Election Night

A taxi cab driver sat in his car parked on H St in Washington DC, just meters from the White House late one rainy Tuesday evening. Singles and five dollar bills littered the passenger seat of his car. These served as tokens of appreciation left by a gaggle of young adults huddled around his open window to hear the first words of our new President blaring from his car radio. Surrounding them, the revelry of the evening trumpeted on with the sounds of car horns and cheers of triumph. This was a day that will not soon be forgotten. A day that so many had been waiting for.

Shortly after the polls closed on the West Coast and Barack Obama was anointed the new President of the United States, throngs of people flooded Pennsylvania Avenue to rejoice in the victory for which they had so long hoped. Black and white, young and old all descended on the White House amid the beating of cow bells and the chants of “Yes We Can.” Surrounded by press from around the world, these supporters danced and yelled and called for the removal of President Bush, all while the American flag waved above the White House, signifying the presence of Mr. Bush within. Secret Service, stone-faced and professional, kept a watchful eye over the crowd, but did not interfere, simultaneously protecting both the Commander-in-Chief and our rights under the First Amendment.

No one would have guessed that such a scene of celebration and defiance would have come to pass. There were no signs nor chain emails calling for the congregation of the faithful once the ballots had been counted. Simply the excitement and enthusiasm for what lay ahead served as the necessary catalyst. Revelers were literally running down 16th street towards the White House as if to meet their destinies. As noted by news commentators the following morning, this was a scene more akin to faraway lands in Africa and the Middle East. It mirrored the excitement of a previously disenfranchised population, whose voices had been heard for the first time. But perhaps after eight long, divisive years, many of our own citizens felt similarly disenfranchised. The cathartic unfolding of a new path before us could only be fully experienced in the company of those who had felt similar frustrations. It was an evening of camaraderie, an evening of patriotism. Although none of us knew what the future would bring, for that one night, in that one instance, there was hope. A hope for a blurring of the lines separating the Blue States from the Red. A hope that government would again work for us, and not against us. And a hope that, finally, we could yet again be proud to call ourselves Americans.

Obama-mania Spreads to Africa

Over the last few months, it has become apparent that among certain groups and constituencies, Obama’s run has inspired many to reengage themselves in the electoral and governing process. As for us Americans swept away in the movement, I feel that it has become much larger than support for a single man for a single post in government. It has much larger implications for the future of America and the evolution of our society. On the one hand, Obama has certainly benefited from being at the right place at the right time. In a nation fed up with current Administration, we longed for the return to the Oval Office of someone that can chart a new course for this country, re-integrate us into the global community and use the might and power of the US to actually make this a world a better place to live, or at least not make it any worse than it already is. We needed a fresh face. We longed for a symbol. An embodiment of the American image and values. In many ways and for many of us, Obama has become that symbol. And for his African-American supporters, he also became for us a symbol of a different sort. He represents an America that is finally beginning to take significant strides in overcoming its racial inequities, and, in my opinion more importantly, he shows us that yes we too can attain the American dream. It is time that we finally let go of the vestiges of slavery and segregation that we ourselves hold onto and pass onto generation after generation. In a country in which a black man can be President, it is certainly possible that the rest of us can achieve success, in whatever way we choose to define it. There are clearly still external obstacles faced by Blacks everyday that we alone are powerless to fully remove from society, but there are also many obstacles that we place before ourselves and for me, he represents what is possible once those self-imposed barriers are removed.

Obama has, however, become more than just a symbol or representation. He actually has a very good chance of becoming our next President. While it may have been a fair amount of chance and fortunate timing that catapulted him onto the world’s stage, it was he who saw to it that he remained there. A year ago, not even I would have expected the nominating process to have played out the way that it did. I didn’t think that either Obama or McCain would win their party’s nomination. While many Americans have been swept away by the idea of Obama, one can no longer argue that he lacks substance, and at the end of the day, I believe that is what ultimately guides our votes. There are a great many problems facing Americans today and it will take much more than polished oratory skills and a fresh haircut to address the issues of the coming decade.

Abroad, however, it has become my impression that it is the theory of Obama that is of most importance, especially among black abroad. As reported in the New York Times, there has been a resurgence of the idea of négritude, which was championed by African leaders in France in the run up to the independence of African states in the 1960s, and mirrored by “Black is Beautiful” movements in the US in the decade that followed. Blacks in France, who have been battling with racial divisions in French society that have been bubbling to the surface in recent years, look to Obama to open the debate on the streets of Paris of what it means to be Black AND French. Unlike us Americans, they seem less concerned with Obama the man, as they are with Obama the image, which is understandable, considering that he would be our president and not theirs.

I’ve noticed a similar phenomenon here in central Africa, but on a much broader scale. During my few weeks here in Libreville, Gabon, I’ve spoken to several people about what they think of Obama and the race for president, and I feel that they see much wider implications for an Obama presidency than ever conceived by anyone I’ve talked to in the West. Whereas I see in him a stark departure from the Bush Administration and a catalyst for progress on many social issues that have plagued American society throughout our history, the central Africans that I’ve talked to see in him the potential to uplift the black race globally. Obama, to them, is Black first and American second. A win for Obama, is a win for black people everywhere. He is often the topic of conversation around lunch tables and in bars. When radio broadcasts a story on his campaign, the volume is always turned a little louder. Just this morning I was handed a flyer to attend a meeting of “Le Comité pour le soutien de Barack Obama”. I’m not exactly sure how they proposed to support him all the way from Libreville, but it simply goes to show the popularity that Obama has garnered in Africa. It’s a popularity that is not based on foreign policy or economic issues, but rather a struggle for equality felt by Blacks everywhere. A man told me that if a black man in America can be president, than Blacks around the world will finally start to get the respect they have so long been denied.

I don’t know if I subscribed to the grand ideals of Black transcendence through the Obama campaign that are espoused by many here in Gabon, but as a Black American in Africa, I do find it interesting that the people here feel that our destinies are in some ways inextricably linked and a victory for Obama is not just ours alone, but, at least in part, belongs to black people everywhere.

Farrakhan vs Mike Wallace

Ok, so I still haven't gotten around to posting my second installment on the Ahmadinejad speech from like a month ago, but my friend just showed me this and I felt that I had to share.

This is the best thing I've seen all week, and generally speaking, I've never even been particularly impressed with Farrakhan. I think I've watched this about five times today. The video quality isn't that great, but the sound is good.

Ahmadinejad, Part I

Quote of the day:

"In Iran, we don't have homosexuals like in your country. We don't have this phenomenon. I don't know who told you that we have them" --President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when asked about the human rights abuses levied against homosexuals in Iran


Yesterday, I attended the lecture by President Ahmadinejad at Columbia University. You probably have seen or read clips from it by now because it was all over the domestic and international news yesterday and this morning. Campus was in controlled chaos all day long. There were camera crews set up outside the main gates, and throngs of protesters were there as well. Only those with Columbia ID were allowed in the gates, but once you stepped foot on the main campus, the scene wasn't much different. Rallies and protests took place throughout the day: some in support of free speech, some chastising the university for extending the invitation in the first place, some reviewing the litany of grievances against Ahmadinejad, and some managing to do all three. Although the speech wasn't scheduled until 1:30, there were students with tickets lined up as early as 10am to get in. I didn't bother to arrive until 1:00. Once I saw the mob scene outside of the auditorium, I became worried that I wasn't going to get in, but once I did get in, I saw that there was still plenty of room.

The major disappoint for the day came at the very beginning with the opening remarks of University President Lee Bollinger. His version of opening the discussion with a challenge to Ahmadinejad was simply a 25-minute tirade in which he caved to the pressure of special interest and politicians. The following insults that Bollinger lobbed at Ahmadinejad do a good job at characterizing the overall tone of his remarks:

“You exhibit all of the signs of a petty and cruel dictator”

“You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated”

“I doubt that you’ll have the intellectual courage to answer these questions”


The major disappoint of his remarks were not just the words themselves, but rather the embarrassingly un-academic nature of them, and Ahmadinejad did a very good job at calling him on it. Beyond his assertion that Bollinger’s remarks were no way to treat an invited guest, Ahmadinejd remarked that a man who purports to champion free speech cannot reasonably expect to have an open and free dialogue when he just spent nearly a half an hour spewing bias and closemindedness. Anything that Ahmadinejad said from that point on would be colored by Bollinger’s obviously biased comments.

I am very disappointed in President Bollinger. I think it’s shameful that the head of a major university would so obviously bend to the pressures of outside actors. Academia is about the search for truth. He simply can’t allow special interest, politicians, and other outsiders to divert him from this goal.

Ahmadinejad’s prepared remarks opened with a quote from the Koran, and he then went on to espouse the virtue of science and research and speak on its edifying effects on mankind for 15 minutes. It was clearly a set up for his argument for further research on the Holocaust, but the audience was not impressed. 10 minutes into it people were clearly losing interest. I saw people chatting, checking their Blackberries, and the guy next to me even started to read a newspaper.

Once we got past that point, however, things started to get more interesting.

The Axis of Evil Right in Our Own Backyard

Several heads of state will be in town for the UN General Assembly meeting this week and next. As is the custom every year, my university invites world leaders to come speak on campus while they're passing through New York. This year, among others, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the current president of Iran, has confirmed that he will speak and remain for a Q&A session. And guess who just scored a ticket?!

That's right, I'll be there soaking in all of the magic. This guy's a f-ing lunatic. It's going to be awesome!

I wonder whether he'll report on the event in his blog.

War: What is it Good For?

As I lay in bed last night in my stuffy Harlem apartment with the screenless bedroom window set ajar, I began to hear the unmistakable buzzing of a mosquito in my ear. Once the mosquito met a violent and undoubtedly premature death, I returned to bed and began to consider the role of the Mosquito writ large in the grand scheme of things. You know: circle of life, food chain type stuff. While I’m sure that they serve some positive purpose on the planet, I couldn’t think of one. All of I could think of was the spread of malaria, disease and general annoyance around the world. Then I began to think that perhaps the spread of disease was its positive contribution to the planet after all. Given that man has no natural predator, maybe the general spread of disease was designed to thin our numbers and keep nature in balance. Maybe disease does play a significant role in that regard, but it has to be more than that. Lots of people die from mosquito-born diseases such as malaria and dengue fever, but I can’t imagine that enough people die from such diseases to make a significant dent in our booming population.

That’s were man comes in.

There are over 6 billion humans on earth, and I read just yesterday that demographers project a human population of 12 billion by 2050. I think that 6 billion is probably already too many. I can’t imagine the stress that a population twice that size will place on the Earth. As we have seen time and time again in nature, a species in an environment with no natural predator tends to reproduce without impediment. But perhaps we do in fact have a natural predator that no one really considers.

Ourselves.

From the beginning, human history has been riddled with violence. So much so, that the study of history is often tracked by the occurrences of war. War is the primary focus and everything else simply goes to explain what happened after the last war and what lead up to the next one. It is not uncommon for hundreds of thousands of people to be killed over the course of a single war. I can’t think of anything else that even comes close to claiming as many lives over a comparably short period of time. Small fish eat plankton, big fish eat smaller fish, bears eat big fish, and then humans make coats and rugs out of bears. We’re at the top of the food chain. Aside from the occasional shark attack, dog mauling or unfortunate encounter with a cannibal, humans don’t get eaten by anything else, but that doesn’t mean that we ourselves aren’t preyed upon. We’re the product of our own ambition, greed and pride. We wage war for the accumulation of wealth and power, and one could argue that as a result, we provide a valuable service to nature. By taking on the responsibility of reducing our numbers, we have managed to maintain a rough balance with other populations on earth.

Perhaps in the grand scheme of things, war is actually good for something.

China is the most populated nation on Earth with over 1.3 billion people. In addition to that, the young adult Chinese population is disproportionately male, as an unfortunate result of a generation of its One Child policy. Given the abundance of young Chinese men and the dearth of young Chinese women for them to marry, some predict that a grand war instigated by China is inevitable. They point to examples and history and argue that the only way to either acquire enough marriage-aged women or significantly reduce the number of sexually frustrated Chinese men would be for the Chinese to wage a war of expansion. If they win, they’ll kill the men and take the women of the territory that they have occupied. If they lose, however, a significant number of young Chinese men will have been killed in the process. Either way: problem solved. I don’t know about the likelihood of any of that, but this does provide an example of how through the use of war, mankind provides a check on its own growth, despite the fact that population control wasn’t the goal.

This trend may be changing, however. As mankind becomes more advanced and integrated across borders, it appears that the need of war as a check on population growth diminishes and other tools are employed. The best example of this is the European Union, a major component of the Security Zone touted by international security analysts. Together with the US and Japan, the EU represents a zone in which war is not only unlikely, but almost unthinkable. The inextricably integrated economies and politics of these countries make war among them virtually impossible. This is especially remarkable when one considers that fact that both Europe and Japan would have very little history to speak of if the discussion of war were taken off the table. Along with the generation of unprecedented peace and prosperity that has swept across Western Europe, the EU has also witnessed declines in population. I believe that all Western European nations, with the possible exception of Ireland and Spain, have seen dwindling birth rates, with Germany and Italy leading the pack. As European families have become more prosperous and men and women alike have careers on which to focus, the emphasis on bearing children has diminished. Couples that would have had 2 or 3 children a generation ago may now decide to only have one child or none at all. The inverse correlation between prosperity and birth rate has global implications. Women in economically depressed parts of Africa and Latin America tend to bear more children then comparably aged women in Western Europe or Japan, both of which are struggling with the short run economic effects of a dwindling population. As the birth rates in Europe and Japan continue to fall, I suspect to see increased migration to these areas from economically depressed regions of the world. Hopefully, this increased global mobility and integration and the resulting increased investment in human capital in the developing world will allow prosperity to spread throughout the world.

Once we’ve truly achieved global prosperity, instead of creating new people and figuring out a way to kill them off later, maybe we can just start creating fewer people in the first place.

Where Are We Headed?

“The question is whether France should stay in Algeria. If the answer is yes, then we must accept the necessary consequences”

I just finished watching the film The Battle of Algiers, which tells the story of one of the most influential years in the Algerian battle of independence from the French in the late 1950s, early 1960s. It was a very well done film, which, unfortunately, still in many ways parallels the state of the world today.

The above quote from the film comes from Colonel Mathieu, who was charged with leading the French military effort in squashing the Algerian resistance movement in the capital city of Algiers. A reporter asks the colonel whether it is true that French soldiers under his command use torture and whether torture was an acceptable means of accomplishing his mission. In his response the colonel implies that the French people themselves are complicit in the course of action that he deems necessary in Algiers. Given the overwhelming sentiment among the French populous that the French should remain in Algeria, French society had given its tacit approval to use every means necessary to maintain the French occupying presence, even if that extended to torture.

Could the same be said of us Americans?

I personally am appalled at the use of torture by the Bush Administration in its “War on Terror”, and I’ve become even more so incensed after reading the Washington Post series on the Cheney Vice Presidency, in which they lay out how this doctrine of torture became a part of the Administration. Now, however, I’m beginning to wonder whether the use of torture in Guantanamo, Baghdad and elsewhere is merely the fault of the US citizenry. It’s easy to place the blame on those at the top of the pyramid, but perhaps those of us making up the much larger base at the bottom have also played role.

John Locke taught us of the Social Contract, in which each of us relinquishes a bit of our independence and self-determination to the State for the purposes of promoting the common good. Following September 11th, we all renegotiated our contract and handed over a little bit more of our self-determination in an effort to “secure our borders” and keep America free from future terrorist attacks. While some may argue that we are less safe now than we were prior to September 11th, the fact remains that there have been no additional attacks on US soil in the last six years, but my question is, was it worth it? Are we willing to accept the possibility of less effective intelligence – and, by extension, increased vulnerability – in exchange for the maintenance of our shared values? While I’m sure that the Administration has gained valuable information by employing torture – information that may have saved American lives – I’m not certain that it was worth the price we pay in terms of the massive blow it has delivered to American ideals and values.

We torture people.

Robert Mugabe tortures people. Kim Jong Il tortures people. Saddam Hussein tortured people. We’re Americans. We don’t do that. We’re the good guys. Aren't we supposed to be better than that? We’ve lost the moral high ground on this issue and, in essence, every other issue as well. How can we act as the champions of freedom and human rights around the world when we unabashedly sanction inhumane treatment of foreigners?

We torture people.

I’m interested in seeing the US response when one of our diplomats abroad is captured and subjected to torture. What could we possibly say? “It’s ok for Americans to engage in torture, but you terrorists groups and other non-state actors, you’re not allowed to follow suit. We only use torture for noble purposes, whereas you all torture with nefarious intent.”

The question for us is whether the use of torture is truly in the long term interests of the US. Does the preservation of our security today warrant the use of torture and its deleterious effects on the American system of values for years to come? If the answer is yes, then we too must accept the necessary consequences. If not, then perhaps it is time for us to withdraw the tacit support we’ve extended to the Administration over recent years.

But how one goes about doing that, I haven’t quite figured out.

What the Hell is Wrong with Americans?!

In today’s Guardian, there was a story about a 20-year-old man in Florida that was sentenced to an additional 60 days in jail for masturbating in his jail cell. There was a court case, lawyers, jury and everything. The jury found that because it’s funded by the government, a jail cell is a “limited-access public space”, and since it’s illegal to masturbate in public, it’s, by extension, illegal to masturbate in one’s jail cell.

First of all, who cares? The guy was in jail. Where else is he going to masturbate? It’s not like he go home and masturbate like everyone else. He’s kinda stuck there for a while. I don’t care if guys in jail masturbate all day long. What else do they have to do?

Secondly, why are we wasting our money on prosecuting guys that masturbate in jail? If he had been out on a park bench, I could understand the consternation, but this guy was alone in a jail cell. If society is so concerned with the fragile sensibilities of jail guards, a) maybe we should find jail guards that aren’t quite so sensitive, or b) maybe they should put doors on the jail cells instead of enclosing them in glass. Regardless of the course of action they choose, I don’t think they should be wasting tax payer money prosecuting crimes that weren’t really crimes in the first place. Maybe I’m mistaken, but I could’ve sworn that there were still real crimes being committed that we haven’t quite stopped yet. This is just an idea, but maybe we should start using resources to fight real crime instead of worrying about a guy just trying to get to know himself a little better.

South Africa to the Rescue

The Guardian reported this morning that faced with worsening hyperinflation, Zimbabwe may be turning to big brother South Africa yet again for support. The central bank of South Africa may include Zimbabwe in the Rand monetary union, which already includes South Africa, Namibia, Lesotho and Swaziland. By pegging the Zimbabwe Dollar to the South African Rand and thus relinquishing Zimbabwe’s monetary authority to the central bank of South Africa, there are hopes of bringing some stability to the country’s ever-weakening currency. In return for this, President Mugabe would have to agree to certain “political concessions” at the behest of South African President Mbeki. There was no word of what these concessions would be.

On the one hand, this sounds like good news for the citizens of Zimbabwe. With currency controls in place, ordinary citizens could save money without fear of it becoming essentially worthless the moment after they cash their paychecks. On the other hand, maybe the spiraling inflation would have proven to be the catalyst needed to incite the people to overthrow the oppressive Mugabe regime. Many African scholars were predicting a significant political shake-up in Zimbabwe in the near term as a result of the worsening hyper-inflation. If South Africa bails Mugabe out, yet again, there may be no real change in the country for some time to come. Mugabe’s already in his early 80s, but from what I understand, he’s in excellent health. Despite his age, he isn’t expected to be going anywhere anytime soon.

However, I can see where Mbeki is coming from. Stability along South Africa’s borders may be his most strategically important goal in this regard. An abrupt breakdown of the Mugabe administration could lead to great civil unrest in the country that could cause violence and refugees to spill over the border into South Africa. South Africa’s got enough problems to deal with. They don’t need to import new ones from Zimbabwe. In this world of global institutionalism, Realism is far from dead. The integrity and security of the state is still of paramount importance. It’s easy to advocate revolution remotely from the secure position of the US, but it’s quite a different story when that revolution may be taking place right next door.

Darfur: War Crimes Indictment

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has finally brought charges against what it sees as the primary perpetrators in the crisis in Darfur. It is still very much unclear as to whether this will make any difference on the ground in Darfur, but at this point, I'm happy to see at least some sign of progress in that conflict.

Here's a link to the article in the Economist.

Don't Believe the Hype

During the buildup for 2008 Presidential election, I am somewhat perplexed by the enduring opinion that John McCain (R-AZ) is a moderate republican candidate. Admittedly, there was a time in which I was also under this impression, but in recent years, McCain has continuously aligned himself ever more closely with the right. As new examples of this fact emerge, I will try to post them here. While there is nothing intrinsically wrong with being a conservative politician, it would be rather unfortunate for someone to base their vote on misinformation. There are many past examples that I need to research and post, however I will start off the series with an associated press article published in yesterday's International Herald Tribune. I think the title of the article speaks for itself:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain says law that legalized abortion should be overturned

Why We Fight

I just saw an interesting documentary called Why We Fight.

One quote from the film: "We know we did not have an exit strategy in the invasion of Iraq because we never intended to leave."

Not Bad

I just finished watching the President’s State of the Union Address. I’m certainly not a Bush fan, but I have to admit that it was pretty good. I don’t think I’ve actually watched the State of the Union in the last few years, but I’ve seen several of Bush’s other speeches, and I think this was the best showing I’ve seen from him

My personal Top 10 highlights from the speech (in order of occurrence):

1. I loved how Congress members stood to applaud Bush’s proposal to cut earmarks in half by the end of the current Congressional session as if they weren’t the ones placing the earmarks on legislation in the first place. Gotta love politicians.

2. Proposal to reduce gasoline use in the United States by 20% in the next 10 years, which, he argues, will result in a cut of our total imports by ¾ of the amount that we import from the Middle East.

3. Bush has been pushing this guest worker program for the last year. I don’t really know much about immigration, but sounds like it could potentially be a good program. It very well might not be, but I think it’s an interesting enough idea to be debated in Congress.

4. His argument to stay the course in Iraq was really quite good. Not to say that he was right, but it was argued well. I’m still torn as to whether it makes more sense for US troops to stay in Iraq or to cut our losses (see entry "An Unlikely Alternative"). His admonition that if the US were to pull out now, it would result in greater turmoil in the region as other actors that are currently deterred by the presence of US forces would enter the region is pretty much the basis of my uncertainty.

5. Civilian military core to supply highly specialized civilians to support military operations when necessary sounds like a good idea to me, assuming it’s completely voluntary, which I assume it would be.

6. Yet another mention of Darfur, but as far as I can see, nothing significant has been done by the administration on this issue in the last 6-12 months, especially since Zoellick left the State Department for Goldman Sachs last summer.

7. I’d be interested to see whether his request for $15 billion to fight malaria in Africa gains any traction. It’s a much needed and long overdue initiative, but it’s also the kind of program that often gets announced in high-profile situations and then is never mentioned again. And that’s not a critique that’s unique to President Bush. It’s a statement that I think applies to politicians in general.

8. Dikembe Mutombo and a shot out to Georgetown: I love it! But the best part was the juxtaposition of him and the little Asian woman seated next to him in the balcony. He was literally twice her size!

9. Wesley Autrey: Milk it for all it’s worth! It was like the guy just won the Heisman or something.

10. What was with the lady molesting the President as he was leaving the House chambers? Did anybody catch that? She had her hand chillin’ on his shoulder or caressing his back for I know a good 5 minutes… on national television. That is definitely not ok!

10: Part Deux. Watching Bush work the crowd as he was leaving the chambers was very impressive. He’s good. Maybe almost as good as Clinton.

The Highlights

Here are a few of the points that I thought were interesting from this morning’s White House Press Conference. The New York Times has the complete transcript online.


The Reluctant Environmentalist

Bush: The American people expect us to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and increase our use of alternative energy sources. So we must step up our research and investment in hydrogen fuel cells, hybrid plug-in and battery-powered cars…

a. tyrell: If you take a look at the film “Who Killed the Electric Car” you’ll see that not only is the electric car possible, but we already have the technology for it. And I’m not talking about those funny-looking one-seater cars you see on prototype car tests on TV. These are completely regular looking electric cars that regular people owned and used during the early 90s until the auto industry decided that they wanted to take them off the market.


A Bit of an Understatement

Question: Mr. President, less than two months ago, at the end of one of the bloodiest months in the war, you said: Absolutely, we're winning. Yesterday, you said: We're not winning; we're not losing. Why did you drop your confident assertion about winning?

Bush: …My comments yesterday reflected the fact that we're not succeeding nearly as fast as I wanted, when I said it at the time, and that the conditions are tough in Iraq, particularly in Baghdad.

…Victory in Iraq is achievable. It hadn't happened nearly as quickly as I hoped it would have. I know it's -- the fact that there is still, you know, unspeakable sectarian violence in Iraq, I know that's troubling to the American people.


A Remorseful President

Question: Mr. President, Lyndon Johnson famously didn't sleep during the Vietnam War; questioning his own decisions. You have always seemed very confident of your decisions, but I can't help but wonder if this has been a time of painful realization for you, as you yourself have acknowledged that some of the policies you hoped would succeed have not. And I wonder if you can talk to us about that. Has it been a painful time?

Bush: Most painful aspect of my presidency has been knowing that good men and women have died in combat. I -- I read about it every night. I -- my heart breaks for a mother or father or husband and wife or son and daughter. It just does. And so, when you ask about pain, that's pain… But the most painful aspect of the presidency is the fact that I know my decisions have caused young men and women to lose their lives.


Alternative Energy

Bush: nuclear power is going to be an essential source, in my judgment, of future electricity for the United States and places like China and India. Nuclear power is renewable, and nuclear power does not emit one greenhouse gas. And it makes a lot of sense for us to share technologies that will enable people to feel confident that the new nuclear power plants that are being built are safe, as well as technologies that'll eventually come to the fore that will enable us to reduce the wastes, the toxicity of the waste and the amount of the waste. Continue to invest in clean-coal technologies. Abundance of coal here in America. And we need to be able to tell the American people we're going to be able to use that coal to generate electricity in environmentally friendly ways. My only point to you is: We got a comprehensive plan to achieve the objective that most Americans support, which is less dependency upon oil.

a. tyrell: If he’s as concerned with alternative sources of energy and decreasing US dependency on foreign oil as he says he is, what has he been doing in this regard for the last 6 years? I can’t think of a single significant measure proposed by the Bush Administration that was primarily in support of alternative sources of energy. There has been some support for hydrogen fuels and ethanol derived from corn, but given the predicted impracticality and prohibitive expense of hydrogen fuel and the glaring inefficiency of US ethanol production initiatives, I would suspect that support for these technologies has less to do with the environment as it does with covertly protecting agriculture and private industry.


Social Values

Question: …Mary's having a baby. And you have said that you think Mary Cheney will be a loving soul to a child. Are there any changes in the law that you would support that would give same-sex couples greater access to things such as legal rights, hospital visits, insurance, that would make a difference, even though you said it's your preference -- you believe that it's preferable to have one man-one woman...

Bush: No, I've always said that we ought to review law to make sure that people are treated fairly…

a tyrell: What about support for the Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage? I wouldn’t view that as a measure that would ensure that all people are treated fairly.


Where’d that surplus go again?

Bush: My message to the Iranian people is: You can do better than to have somebody try to rewrite history [referring to Iranian President Ahmadinejad]. You can do better than somebody who hasn't strengthened your economy…

a tyrell: So I’m still unclear on how President Bush has strengthened our economy. Was it through tax cuts to the rich that led to huge corporate profits, but virtually no growth in wages and very little job growth until fairly recently? Or was it by spending $300 Billion in Iraq over the last 3 years while we continue to fund our deficits by borrowing from China and other nations?

So if the Iranians deserve better, does that hold true for us too?

Rummy on Trial

Maybe everyone already knows about this, but I just read this morning on Al Jazeera's English news site that the ACLU has initiated a trial against Donald Rumsfeld implicating him in the claims of torture in Guantanamo resulting from President Bush's War Against Terror. I just recently started reading Al Jazeera online and I like it so far, but this article doesn't clearly state that it's just a civil trial and not a criminal one, which I think is a very important distinction. I think the Associated Press does a better job of covering the story, but I would have never searched for the AP article in the first place had I not first read the prominently displayed link to their story on Al Jazeera's website.

Anyway, in deciding whether to let the trial proceed, the judge acknowledges that torture is clearly illegal, but he is worried about what precedent this trial would set if we, in effect, extend the rights of the Constitution to all people everywhere and begin allowing the courts to second-guess any decision the military makes at home and abroad. That's an interesting point. On the one hand, the US military should be held accountable not only if they violate international law, but also if they act in ways that are contrary to American moral standards. But on the other hand, the Constitution is an American document for Americans. Afgani, Iraqi, and other citizens clearly do not fall under the protection of the US Constitution. Referring to Judge Thomas Holden, who is hearing the case, the AP writes,

"Foreigners outside the United States are not normally afforded the same protections as U.S. citizens, Hogan said, and he was wary about extending the Constitution across the globe. Doing so, he said, might subject government officials to all sorts of political suits. Osama bin Laden could sue, Hogan said, claiming two American presidents threatened to have him murdered." (Matt Apuzzo, Houstan Chronicle, 12/8/2006)

An Unlikely Alternative

Iraq is a mess. I think we’ve finally reached the point where everyone concedes that things really aren’t going well. I’ve been thinking a lot about any possible solution out of this problem for the US and the only thing that I could come up with is a solution that no American President would support (and I don’t know if I would even do it myself if I were President), but it’s the only thing I can think of to make a horrible solution at least a little less so.

The problem, as I see it, is that we’re losing the war in Iraq and it doesn’t look like it’s going to get any better no matter how many troops or money we throw at it. Some argue that we should just pull out of the region altogether. Since we’re not helping things anyway, maybe we should just cut our losses and head home. We would be leaving a mess behind, but at least there wouldn’t be anymore US lives and taxpayers’ money lost. The problem with that argument, as I see it, is that while things are really bad now, the US pulling out immediately could make things a lot worse. Not only would al Qaeda set up shop, but Iran and Syria would begin to move in leaving a very unstable region even more so. Where does that leave us? Staying the course is a waste of time, money, and, most importantly, human life, but leaving would likely set in motion a course of events that would necessitate renewed US involvement in the region at some point in the future.

Let’s face it: going to Iraq was a really bad idea. In the interest of full disclosure (and at the risk of sounding like John Kerry), I actually half-supported the war during a period well before the US actually went into Iraq. In the summer of 2002 when Colin Powell had convinced the US to plead the case before the United Nations, I thought that they may be doing the right thing. However, when the UN refused its support, I was completely against the invasion. I supported the idea of a US-led UN operation in Iraq (something akin to the Korean War), but a unilateral preemptive strike sounded like a terrible idea to me. Even if the war had been won as easily as President Bush had thought, I felt that unilateral action by the US would set a bad precedent in the international system. Just because we have the military, financial and political power to do something, it doesn’t necessarily mean that we should actually do it. And if we go around toppling regimes that we don’t like, what’s stopping China or Russia or Iran from doing the same?

So my advice is based on the premise that going to war was a huge mistake in the first place. I think that President Bush should go on national television (which, in effect, means going on international television) and tell the world that he was wrong and that the rest of the world was right and the US should have never gone into Iraq. And at the same time, he should remind the world that although the greatly increased instability in the region is our fault, it’s now become the world’s problem, and in order to overcome this problem, we need to work together to try to find a solution. Stability in the Middle East is in everyone’s interests and the only way of bringing any real stability to the region would be to form a truly international coalition (the US, the UK, Latvia and Estonia don’t count) that could provide the military, financial and logistical support that is needed. This is potentially too large and important a problem to just hand the reigns over to the Iraqis in a year’s time. Nothing against the Iraqi security forces, but clearly they’re no match for al Qaeda, Iran and Syria combined. I obviously don’t know the military steps that would need to be taken to secure the country, but I do feel pretty confident that the plans that are on the table at the moment aren’t going to do the trick. If we were able to involve the EU, China, Russia, the Saudis, Brazil and other large and small states around the world, maybe we could devise a plan and accumulate the military and financial support that would be necessary to actually turn Iraq into a stable country.

I know, it’s never going to happen. No US President would ever admit that the US ever did anything ill-conceived, but honestly, I can’t think of any way around it. I think that if we begin to treat other nations as partners and equals, instead of small children, not only could we solve the problem in Iraq, but we could also prevent US international hegemonic decline, which, in my opinion, is very imminent. (I hope to get the time to write an entry on that point shortly.)

Again... no comment

I just finished reading President Ahmadinejad's letter to the people of the US. Although the Bush Administration has dismissed the letter as "transparently hypocritical", I think it's still worth a read. I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with anything President Ahmadinejad says, but I do find it interesting.

Follow the link to his blog on the right of the screen if you're interested.

Whew...That Was Close

At first, I was a little disappointed. After making a terrible, yet completely understandable, mistake 4 years ago, I thought that my home-state brethren were poised to make an even more egregious error. But, alas, my own lack of patience was the only fault of the evening.

When I powered up my computer Tuesday evening and looked up the election tallies, I was very worried that not only was Ehrlich going to remain the governer of Maryland, but his Lt. Governor was going to pass one of Maryland's Senate seats to the other side of the aisle. Fortunately, however, as more votes rolled in, Martin O'Malley (who I honestly don't really find very impressive)and Ben Cardin came through in the end. After a 4-year identity crisis, it's nice to see that Maryland has come back to its Democratic senses and ended its foolish experimentation with Republican politics.

All is now right with the world.

By the way, was anyone else caught off guard with Bush's sacking of Rummy? If anything, I would have thought he would have given him the axe before the election. Since so many people hated him, firing him before the election might have helped the Republicans a bit. Waiting until the day after is like Bush admitting that he was wrong all along, which is not something that I would have ever expected him to do.

Obama in '08??

Not owning a television makes it difficult for me to catch Meet the Press each week, but I just read in The Washington Post that Barack Obama announced on Meet the Press this morning that he is considering a run for the presidency in 2008. This is huge! A black man actually has a real chance of being the next President of the United States. People love this guy, but I don't really know much about him other than the fact that he's been holding it down in the Senate for Black America for the last 2 years. He's probably the one person that could give Hilary a real run for her money in the 2008 primaries. Don't get me wrong, I like Hilary. I even helped her get elected in 2000 (and by "helped her get elected" I mean I interned in her campaign office once a week my senior year in college). The problem is that she's definitely polarizing. While I don't feel that she's really done anything that monumental that would cause her to be a polarizing figure, the fact remains that she is: many people love her, and many people hate her. And this became very apparent to me while I was interning in her office, and that was before she even had a job (being First Lady doesn't count). But the same could have been said about President Bush in 2000. Despite that fact that he was (and still is) very polarizing, and he still won...twice. Nevertheless, it would make me and a lot of other people very happy for the Democrats to have a candidate that could potentially appeal to the entire country and not just the blue states... but then there's the black thing.

Is the US ready for a President that's not a white male? One could argue that countries like Germany, the UK, and even Chile, and Liberia are far more progressive than the US because they've elected female heads of state and the US has never even come close. The only serious non-white male candidate we've ever had was Elizabeth Dole, and even her own husband said that she never had a chance. I don't know if the US is ready for a Black President (or a female President for that matter). I'd like to hope so, but I really don't know.

Of course if Obama does decide to run, he's definitely not guaranteed the nomination. Beyond Hillary, there's also John Kerry, Russ Feingold, Joe Biden, and maybe even Al Gore among others to contend with. If you take Obama and Hilary out of the equation, I'd put my money on Feingold or Biden, but unlike last election, there's no dearth of good talent hoping for the Presidential nod. I'd honestly be happy with many of the Democratic hopefuls that are expected to make a run in '08 (with maybe the exception of Kerry. I was never a big fan.).

But before we get too far ahead of ourselves, there's the little matter of midterm elections and control of Congress coming up in a few weeks. Americans generally prefer divided government. Although Republicans have held the legislative and executive branches for the last six years, I believe that if you look back over post-war history, Americans have generally prefered having one party in the White House and a different one controlling Capitol Hill. So if Democrats actually do as well in the upcoming election as people seem to think that they can and they regain control of both houses, it may make a little difficult for the Democratic nominee to take the White House in '08, regardless of who that nominee is. That's not to say that I think we should all go out and vote Republican next month, but if Democrats do regain control of Congress, they're really going to have to get their act together so that they don't mess things up so much to ensure the maintenance of Republican control of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.