lots of cool campaign buttons, footage, and displays about the basics. One of the rooms is in the shape of the Oval Office, and there's a pleasant stately aura - as well as a voting machine and a special on-site gift shop, for those who want to help the economy.

9.18.2004

Do You See What I See?

Am I the only person in complete and utter awe of the Red Sox tonight? Every logical thought, every probable scenario said they would lose this game. The closer they marched towards their 27th out, the closer the "Loss" looked. But I had faith - and wore it on my sleeve, watching the game with Shawn, Ben, and Julia - and that faith was not disappointed. The Red Sox win it 3-2, annihilate Mariano Rivera's aura, and move one giant step closer to taking over the lead in the AL East in what may be, could be, I'm just beginning to believe possibly might be The Year.

9.17.2004

The Conference

I spent much of the last month - and all of last weekend - preparing for and helping run the 13th Annual Arab-U.S. Policymakers Conference. The below article, by Georgie Anne Geyer, is pretty much on target. The cover of our program, below, was designed by yours truly with input from coworkers. The hands are mine and my coworker Shawn's.


Posted by Hello ARAB-U.S. CONFERENCE OFFERS FEW SOLUTIONS TO MIDDLE EAST DILEMMAS

WASHINGTON -- If you want a sense of the despair that is gripping many intelligent, experienced and patriotic American professionals and officials, come with me to this week's 13th Annual Arab U.S. Policymakers Conference. Talk about midnight at the end of the tunnel!

"This year, I am much less confident than I was last year about the conflict in Iraq," said Chas. W. Freeman, who was U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War. "Neither candidate is saying much about how he would address the conflict, but both are instead involved in this infantile debate about Kerry's silver star and whether George Bush turned up in Alabama to fight the Viet Cong, should they turn up."

"We don't have a civil war in Iraq -- yet," Dr. Phebe Marr, author of "The Modern History of Iraq," told the group meeting at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel here. "One of the things that disturbs me most is that it is clear the Americans can't assume responsibility for keeping order, while the Iraqi forces are not moving up to the plate. If this doesn't work, we'll get a fragile central government and a total decomposition -- like Lebanon in the '80s -- with militias all over the place."

"The situation in the region is stark," said Philo Dibble, one of the top Middle East experts in the State Department. "Forty-five percent of the population is under 15 -- and that population will double in the next 20 years. But we will pursue getting it right in Iraq ... because we don't have any choice."

Two scholars, men of Arab-American background who are respected in their field for their fair-minded analyses, both warned that the American presence in Iraq, far from bringing together the disparate, fissiparous groups of the thwarted Arab societies, was causing them to regress. They saw a return to tribalism, to old family clans and to more extreme religious persuasions, in place of the supposedly inevitable (according to the delusionary war-planners) "national, democratic Iraq."

As Dr. Edmund Ghareeb, Middle East professor at American University, told the group frankly: "One of the consequences of the war is a revival of tribal, sectarian and religious differences. How to create a feasible new Iraqi identity? The process had gone far in the '70s, but present events are undermining the whole process." And Dr. Shibley Telhami of the University of Maryland carried the theme of "decomposition" further, stating that even the "Palestinian/Israeli conflict is increasingly being perceived in ethnic and religious terms -- and that doesn't work for a nationalist two-state solution."

The conference, held by the National Council on U.S.-Arab Relations and sponsored by a host of American companies such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Aramco Services Co., had as its title a hopeful question: "Restoring Arab-U.S. Mutual Trust and Confidence: What Is Feasible? What Is Necessary?" But answers were not exactly flowing from any lips.

The best that Dr. Anthony Cordesman, scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, could think of was for the United States to support Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's equivocal plan to evacuate Gaza first and hand it over to the Palestinians.

"Bad as it may be, Gaza is the only game we have that could make things better," he said at one point. "Maybe we could make it work as a first step, for the alternative is more paralysis. The second step, long overdue for the U.S. government, is not to tolerate violence on the Palestinian side -- but also not to tolerate the settlers or the fence on the Israeli side."

Some others offered the old idea that "Israel's security should be assured regionally" -- that the United States, Europe, Russia and the moderate Arab countries must come together to solve the problem FOR the Israelis and the Palestinians, who have certainly not shown they can solve it themselves. This is an excellent idea -- but there is not a chance in hell that the Bush administration, which automatically supports Sharon on anything he does, would even consider it.

In fact, said Ambassador Freeman, he would like to ask President Bush flatly about the next four years: "If you're re-elected, is the invasion of Iran the target? What about Syria? What is the meaning of all the talk about the Saudi royal family? What about the Holy Land and the conflict? Will you continue to do everything Sharon says? What ABOUT Iraq?"

To this, Dr. Telhami reverted to the question of whether there ARE any differences between the two candidates on the crucial Middle East questions -- and he warned the group not to be too cynical.

"Yes," he said, "it is hard to discern differences between the candidates on the Middle East, but I do think there are differences. With President Bush, it was the first time in the U.S. that a president came to power believing that the Palestinian question was no longer an important question for America -- that is a historic aberration. To the contrary, Kerry has said all along that it needed to be addressed. The question is, 'What does it mean to support Israel?' Two-thirds of American Jews have been opposed to what the Bush administration is doing with Sharon. In the end, it's how a single president defines those interests."

Dr. Telhami warned that if President Bush thinks the world sees him as stronger because of the Iraq war, he is desperately mistaken. "We just did a survey of six Arab countries, and the vast majority feel that the U.S. is weaker than before the war and therefore less able to use its leverage internationally."

If you go to meetings like this one looking for answers, as I do, the prognosis these days is not good. The best that could be provided were lukewarm remedies such as the cynical "Gaza First." Hope did not attend the meeting; it stuck its head in once and then beat it.

Listening to these fine minds, the depressing conclusion is that George W. Bush has weakened not only himself, but his country, in his cowboy crusader adventures among complicated worlds he chooses not to know.

COPYRIGHT 2004 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE

Bring It On

At risk of sounding like a candidate for the presidency, I'm ready for the New York Yankees, and ready for the Red Sox to bring their hotshot road show into th House that Ruthlessness Built. What happens when an irresistable force hits an immovable object? See it live tonight on ESPN!

Can Bronson "Wet-Behind-The-Ears" Arroyo match the 8-0, 2.49 ERA Orlando "El Duque" Hernandez? Can the Red Sox bats stay consistent up and down the lineup? Will Millar spontaneously combust if he gets any hotter?

Bring

It

On!

9.16.2004

Medium-Sized Wars

Historian James Stokesbury has this to say about the war in Iraq:

Any government that goes to war does so, unless it is absolutely frivolous, to make a point, and it makes that point by the expenditure, in greater or lesser degree, of treasure, military skill, and above all, lives. It is more difficult for democratic states to do this than it is for totalitarian ones... Democracies can therefore best fight two kinds of wars: little ones, which are simply fought by their professionals, without bothering the ordinary citizen; and great big ones, in which everyone can be caught up in a crusading fervor. They have very real problems trying to fight a middle-sized war, where some go and some stay home. They have even more trouble if they place a very high value on the worth of the individual, while their opponent does not.

The excerpt is from a book published in 1981, A Short History of the Korean War, but the lesson holds true today. It has bothered me from the beginning of the war on terror that the administration is at the same time attempting to mobilize the populace and trying to get us back to business as usual. Are we at war or aren't we? If the danger is truly as severe as Bush makes it sound, why aren't we converting car factories into bomb factories, and going all out to win this existential conflict? On the other hand, if the future really is bright, and the economy is looking up, and America is a safe place to invest, why are we spending all this time and money on a pointless war? Is there a real existential threat or isn't there?!

The Korean War included a year of decisive battles, and two years of peace talks accompanied by half-hearted jockeying along a largely fixed line. Consider yourself warned.

9.14.2004

El Limon

My dear friend Adela is in central Guatemala right now, applying her skills as an R.N. to the needs of a rural region and living at the Canticos de Gozo (Songs of Joy) Home for Children. Here's part of a recent report she sent to her prayer supporters:

Today we went to El Limon, a place where people from my church went last month. It was the first time that a medical group had gone with the word of God. This was the second group. Our coming had been announced by radio and by flyers, so they knew when to come. On the way up the mountain, a villager handed a note to the gal next to me. It was signed by about 10 people by thumbprints and had official looking stamps on it. The jist was that they do not want us to keep coming, they have enough free medicines from the public health, a doctor comes monthly, and they are not hungry or naked so don't come in with the word of God. It was from the Catholic council of the village. I was shocked! It was interesting that this spurred many conversations within the med students about the differences between Catholics and Evangelicals (the umbrella term for protestants here) and I had to explain the differences between Catholics from US and hispanic america. We have 2 Catholics in our group. One way to put it is that we are bringing the same message that the Catholics should have had, but have ignored and are not telling the people. Anyway, less people came. The control of the Catholic council over the people was evident, and the poverty was just as evident, more so than any village yet. The letter was a lie and it will not stop us from serving and aiding this people. So pastor Miguel talked with the leaders of the village. Four of the people whose thumbprints were on there were present and they said that they didn't know what the letter said! They were just told to come mark it. The "mayor" who is really from another aldea had them do it. So the leaders there said it's not true and that they want them there so much that they will give them the land to build a church. Hmmm, new tune.

9.11.2004

September 11th, Hiroshima, Auschwitz, and Hans G. Furth

My grandfather, the late Hans G. Furth, left this world with an unpublished manuscript entitled Society Faces Extinction. It was fated, prophetic, that this would be his last book; who could write a book about society's extinction and survive it? The threat posed in the manuscript was too great even for its author.

Society Faces Extinction is not only the most broadly applicable and understandable of my grandfather's books, it is also the culmination, the apotheosis, the result of his intellectual life. A Jewish refugee from Nazi-occupied Austria at age 17, he lost most of his family to the death camps. Images of gaunt, expressionless captives in illfitting striped shirts and pants now seem as far from our well-indulged society as the gallows of the 18th century and the pyres of the 16th, but the reality is threateningly near. Many still live who saw the greatest crimes of human history perpetrated before their horrified eyes, against their very families. After a life in academia, my grandfather brought his studies back to the watershed of his young life, looking as dispassionately as possible at the passions of the war that engulfed his generation. In Society Faces Extinction, Dr. Furth lays out the dual apocalyptic threats of the 20th century in grim psychological terms. Auschwitz represents the ability of humanity to will its own extinction. Hiroshima gave inexorable power to that will. Shudder, reader, at the thought of that will and that power united in one man!

After Hiroshima, humanity held its breath. Two giants faced off across two oceans, each possessed of the power to begin the awful apocalypse. The power of self-preservation, however, won the Cold War, and humanity let out its breath in jubilant celebrations, tearing down the Berlin Wall and rejoicing that this terrible enmity had abated. Philosophers predicted a new world order and an end to history: humanity had faced up to its moment of truth. Stepping to the brink of the abyss, doubly armed with power and will, we turned away and saved our lives.

The New World Order ended on the second Tuesday in September in the heart of New York City. That day, those hours of awful suspense that seemed to drag into weeks of sleepless agony for so many, have become an emblem as enduring as Auschwitz and Hiroshima. Auschwitz is the will for extinction. Hiroshima is the ability. September 11th is the death of self-preservation.

The Cold War had united the weapons of extinction with an ideology almost as virulent and bellicose as Naziism. Yet the union of these two produced the unexpected ascendancy of self-preservation as the chief law of man, surpassing the will to dominance (which logically leads to will to extinction) that had been the engine of all prior history. Had we reached the limits of our own will to dominate? Did we, weak men, love our lives more than power?

September 11th brought a chilling new element to this equation of destiny, and immediately, utterly destroyed the desire for self-preservation as the last, best hope of mankind. Instead of emerging victorious from the dark battle of will for our own survival, we have merely glimpsed the sky for a moment, the twinkling of history's eye.

As we gazed into that blue sky, we saw four planes and nineteen men, who plunged our world into another tunnel of fate. Where and how we shall emerge is for our children, perhaps, or for their children.

9.10.2004

1-0

The Patriots win! In the tone-setting game of the year, and a game against one of the top AFC contenders, the New England team showed they weren't planning on going quietly. Solid rushing from new man Corey Dillon, terrific game from Commander Brady, and a lot of big plays on both sides of the ball. The defense was embaressed by Edgerrin James on one drive and one drive only. Whatever adjustments were made proved to be as effective as we have expected from the Pats.

Meanwhile, the Red Sox are taking the night off, and ceding the opening game of their series in Seattle 7-0 in the seventh. Lousy pitching, lousy defense, lousy hitting. Get this one behind you, boys, and win again tomorrow!

Army Politics

It's so common that it's barely news: the army in a foreign country has attempted to use its power to influence politics. Only this time it's different: the army, in Israel, is causing outrage for taking a political poll of citizens. Not as dangerous as staging a putsch, to be sure, but I agree with the talking heads that Israel has enough political parties already without the addition of the IDF.

9.08.2004

Work

This, I'm told, is the busiest week of the year for the National Council on U.S.-Arab Relations. It had better be!

Thank You Sir May I Please Have Another Three!

The Constitution of the Lebanese Republic, where foreign pressure and domestic war-weariness hold a tenuous consociational democracy together, is under attack. The Syrian occupiers twisted enough arms to make the Lebanese parliament amend its constitution to allow current President Emile Lahoud to remain in power for a three-year extension beyond his constitutionally limited five-year term.

Outrage within and without the Republic has tainted the glossy positivism of the Lahoud regime. Four Lebanese ministers have quit the government, including Environment Minister and presidential hopeful Ferris Boueiz* and the entire represention of the Druz-dominated Democratic Gathering party**. In New York, France and the U.S. worked together to slam a tough resolution through the U.N. Security Council demanding that Syria quit interfering in Lebanese politics. Syria should understand: they're pretty put out that we've been filling the same role in Iraq as they fill in Lebanon. * Ferris Boueiz is presumably from the same family as my great-great-grandfather Nicholas Boueiz of Ein as-Sindeineh, who emigrated around 1905 from Ein as-Sindeineh to Lawrence, Mass.
** While I'm name-dropping, I should add that my class at A.U.B. enjoyed an hour-long audience and candid interview with Druz (and DG party) leader Walid Jumblatt at the traditional Saturday constituent visiting hours at his palace, Mokhtara.

9.07.2004


Fire

This conflagration destroyed the house across the street from my family's condo in Brookline. Our sympathies are with the families of the two Harvard professors on the third floor, one of whom died horribly, and the other of whom was in critical condition. Posted by Hello

Bounce: The Facts

The Bounce is in: Bush earned two points from the convention, with 52% of likely voters saying they'll vote for Bush, and 45% for Kerry. This isn't as much of a bounce as the Republicans had hoped for, but if it's as enduring as the lead Bush emerged from the Democratic Convention with (50-47), then it could spell trouble for an increasingly uncomfortable John F. Kerry.

9.04.2004

Bounce!

Excellent essay on convention bounces at Gallup in preparation for the awaited Labor Day Weekend poll, the results of which will be released on Tuesday. They analyze data back to 1936 (when Roosevelt had a surprisingly small 5 point lead over Alf Landon) and come to the conclusion that Bush is looking strong now and with a decent bounce could be well on his way to a two-term presidency.

On a personal note, I'll be catching a few hours of sleep tonight before getting up in the dead of night to drive to Boston (and avoid traffic). Looking forward to an enjoyable, relaxing weekend in the Hub of the Universe with some of the coolest people in the universe.

9.03.2004

From Bad to Worse

While details are sketchy, the situation in North Ossetia, Russia, went from bad to worse overnight. Somehow, Russian troops ended up storming a building even though they didn't plan to.

Is anybody else amazed that we all made it through the Cold War alive?

Here's a chronology of events from the BBC (times in GMT):

0905: Explosions and gunfire heard. Soldiers run to building
0930: School roof said to have collapsed
0958: Special forces enter school
1125: Security forces attack house where some rebels thought to be hiding - reports 1322: More than 400 people injured, officials say
1330: Security services say their assault on school was not planned
1345: More than 100 bodies found in school gym - Interfax
1407: 10 hostage-takers killed in shoot-outs - Interfax
1430: Gunmen still firing from school - reports

9.02.2004

Guest Post: The War For Democracy

This was submitted by Chris B. as a comment on "Origins of Evil" and "The Failure of Success" below. InstantReplay encourages commenting and guest posts by readers.

Ok... you see, the thing is this: hate breeds hate, and this war can only escalate. Because there is no Hitler, Mussolini, or Stalin - no head of regime that we can take out that will topple the regime - this will not end like we have known wars to end in the past. These are 'grassroots' organizations where the leader is much less essential than the identity of the group as a whole.

So how do you combat this? Yea, the high-level funding freezes and halting of weapons purchases are good, but that's like taking the chocolate chips out of the cookie and calling it low fat. The organizations can subvert this, and we are not going to stop every cent and every gun... we need to fight the root of the problem.

And I think that is what Salim is getting it by trying to explain the root; Parker wants the same thing too. You guys both agree that democracy is a solution; but it is how you arrive at that solution that you begin to differ.

I think that if we're going to look at history, we should check on how democracy arrived on the scene: in America and France it was via revolutions against hard-handed monarchies; in Russia, a similar revolution sparked the rise of communism, which eventually led to democracy via a coup many years later; in Germany and Japan, we had to conquer a dictator and an emperor and set up democracy. In each of these instances violence precedes peace under the rule of democracy. I think that England is one of the few countries where a form of democracy came to be through peaceable means... I could be a bit rusty on my history though.

I think the we could look at WWII Japan as a parallel to our war with Iraq: a very different culture from ours with a different religion, a very strong identity and both cultures valued suicide attacks to some extent. The parallels to the Muslim world are certainly not countless, but I think they are there to an extent. In order to conquer Japan, we had to crush the resolve of its citizens, and then occupy for several years. Fortunately for us, the Japanese were dominated by our military and didn't put up too much of a fight after Hiroshima and Nagasaki...

So, does this mean we should go out and conquer Iraq in the same manner? We certainly have done everything but drop some H-bombs... How come Japan didn't put up a fight? Did they have ticker-tape parades for the US as they came in and occupied? Certainly not; but like I said, they were dominated by our military occupation because after the war, we were able to isolate them and set up a rule of law that suited our liking.

We can't, and won't be able to do that in Iraq, and I think that model in general is antiquated given the fact that just about anybody can acquire the weapons necessary to ambush a convoy of trucks, tanks, or humvees.

What’s the point? The last-ditch efforts of the Kamikaze pilots in world war two could be paralleled to the suicide bombers in the Middle East... except I don't think there is an end in quite in sight yet. Salim is right, the masses that make up the bulk of the 'fighting force' in this 'war' are unskilled, impressionable, idealistic young men and women who are sold out to dying for this. You can't fight that forever - someone is going to run out of troops.

So, if we can't just overpower and occupy, we need to establish some sort of diplomatic relations, but what about dictators, communists, and oppressive monarchs? Are we supposed to be going around giving 'freedom' to everyone on this planet? What about letting them figure it out for themselves? It takes time for revolutions to develop, for people to realize their oppression, and for governments to change. I think one of the issues here is that we think we've got all the answers and the truth is maybe we don't... politically anyway.

I do agree with Parker and Salim that we are given a commission as Christians to go into all the world - Christ told us to take the shoes on our feet and the cloak on our back; not an army so we can liberate people as we go - we offer ultimate freedom, freedom that no amount of political unrest or oppression can take away.

Look at China, Christianity is spreading like wildfire in that country, and not because we're marching US troops into Tieneman Square, but because we are sending missionaries who are preaching, praying, and witnessing to what true freedom is. And now what is happening to China? They are realizing that democracy is necessary, that they cannot function forever as a communist dictatorship, and that they need to be in contact with the outside world both economically and politically. They get it - and I'm not going to come out and say that it is because Christians 'infiltrated' their ranks, but hey, we all know that God changes hearts, and if you change enough hearts you can change a country.

So, that needs to happen in the Muslim world - we need to get Christianity in there. The church thrives despite persecution and hardship - in the face of everything - because Jesus is the ultimate hope. That message is more powerful than any army we can send to Iraq, stronger than any 'cease fire' we can have between Israel and Palestine, and more loving than all the care packages the Red Cross has ever handed out.

Seriously, we need an army, we need to defend ourselves, we need to fight against terrorism, and we need to be compassionate as a nation towards the less fortunate - but we don't need to go around telling other people how to govern their own countries. Ultimately, I think that I don't have an answer for these types of political questions, and I certainly don't feel that I can help to bring about a successful change of regime - but I do know that Christianity makes a difference and I CAN do something about that.

Origins of Evil

Reading the comments on my post below entitled "The Failure of Success", I realized I need to spend some time talking about the origins of terrorism. Whereas the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history was perpetrated with weapons that could be purchased at Walmart, I think that figuring where terrorists come from is of utmost importance, since they obviously don't need much technical support to cause an awful lot of havoc.

Like scholars from the Middle Ages, many Americans (especially on the right) believe that terrorists spring unbidden and unspawned like mice from piles of dirty rags. In reality, a terrorist is made and not born, and throughout the history of violent resistance movements, there has been a strong correlation between cause and effect. The question in an unthreatened country like Denmark is not "where are there Muslim neighbors?" For like every European country, they have a sizeable Muslim immigrant minority. Rather, the question is, "Who are they pissing off?", and the answer is, "No one".

Everybody likes to say, "You can't negotiate with terrorists". This is largely true, but it is completely misapplied to cases of macro policy. You certainly can negotiate with Arabs and other Muslims, and if your method of negotiating is occupying their homes and bulldozing their fields - a la Israel - you will very quickly end up with some very pissed terrorists, with whom you can no longer negotiate.

The fundamental question here is whether the supply of terrorists is severely limited. Obviously, there are a few leaders like Bin Laden and al-Zarqawi who won't be easily replaced. But they aren't the ones blowing up pipelines in Iraq or airplanes in Russia. The rank-and-file of terrorist organizations consists of expendable, poorly trained civilians who have proven to be eminently replaceable. After three years of fighting the terror networks with everything we can, we're looking at a seemingly greater number of low-level terrorists than ever before. Not only that, but they're operating in areas of much more importance to the U.S. than Afghanistan ever was.

The reality is that our strategies in the War on Terror have led to a swelling of the enemy ranks. This is simply a fact: we've been recruiting troops for the enemy. Every time we bomb or occupy another Muslim village, more young men who would previously have been content to curse the USA from the comfort of their coffeehouses are motivated to apocalyptic action by what they view as a threat to their way of life.

A real war on terror has to stem the supply of terrorists - not simply try kill off the existing supply. If Israel can't "terminate terror" among the 3 or 4 million Palestinians in a 15-year campaign of force and serious in-depth espionage, how does America expect to do so among the 1,000,000,000 Muslims of the whole world?

The reality of our "War on Terror" is that it is a cultural conflict. Led by the neo-conservative movement within the administration, our leaders have come to the conclusion that there exists a clash of civilizations between the West and Islam, and only one of us will survive. To do so, they are embarking on what could be a century-long attempt to remake Islamic civilization in the image of the West. Afghanistan and Iraq are entrepots and test cases; if these go well, expect more intervention. This ideology is perhaps the most dangerous thing in global terms since Communism and Colonialism. To what else can we compare an ideology that views the world as us against them, and seeks to completely remake every opposing society? I don't think it will, I don't think it can survive, because Afghanistan and Iraq will fall apart so badly, and this experiment in sudden, externally-driven social revolution will fail as miserably as its predecessors.

So what should we do about terror? How can we appropriately fight a war against an enemy who already has force deployed and ready to deploy against us? By no means am I suggesting that we should try to accommodate the Bin Laden's and Al-Sadr's of the world.

1. We need to keep up the high-level war, choking off funds and arresting leaders. This won't prevent hostage situations or pipeline bombings, but it has and will prevent catastrophic action or serious weapons purchases. This has been successful, and will be much more so if we can convince places like Indonesia and Syria that we're acting in their best interest. (Syria, among others, has been fighting its own war on terror for longer than we have).

2. Qualify our support - both moral and financial - for Israel. We give them $3 billion a year, and they better be using that to help America, not hurt us. We need to suspend payments until they tear down that wall and rebuild it on their own border, where it can protect both them and us. We can guarantee their safety forever if only they'll act defensively and not aggressively.

3. Create positive connections - in government, business, academia, tourism, and personally - with the countries where we most fear terrorism. A cooperative, non-threatening America is a lot less of a problem for them, and personal connections are one of the best ways to debunk stereotypes and fear-mongering.

4. Protect what's within our borders. We need to make it clear that we believe that each state has the right and responsibility to protect everything within it. We've done a decent job of this, I think, and we need to continue to do so.

Hostage to Fear

As 350 Russian children continue to be held hostage by some 40 Chechen and Ingush guerrillas in the southern province of North Ossetia, the entire Russian nation is held captive to fear. Pravda reports each update on the situation, which has not at all improved.

Parts of the story sound like lurid old Russian folktales - "Terrorists tried to lure children with chocolates" - while other aspects bring the Columbine massacres immediately to mind. Americans have been submitting letters of support to Pravda, a half dozen of which are printed in a front-page story. IR encourages readers to do so as well by emailing Pravda.

Zellin' it Like It Is

Democratic Senator Zell Miller just finished speaking in New York City. The Kerry Campaign Headquarters are still shaking from the blast. Miller, a good-old-fashioned Truman Democrat played on the themes that the Republicans have been founding all convention long: security and family. He denounced the Democratic Party's current partisanship, and recalled many instances of bipartisan foreign affairs during the Cold War. To me, the most powerful part of the speech was the litany of "nay" votes by Kerry on various weapons systems. He called it "auctioning off America's national security", and it stands in my mind as the single most damning piece of evidence in the case against Kerry's commitment to security. If Zell's speech registers in Muskegon, Reading, Dayton, Duluth, Augusta, Las Cruces, Davenport, Orlando, Hannibal, and Portsmouth with all the fury and passion that I saw on my TV set, then Kerry could be fighting some serious fires after this convention.

After the unsettling (to the Democrats) bouncelessness following the Democratic Convention, I predicted that the polls would be flat until the Republican Convention, after which Bush would bounce up and never look back.

InstantReplay called it last week - a relative landslide in November - and we're sticking to our story.

We Have Liftoff

That's right people, after three months of internet homelessness, InstantReplayCentral is back online! I blew my day's earnings on a 50-foot ethernet cable, but I can now waste countless hours online - woohoo!

9.01.2004

Convention Redux

I watched the Republican Convention for a while last night. I don't (surprisingly) have an essay on it in mind, but I did catch some interesting things:

- The G.O.P. delivered their most controversial message (the "motherhood and apple pie" speech) through the friendly voice of Senator Libby Dole. Her turn on a national ticket may yet come, though I suspect it would be as Vice President to a moderate Republican alpha-male.

- Speaking of alpha-males, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

- The Governator spoke extremely well, I thought, highlighting the American dream as dreamt by immigrants. He (and others) noted that the Cold War was won by a president who called it an "Evil Empire" and stood up to it strongly. Schwarzenegger also used his library of personal pop culture references to his great advantage, adding humor and a hint of star-struckness to the effects of his speech.

- Is Arnold the G.O.P.'s answer to Theresa Heinz Kerry? You know, strong European accent, a little strange, unorthodox and unapologetic?

- Richard Nixon was mentioned in a major Convention speech as an inspiration, and no caveat was added. That's a pretty telling sign of how far we've come from Watergate.

- The Bush twins are complete and utter losers. Not only do they have all the fashion sense of a 14-year-old, but they can't even deliver pre-written lines. In the corner of the screen I could see their speechwriter hanging himself from the rafters. Worse still, their abominable, interminable co-speech forced the Leader of the Free World to choose between lying ("I'm so proud of both of you") and going off-script ("You should be ashamed of yourselves! Get off that stage before I get a stick.")

- Never mind about Arnold being the G.O.P.'s Theresa Heinz Kerry. As soon as the freakish, blue she-rabbi pranced out on stage I knew that someone with a very subtle sense of humor had decided this was the best way to skewer the Ketchup Kween.